OK, many of you will try to dismiss this thread, but I'm going to ask it anyway:<br /><br />Where do you think Cal football would be if Sandy Barbour had only offered Tedford a 2-3 year extension in 2006, instead of 7 years?<br /><br />Might Tedford have coached differently without such a huge net under him? to the point where our team would have improved instead of regressing? Or might he have just washed out sooner, allowing us to replace him more quickly with one of the bigshots who's now coaching against us?<br /><br />Or (to be fair), might this have resulted in a less attractive outcome - as in we continue to have mediocre coaching, but also delayed facilities and/or worse recruiting?

for the 3-4 year extension, i think we'd still have the same mediocre outcome. i really don't believe that his coaching style is different because of money/comfort/complacency.......he's just not innovative enough on his own/as the head person.<br /><br />i don't know if we'd have more wins at this point, but we'd definitely have more potential at this point. we know where JT stands. it's hard to say that we'd be less than mediocre with another coach........

<blockquote><div class="name-said">FingeroftheBear;665562 said:</div><hr>I think the SAHPC and CMS renovation wouldn't be even close to being finished...perhaps not even started. Keeping Tedford was a business decision. Despite the recent record JT was still very hot in '06 and him being on board was necessary to get funding. Why? Because big time donors wouldn't likely drop a lot of money on a program in disarray.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You make fair and accurate points, but I just have to wonder about one thing....did we really have to give JT 7 years (with such favorable buyout terms) to avoid being a "program in disarray"? Seems like if we didn't do so, we would just be doing what any normal program would do, i.e. avoid locking ourselves into a position we might later regret.

Short extension probably means Tedford would have walked (2-3 years would have been a slap in the face for all that he's endured as Cal head coach compared to the results he brought in), maybe to be OC of the 49ers or a decent college team somewhere. Team would've fallen apart. Our SAHPC wouldn't have been finished--maybe won't even have broken ground--because there wouldn't have been enough funding based on how bad the team would've been. We'd still be playing in old Memorial.<br /><br />Yeah, I'll take the last three seasons regardless of how average the results have been.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>Or might he have just washed out sooner, allowing us to replace him more quickly with one of the bigshots who's now coaching against us?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Definitely think this is more likely than him coaching differently and producing much more favorable outcomes. I'm not sure Cal how it would have affected the facilities, but I'm pretty skeptical Cal would have gotten a bigshot coach at that time. New Pac-12 $$$ agreements probably means now/in the next few years is when they have a better chance at landing a bigshot coach.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665589 said:</div><hr>rofl<br /><br />first off he has by far the best job he could get. he's going to turn down the money because we dont' give him 7 years guaranteed to go coach at kansas? please. second how could the results have been worse than what we have gotten? you seriously think it's LIKELY a coach does worse with the talent available than tedford did from 07-11?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Why the caveat "with the talent available"?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665601 said:</div><hr>no caveat. if tedford leaves in 06 he leaves the most talent in cal history for the next guy. how is that a caveat? it's a fact.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Well, you're talking about the whole period from 07-11. Obviously all of that "talent" isn't there the whole time. We also don't know what impact a new coaching staff would have on the personnel from a transfer standpoint. It's not uncommon for a bunch of transfers to happen when a new staff comes in, and often the new staff brings in it's own recruits and a lot of the old staffs players kind of get left behind, as they aren't part of the future. This may be more common when a coach with a completely different scheme comes in, I'm not sure. Anyways, the only point is simply that it isn't clear what the new coach would be working with, or how the new coach would do in recruiting in the first couple of years.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665614 said:</div><hr>it's actually extremely uncommon for a bunch of transfers to happen when a new staff comes in if the prior staff was successful.