<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666142 said:</div><hr>So in your opinion they should have kept karl dorrell?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Certainly ended up being better than Neuheisel.<br /><br />Stability matters in a program like ours.

Great question. Too much emphasis is on JT. He turned the program around in the early years but in the last few it has stagnated. It's more about a AD and alums, who during JT's tenure, offered financial support for the future of Cal football. As this support has continued the coaching as not kept pace and now we face another year of mid tier performance despite our improving talent.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">LessMilesMoreTedford;665953 said:</div><hr>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.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Aside from his 10-win mirage in 2005, Karl Dorrell only beat his crosstown rival just once (albeit an epic upset), never got close to a PAC-10 championship, and other than 2005, <i>had 6 or more losses every year at UCLA</i>. His 10-2 team lost to 3-8 Arizona 52-14 and to USC 66-19. He only stayed in 2007 because of his lone win over USC. <br /><br />Neuheisel? TWO 4-WIN SEASONS. One 7-6 season, and his last team finished 6-8. 3 EIGHT-LOSS TEAMS! Two hilarious shutout losses (0-59 at BYU in 2008 and 0-50 this past season to USC). Do you seriously think Tedford would survive in Berkeley if we lost 8 games in a season? Not once, but 3 TIMES IN 4 YEARS? <br /><br />UCLA is a mess not because they bailed on coaches, IT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT HIRING THE RIGHT ONES. We can thank Karl Dorrell for handing us a share of the PAC for the first time since 1975, but does a decent coach lose to 3-win team by 50 points, get shut out by 60 points to BYU, or lose 8 games three times in four years? Dorrell and Neuheisel totally sucked in Westwood, and UCLA is an afterthought in LA mostly because of Dan Guerrero's inability to gauge coaching talent. His other big hire (Coach Howland) is not doing too well on the hardwood either.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666136 said:</div><hr>I'm well aware of the details. <br />Why so the facts not support it? That adds $4.5 mil to the buyout. Wed be in FAR better shape without that extension.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />The 2009 extension added $2.4 million to <i>Tedford's contract</i>, not $4.5 million to a buyout that does not exist. <br /><br />There is no buyout, DO. Didn't you know that? Haven't you read the contract and the extensions? <br /><br />Aren't you also familiar with the numbers that make up Tedford's compensation package?<br /><br />Maybe you can share with the rest of the BearInsider community why Cal would be in far better shape without the 2009 extension. Please explain how you would have voided the language from the 2007 extension about automatically extending Tedford's contract for a 9-win season (which includes the bowl season).

<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 />IMHO, the biggest factor to success is the quality of players you bring in. While facilities itself doesn't guarantee those quality players, having poor facilities is highly likely to dissuade players from coming here. Not only is it the flash or access but it says something about a school's commitment to it's athletic programs.<br /><br />Like JT said, it puts us on an even playing field with other schools who have great facilities.

The only part of the 2008 extension that was at all questionable was the 2nd year added to the mandated 1 year extension for the 9-win season in 2008.<br /><br />So, the question becomes, why did SB add a 2nd year on top of the mandated 1 year extension? I think the answer is that the 2nd year was reasonable given the results in 2008; it looked like Tedford had regained momentum in bringing the program back from the tailspin that characterized the latter half of the 2007 season.