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think you're probably right that circumstances matter, and the more positive the circumstances, the less transfers there will be. That said, what's the hypothetical we're discussing here? JT leaves Cal of his own accord, or Cal lets him walk to move on to another coach? I think those are two different situations, and the coach moving on to a better job is a much more positive circumstance than the coach being let go. It also probably helps when some of the staff stays and gets promoted - like Shaw going from OC under Harbaugh to HC - so essentially, the players are still all their guys and they already have the relationship established. Do we think any of the staff would have stayed? Any been promoted? I don't know, but I'm not sure anyone back then looked like HC material from within the program?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">FingeroftheBear;665585 said:</div><hr>I don't know if 7 years was prudent but you have to play ball (i.e., negotiate) if you want to keep professional talent. I think it was give and take. JT wanted to stay and Cal needed him and at the time it was a wise move. The thing is, hind sight is 20/20. <br /><br />I'd say it was a wise move regardless because Cal got new training facilities and stadium upgrades that will last another 30 years. Not sure that happens without JT. Cal might take lumps through his contract but the upside created is much bigger than JT....i.e., forest from the trees. <br /><br />P.S. Remember the tree sitters, 20 month delay, law suits? How do you keep a coach during that and how to you reassure donors the project will happen? I seriously think 7/10 coaches would have bolted during that mess.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Absolutely agree. We have waited over 50 years for competitive facilities. JT and Sandy delivered despite monumental handicaps. It has all been worth it. Plus, I honestly don't mind 7 wins and a bowl. That is my own minimum standard, which we can hopefully better next year and further into the future with the new facilities.

Charlie Fatass Weis got a 10-year deal after the 2005 "miracle" in South Bend and Notre Dame was one of the few institutions in the country who could cough up the cash to cover for that mistake. Even the most optimistic AD is not going to go beyond a 5-year handout anymore, if Tedford had been given that in 2006 instead of the 7 years Sandy gave him we would be in a much better spot, add-on the 1 year extension in 2008 and we are SOL until 2013 or 2014 to be thinking about a manageable buyout. Unless we suddenly improve, I would say the 2013 Ohio State game is his last chance to pull off a historic victory in what could be our biggest non-conference game in at least the last 60+ years.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Strykur;665714 said:</div><hr>Charlie Fatass Weis got a 10-year deal after the 2005 "miracle" in South Bend and Notre Dame was one of the few institutions in the country who could cough up the cash to cover for that mistake. Even the most optimistic AD is not going to go beyond a 5-year handout anymore, if Tedford had been given that in 2006 instead of the 7 years Sandy gave him we would be in a much better spot, add-on the 1 year extension in 2008 and we are SOL until 2013 or 2014 to be thinking about a manageable buyout. Unless we suddenly improve, I would say the 2013 Ohio State game is his last chance to pull off a historic victory in what could be our biggest non-conference game in at least the last 60+ years.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Tedford was given a seven year extension to give him security until the SAHPC was installed. He deserved that much. Without him we'd still have those metal tubs.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>Unless we suddenly improve, I would say the 2013 Ohio State game is his last chance to pull off a historic victory in what could be our biggest non-conference game in at least the last 60+ years.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Probably true, though the hope is that we will improve with the better coaching staff, training facilities and recruiting of late...

Possible gains:<br />* better coaches of JT left<br /><br />Possible losses:<br />* no stadium renovation<br />* no tosh lupoi<br />* no outstanding defense<br /><br />I'd say it was worth it. <br /><br />I still think JT's biggest weakness is identifying good asst coaches. Not that it's an easy thing to do but I think al else stems from this. Hopefully his changes from the end of last season will really bear fruit over this spring.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665589 said:</div><hr>rofl<br /><br />first off he has by far the best job he could get. he's going to turn down the money because we dont' give him 7 years guaranteed to go coach at kansas? please. second how could the results have been worse than what we have gotten? <b>you seriously think it's LIKELY a coach does worse with the talent available than tedford did from 07-11?</b><hr></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, it's very likely another coach would do worse with the talent we've had. I'd say easily 80% of the people who've been FBS head coaches during that period would do a worse job at Cal than JT.