I think the 2 year extension was to give the big donors comfort that when memorial opened in 2012 Tedford would be coach for a while while they paid for their 300K seats. We went to Minnesota and saw what a crap team can do for a brand new stadium...not fun. Tedford is a reliable commodity - a winning season and a bowl game at least. Has happened 90% of the time. There are probably less than 20 teams in the US that can say that.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">LessMilesMoreTedford;666187 said:</div><hr>Certainly ended up being better than Neuheisel.<br /><br />Stability matters in a program like ours.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Just because Neweisel was a massive fail doesn't mean that getting rid of Karl Dorell was the wrong move.<br /><br />The UCLA AD tried to be a smart guy by going cheap on a washed up Neweisel hire for only 1.25 mil a year, and it failed miserably.<br /><br />It would be like us getting rid of Tedford for Dennis Erickson.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Oski87;666348 said:</div><hr>I think the 2 year extension was to give the big donors comfort that when memorial opened in 2012 Tedford would be coach for a while while they paid for their 300K seats. We went to Minnesota and saw what a crap team can do for a brand new stadium...not fun. Tedford is a reliable commodity - a winning season and a bowl game at least. Has happened 90% of the time. There are probably less than 20 teams in the US that can say that.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />And it is probably where the truth lies as to why the 2nd year was added.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666473 said:</div><hr>I'm well aware there is no buyout less than the full contract which is unbelievable btw. his salary is $2.4 mil a year. we added two years. need i do the math for you?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />If you know that there is no buyout, then why did you imply there was a buyout?<br /><br />Yes, you do need the math for me and everyone else. When I multiplied $2.4 million by 2 I got $4.8 million. I would expect the vast majority of others to get the same result. I haven't the first idea how you came up with $4.5 million.<br /><br />You typically play fast and loose with the facts. For the amount of time you spend here, why don't you get your facts straight before hitting the submit reply button?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666543 said:</div><hr>what do you call the amount of money we need to pay off tedford? i call that a buyout. you? did i really need to mention it was the full value of the contract?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />But that's just it: there is no buyout. If Cal dismisses Tedford <i>without cause</i>, Cal continues to make monthly payments for the life of the contract. That's not a buyout; that's making contract payments. Or put another way, "Cal still owes Tedford $X million per year through 2015."<br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666543 said:</div><hr>it was my understanding that the retention bonus was void if we fired him so that is why i got to the lower number. are you saying we owe the retention bonus as well?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You're right. My bad. But it still doesn't add up. The 2009 extension replaced the retention bonus with Deferred Compensation of $500K per year beginning with the January 8, 2009 payment (Tedford also received a one-time $500,000 payment as Regular Income; in total, it's the same amount due for the 2009 Retention Bonus) . <br /><br />With the Holiday Bowl berth, Tedford's annual talent fee increases to $1,765,000. His base salary remains at $225,000 per annum. Therefore, Cal's annual payouts to Tredford would be $1.99 million should he <i>be fired without cause</i>.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;666578 said:</div><hr>i assure you we will settle with tedford for a flat sum and give him a "buyout." he's going to want to have the option of coaching elsewhere and still keeping his money. i feel we are arguing semantics here.<br /><br />ok so $4 mil is the number it adds? better? still hardly insignificant.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />We'll disagree on your scenario. First, it's not absolutely clear that Tedford will be fired or leave before his contract runs out. Second, there are advantages for both sides in how the contract is structured and that there is no buyout. Third, if there are negotiations to buy out his contract, I can assure you that the numbers will be significantly different from what the contract provides as a payout over time. Otherwise, what's the point of negotiations?<br /><br />$4 million for two years is close enough. I won't quibble over $20,000 when discussing millions.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">FiatSlug;665962 said:</div><hr>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.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />It depends on how jaded your view is of Jeff Tedford. He may in fact feel, and in fact have evidence from booster comments, that his continued presence as the coach is important in getting the stadium project across the construction/funding finish line. Being less charitable, I tend to think that given the hassles with the lawsuit, the treesitters, etc., he would be determined, come hell or high water, to be the coach when the stadium opened, if only to experience that which his initial success prompted.<br /><br />One of the things that divides the board is the source of the drop off in recruiting that most agree is partly to blame for the lackluster performances in the last two years. The negs believe that the 2007 meltdown and the 2008 QB controversy demonstrated to recruits that JT was on a downward slide. Sunshine pumpers contend that the treesitters and the lawsuit demonstrated to recruits that the University can't get its act together to support football. I suspect that both sets of problems had some contribution.<br /><br />One thing most of us agree on is that the coach is running out of excuses. I agree that the biggest concern is being unable to find a QB that can help win key games against the tougher opponents, despite the number of supposed elite recruits we've had at the position.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Jeff82;666624 said:</div><hr>It depends on how jaded your view is of Jeff Tedford. He may in fact feel, and in fact have evidence from booster comments, that his continued presence as the coach is important in getting the stadium project across the construction/funding finish line. Being less charitable, I tend to think that given the hassles with the lawsuit, the treesitters, etc., he would be determined, come hell or high water, to be the coach when the stadium opened, if only to experience that which his initial success prompted.<br /><br />One of the things that divides the board is the source of the drop off in recruiting that most agree is partly to blame for the lackluster performances in the last two years. <b>The negs believe that the 2007 meltdown and the 2008 QB controversy demonstrated to recruits that JT was on a downward slide. Sunshine pumpers contend that the treesitters and the lawsuit demonstrated to recruits that the University can't get its act together to support football. I suspect that both sets of problems had some contribution.<br /></b><br />One thing most of us agree on is that the coach is running out of excuses. I agree that the biggest concern is being unable to find a QB that can help win key games against the tougher opponents, despite the number of supposed elite recruits we've had at the position.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Thank you......sometimes the world is black and white.....but most of the time, it is varying shades of gray....something the extremists on both sides of the Tedford argument don't realize....just like the ultra righties and ultra lefties....