Two avenues to take:<br /><br />Tedford would have taken a shorter contract.<br />Tedford wouldn't have taken a shorter contract.<br /><br />For the sake of argument, lets pick the latter, as the former doesn't really create much (if any) change.<br /><br />So that would mean no Tedford in 2007. We still would have had poor facilities trying to hire a new head coach. Who would we have gotten? My guess is someone unproven, and likely worse than Tedford. Even if the coach ended up being better than Tedford, I doubt it would have been one clearly on paper better than Tedford. With a new unproven headcoach, after we seemingly couldn't commit to a "good" one (reminiscent of prior administrations where we couldn't commit to football), I see funding/support for the renovated stadium coming to a standstill (but hey, that would have meant no tree sitters right?!?!?). I predict we likely would be on our second or third head coach at this point, and might be looking at a hire similar to what UCLA got this year with the new TV revenue deals. Additionally, with the increased TV revenue, talks of stadium retrofit/athletic center would probably be starting up again around now.<br /><br />Signing Tedford wasn't just about Tedford. It was about commitment to winning football, and to the facilities necessary to take the next step, which was the main ingredient that had been lacking in Cal football history. With the new sources of Revenue and the new Stadium, we will get a much better head coach hire than we would have otherwise when it comes time to replace Tedford. Tedford will have left this program in much better shape than when he arrived, and had he left in 2006.<br /><br />~MrGPAC

<blockquote><div class="name-said">LessMilesMoreTedford;665718 said:</div><hr>Tedford was given a seven year extension to give him security until the SAHPC was installed. He deserved that much. Without him we'd still have those metal tubs.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Considering your username, I thought you would be knowledgeable of the fact that construction on the SAHPC was planned to start before the brouhaha with the City of Berkeley and the tree-sitters started (if not for the court injunction it would have started <i>in the summer of 2006</i><img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />">. SAHPC construction was originally slated before he was even given his contract extension! :rant

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>I still think JT's biggest weakness is identifying good asst coaches. Not that it's an easy thing to do but I think al else stems from this. Hopefully his changes from the end of last season will really bear fruit over this spring.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not so sure this is about not being able to identify good assistants as much as not having the resources to get them. Cal and the Pac-12 have been lagging over the last few years in assistant coaches salaries. If you can't offer a competitive salary...well, you get Coach Marshall. Are you surprised he's at CU now? I'm not - they don't pay enough for their coaches, and that's what they get for it.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665764 said:</div><hr>Our total expenditures are well into the top half of the Pac 12. Our head coach hording the money is hardly the universities fault.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Well, most of the bill for the head coach is coming from outside the University, I believe. Could that money be moved to assistant coaches? Not a given. Moving on - cost of living, and, as I said, Pac-12 lags in paying assistants. So....yeah.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665737 said:</div><hr>Worse than .500 in the Pac 10. Are you high? Do you think we would have hired eastern washingtons head coach?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not high, but I think you have tunnel vision. We might not have hired Eastern Washington's coach, but if you open your eyes and look around the college football world you'll see that the record of hiring "proven" coaches is spotty at best.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Strykur;665757 said:</div><hr>Considering your username, I thought you would be knowledgeable of the fact that construction on the SAHPC was planned to start before the brouhaha with the City of Berkeley and the tree-sitters started (if not for the court injunction it would have started <i>in the summer of 2006</i><img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />">. SAHPC construction was originally slated before he was even given his contract extension! :rant<hr></blockquote><br /><br />The SAHPC funding was not complete at the time. I imagine we'd still have more buereaucratic mangling with a bad football team since funding might not have been up to par and we could've seen more delays indefinitely.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665823 said:</div><hr>You are talking about hiring someone horrible. Not someone just ok like Tedford. The odds of hiring someone horrible in 07 for over 2 mil a year are far worse than 80%.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You don't get it. It's not about the money. That's not the hard part. The hard part is identifying the right candidate. That's why so many coaches fail.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">TorBear;665853 said:</div><hr>You don't get it. It's not about the money. That's not the hard part. The hard part is identifying the right candidate. That's why so many coaches fail.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Well, money matters, too, when it comes time to actually getting your candidate to accept. I think any assumptions that there was a significant amount of money to spend, though, are questionable assumptions....