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>One thing most of us agree on is that the coach is running out of excuses. I agree that the biggest concern is being unable to find a QB that can help win key games against the tougher opponents, despite the number of supposed elite recruits we've had at the position.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, performance on the field needs to improve. We seem to be bringing in a ton of young talent to the program, so my expectation is that it will. If it doesn't, we have a problem.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Jeff82;666624 said:</div><hr>It depends on how jaded your view is of Jeff Tedford. He may in fact feel, and in fact have evidence from booster comments, that his continued presence as the coach is important in getting the stadium project across the construction/funding finish line. Being less charitable, I tend to think that given the hassles with the lawsuit, the treesitters, etc., he would be determined, come hell or high water, to be the coach when the stadium opened, if only to experience that which his initial success prompted.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think that both things are probably true. It was abundantly clear that Tedford was looking for a commitment from the campus to building the facilities the program needed to be competitive at the highest levels when he was hired in December 2001. The fact that Tedford stuck with Cal after the 2004 season in spite of the fact that no construction was imminent signified his commitment; it was also a gamble that the major boosters and the Atheltic Department would come through. It seems that this was the commitment that the boosters needed to get the fundraising effort off the ground. <br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">Jeff82;666624 said:</div><hr>One of the things that divides the board is the source of the drop off in recruiting that most agree is partly to blame for the lackluster performances in the last two years. The negs believe that the 2007 meltdown and the 2008 QB controversy demonstrated to recruits that JT was on a downward slide. Sunshine pumpers contend that the treesitters and the lawsuit demonstrated to recruits that the University can't get its act together to support football. I suspect that both sets of problems had some contribution.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I also don't see where the two positions are necessarily mutually exclusive. There's plenty of overlap to argue that both sets of circumstances could have played a role in the fortunes of the program that are being felt to this day.<br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">Jeff82;666624 said:</div><hr>One thing most of us agree on is that the coach is running out of excuses. I agree that the biggest concern is being unable to find a QB that can help win key games against the tougher opponents, despite the number of supposed elite recruits we've had at the position.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I certainly believe that with the completion of the SAHPC and the renovation/rebuild of Cal Memorial that we have entered put up or shut up territory with regard to Tedford's tenure. That it's taken 10 years to get to this point is highly consequential. But certainly the team must produce in the next two years and the trajectory must be unmistakably upward.<br /><br />An improvement in QB will work wonders for the program. Whether that means Maynard becomes remarkably better or another candidate emerges with the talent, skills, and leadership qualities necessary is yet to be known.<br /><br />But again, the conditions have changed sufficiently that we'll know soon (within the next two years) if we have a coaching staff that can get us to a Rose Bowl.

I think what struck me when Tedford got here was his ability to turn Kyle Boller, a heralded recruit who was pretty much a basket-case under Holmoe, into a quarterback that was drafted and is still playing in the NFL. That, and his subsequent success with AR, was to me the real evidence of his quarterback-mentoring abilities, not what he had done at Oregon or Fresno State.<br /><br />The question is whether Tedford can find the QB that has the ability to run his offense effectively. That requires passing accuracy and excellent decision-making. I hope he can do it.

Thanks to the OP for the post and to everyone on this thread for airing out the issues. Special thanks to FiatSlug for getting his hands around the snake and pinning it down.<br /><br />The one thing that many have alluded to, and I want to make explicit, is that the delays in getting started on the SAHPC and the CMS renovation sorely taxed the credibility of the University and the Athletic Department. And by University and AD, I mean every individual who had responsibility for hiring and making certain assurances to JT; from the Chancellor to Nate Bostrom to Steve Gladstone to Sandy Barbour to anyone else involved.<br /><br />Having negotiated labor contracts, I can assure you that this is no small matter. I can easily see where the delays made it imperative that Cal go above and beyond to demonstrate good faith, in light of the failures to begin moving dirt as promised. This is probably the reason for the favorable contract terms, raises and many extensions. JT stayed despite the unfulfilled promise of new facilities made by the University. Therefore, it needed to match JT's extant trust with a clear display of institutional integrity. Certainly, if I were JT's agent, that is exactly what I would have demanded.<br /><br />On a related point, I want to associate myself with those who talked about the need for stability at Cal. If JT left in 2006 or 2007, critics could have pointed to the horrible facilities, trail of broken promises and vigorous public opposition to improvement, in addition to the chronic academic and bureaucratic challenges, as reasons why no top coach could succeed at Cal. The losses of Coaches White, Snyder, Marriucci and Tedford would have provided 30 years of evidence. That trend had to be stopped. I am thankful that Sandy, et al recognized this reality.<br /><br />Finally, certain comments on this thread illustrate the point of the <a href="<a href="<a href="<a href="<a href="http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769"""""" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769"""""</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""""</a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""""</a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769"""</a>"" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769"""</a>"</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769"""</a></a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769"""</a></a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="<a href="http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""</a>""" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""</a>""</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""</a>"</a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""</a>"</a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""</a></a>"" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""</a></a>"</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""</a></a></a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53769""</a></a></a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank">"Tedford is the Hot Chick"</a> post. I love the University, about as much as I have loved any other institution. But I must face the facts. As a place for professors and university administrators Cal is at least an 8, probably a 10. But for football coaches (and perhaps coaches in all three major sports), we are a 5, at best. <br /><br />I hope that our recruiting success, the SAHPC and the CMS renovations can combine to yield better results on the field and increase our desirability as a coaching destination. Just as I hope the 'Save Cal Baseball' and Mike Montgomery's success do the same for baseball and basketball. But all three are going to take hard work and luck by those in charge, and unwavering support for the programs from fans like us.