<blockquote><div class="name-said">510Bear;665550 said:</div><hr>OK, many of you will try to dismiss this thread, but I'm going to ask it anyway:<br /><br /><b>Where do you think Cal football would be if Sandy Barbour had only offered Tedford a 2-3 year extension in 2006, instead of 7 years?</b><hr></blockquote><br /><br />Tedford's original contract (Dec. 15, 2001) was for five years, ending after the conclusion of the 2006 season.<br /><br />The 2004 extension (eff. Dec. 6, 2004) extended Tedford's employment to December 31, 2009.<br /><br /><b>The January 1, 2007 extension extended Tedford's employment to December 31, 2013. That's a 4-year extension.</b><br /><br />As a consequence of the terms of the January 2007 extension, Tedford's contract was extended by 1 year every season in which the football team won at least 9 games (including the bowl season). <br /><br />The 2008 extension (approved by the Board of Regents on February 2009) extended Tedford's contract 2 years to end on December 31, 2015.<br /><br />Please get the facts right. DO has made arguments based upon the erroneous idea that Tedford was given a 7-year contract extension.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665749 said:</div><hr>Its the emerald bowl extension that should get sandy fired anyway. That was the truly outrageous one.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />The Emerald Bowl extension was for 2 years. It extended Tedford's employment end date from Dec. 31, 2013 to Dec. 31, 2015.<br /><br />Once again, the facts do not support your rhetoric.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">510Bear;665569 said:</div><hr>You make fair and accurate points, but I just have to wonder about one thing....<b>did we really have to give JT 7 years (with such favorable buyout terms) to avoid being a "program in disarray"?</b> Seems like if we didn't do so, we would just be doing what any normal program would do, i.e. avoid locking ourselves into a position we might later regret.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Tedford got a 4-year extension in January 2007. The end of his contract was extended from 2009 to 2013. 4 years.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Strykur;665714 said:</div><hr>Charlie Fatass Weis got a 10-year deal after the 2005 "miracle" in South Bend and Notre Dame was one of the few institutions in the country who could cough up the cash to cover for that mistake. Even the most optimistic AD is not going to go beyond a 5-year handout anymore, if Tedford had been given that in 2006 instead of the 7 years Sandy gave him we would be in a much better spot, add-on the 1 year extension in 2008 and we are SOL until 2013 or 2014 to be thinking about a manageable buyout. Unless we suddenly improve, I would say the 2013 Ohio State game is his last chance to pull off a historic victory in what could be our biggest non-conference game in at least the last 60+ years.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Tedford's extension was for <b>four years</b> in January 2007. The end date of his contract was extended from 2009 to 2013.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">FiatSlug;665864 said:</div><hr>Tedford's original contract (Dec. 15, 2001) was for five years, ending after the conclusion of the 2006 season.<br /><br />The 2004 extension (eff. Dec. 6, 2004) extended Tedford's employment to December 31, 2009.<br /><br /><b>The January 1, 2007 extension extended Tedford's employment to December 31, 2013. That's a 4-year extension.</b><br /><br />As a consequence of the terms of the January 2007 extension, Tedford's contract was extended by 1 year every season in which the football team won at least 9 games (including the bowl season). <br /><br />The 2008 extension (approved by the Board of Regents on February 2009) extended Tedford's contract 2 years to end on December 31, 2015.<br /><br />Please get the facts right. DO has made arguments based upon the erroneous idea that Tedford was given a 7-year contract extension.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Thank you for correcting this, although many will be frustrated that the facts get in the way. The 2004 extension was an absolute no-brainer. Tedford could have gone to the NFL, if reports are true.<br /><br />I also think the 2006 extension was correct. We'd just won a pac10 championship and smoked A&M in the HB.<br /><br />The 2 year extension after the EB is questionable. Still, at that point, you've got 6 winning seasons in a row, something no one else had done at Cal in some time. You've got the worst facilities in the pac10. You want stability in the program while those facilities are being upgraded. I seriously doubt that our recruiting would be going so well if Tedford's contract was up in 2013. So I dunno, I think the latest 2 year extension can be defended.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">510Bear;665550 said:</div><hr>OK, many of you will try to dismiss this thread, but I'm going to ask it anyway:<br /><br />Where do you think Cal football would be if Sandy Barbour had only offered Tedford a 2-3 year extension in 2006, instead of 7 years?<br /><br />Might Tedford have coached differently without such a huge net under him? to the point where our team would have improved instead of regressing? Or might he have just washed out sooner, allowing us to replace him more quickly with one of the bigshots who's now coaching against us?<br /><br />Or (to be fair), might this have resulted in a less attractive outcome - as in we continue to have mediocre coaching, but also delayed facilities and/or worse recruiting?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Feeling dissed by the University, and disgusted by the legal delays on the SAHPC, Tedford leaves after the 2007 season. He moves to an equal or better job than Cal, because the coaching community blames the 2007 meltdown on DJ, and views it as a one-time aberration.<br /><br />In response, SI runs an article titled: "The Anti-Football Factory," noting that Tedford is the third Cal coach in recent memory to be run off or leave (Snyder, Mariucci) because of the perceived unwillingness of the school to support the program, most recently evidenced by its unwillingness to aggressively move against the tree-sitters and the legal challenge to the stadium.<br /><br />We end up having to again seek an assistant to move up, because no established coach will take the job given the SAHPC uncertainty. At the same time, the fact that the program is again in flux slows down SAHPC fundraising. If the new coach is unsuccessful, attendance again crashes, reigniting the debate over whether it even makes sense to redo the stadium, as opposed to moving games to the Oakland Colisseum, given the poor attendance at Memorial.<br /><br />In my view, Tedford's departure would have been a plausible result of only giving him a two- to three-year extension in 2006. A five-year extension was probably the minimum necessary to bribe him through the tree-sitter/lawsuit fiasco. Assuming he had been given a five-year contract in 2006, I agree with DO that an additional extension after 2008 was probably not necessary, unless he had other offers at that time that were serious, but were not known publicly. I still contend that Tedford's primary goal in his contract negotiations was to make it difficult if not impossible to get rid of him before the SAHPC and the stadium opened. He's accomplished that goal.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Looperbear;665885 said:</div><hr>Thank you for correcting this, although many will be frustrated that the facts get in the way. The 2004 extension was an absolute no-brainer. Tedford could have gone to the NFL, if reports are true.<br /><br />I also think the 2006 extension was correct. We'd just won a pac10 championship and smoked A&M in the HB.<br /><br />The 2 year extension after the EB is questionable. Still, at that point, you've got 6 winning seasons in a row, something no one else had done at Cal in some time. You've got the worst facilities in the pac10. You want stability in the program while those facilities are being upgraded. I seriously doubt that our recruiting would be going so well if Tedford's contract was up in 2013. So I dunno, I think the latest 2 year extension can be defended.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />As I said in the other thread, my assumption is that JT's primary motivation is to be able to coach using the new facilities. Therefore, once the lawsuit was filed and the treesit began, and it was obvious there would be some delay in starting the SAHPC, the 2007 extension was probably mandatory in order to keep him from looking elsewhere. The extension after the Emerald Bowl is more questionable, since by that time the evidence was decent that the stadium opponents would not prevail.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665601 said:</div><hr>no caveat. if tedford leaves in 06 he leaves the most talent in cal history for the next guy. how is that a caveat? it's a fact.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Been there, done that: I recall when our HC left in 1992 (after winning the Citrus Bowl to earn a #7 national ranking) he left "the most talent in Cal history for the next guy (Gilbertson)." It was not pretty.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">southseasbear;665948 said:</div><hr>Been there, done that: I recall when our HC left in 1992 (after winning the Citrus Bowl to earn a #7 national ranking) he left "the most talent in Cal history for the next guy (Gilbertson)." It was not pretty.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly. How many crap Cal coaches have we had? It's not easy finding the right guy for the Bears. <br /><br />Look at the mess UCLA has had the past decade because they were so quick to bail on coach after coach. Stability is important for a team like Cal that isn't generally on the national radar.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Jeff82;665921 said:</div><hr>Feeling dissed by the University, and disgusted by the legal delays on the SAHPC, Tedford leaves after the 2007 season. He moves to an equal or better job than Cal, because the coaching community blames the 2007 meltdown on DJ, and views it as a one-time aberration.<br /><br />In response, SI runs an article titled: "The Anti-Football Factory," noting that Tedford is the third Cal coach in recent memory to be run off or leave (Snyder, Mariucci) because of the perceived unwillingness of the school to support the program, most recently evidenced by its unwillingness to aggressively move against the tree-sitters and the legal challenge to the stadium.<br /><br />We end up having to again seek an assistant to move up, because no established coach will take the job given the SAHPC uncertainty. At the same time, the fact that the program is again in flux slows down SAHPC fundraising. If the new coach is unsuccessful, attendance again crashes, reigniting the debate over whether it even makes sense to redo the stadium, as opposed to moving games to the Oakland Colisseum, given the poor attendance at Memorial.<br /><br /><b>In my view, Tedford's departure would have been a plausible result of only giving him a two- to three-year extension in 2006. A five-year extension was probably the minimum necessary to bribe him through the tree-sitter/lawsuit fiasco. Assuming he had been given a five-year contract in 2006, I agree with DO that an additional extension after 2008 was probably not necessary, unless he had other offers at that time that were serious, but were not known publicly.</b> I still contend that Tedford's primary goal in his contract negotiations was to make it difficult if not impossible to get rid of him before the SAHPC and the stadium opened. He's accomplished that goal.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />But leaving that aside, Tedford's <b>January 2007 extension was for 4 years</b>, and he was automatically extended 1 year for the 9 wins in the 2008 season. The actual February 2009 extension was for 2 years.<br /><br />I think you've got it backwards on what Tedford's goals were in contract negotiations. It seems plain to me that Tedford's goal has always been from the outset to get the SAHPC built and CMS renovated. With those facilities, Cal can compete with programs like USC, Oregon, and Washington. In due time, with a rising program, Cal can aim to be a perennial Top 20 program with regular forays into the Top 10 and to make runs at winning a National Championship.<br /><br />That's the plan. That's been the plan from the beginning. Only now, 10 years after being hired in December 2001, does Tedford not have the leaden weight of inadequate, substandard, and antiquated facilities hindering his efforts in recruiting, development and coaching.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665564 said:</div><hr>no change, but he'd be fired a lot quicker.<br /><br />and no tedford was most definetely not still hot after the nut bowl. that's ridiculous.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Agree.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">FiatSlug;665962 said:</div><hr>With those facilities, Cal can compete with programs like USC, Oregon, and Washington. In due time, with a rising program, Cal can aim to be a perennial Top 20 program with regular forays into the Top 10 and to make runs at winning a National Championship.<br /><br />That's the plan. That's been the plan from the beginning. <hr></blockquote><br /><br />Funny, we never got close to beating SC after 2003, and Oregon -- and Washington -- have surpassed us in the quality of their football programs. <br /><br />Lesson to be learned? <br /><br />Facilities don't make great football programs. The results will be the same, in my humble opinion.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">AirOski;665994 said:</div><hr>Funny, we never got close to beating SC after 2003, and Oregon -- and Washington -- have surpassed us in the quality of their football programs. <br /><br />Lesson to be learned? <br /><br />Facilities don't make great football programs. The results will be the same, in my humble opinion.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Wrong. We nearly beat SC in 04 and 07, were tied with them in the 4th in 06, and were officiated out of a win in 08. <br /><br />I don't get this Washington surpassing us nonsense. They've beaten us on the final snap two years in a row. Otherwise our record is almost the exact same as the Huskies from 2009-11. Worst of Tedford = Best of Sark.