<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667751 said:</div><hr>Those are the OOC opponents we played from the first year Mike White took over to the last year of Holmoe. It contrasts (greatly) with playing Tenn twice and next year OSU. Again, I will not disagree Tedford has been middling good; just that win percentages for the 25 years prior and his are misleading.<br /><br />Lies, Damm Lies, and Statistics ;-)<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Ah, I thought you meant those were the teams we played under Mike White. Even so, that's 25 years' worth of non-conference games compared to 10 years with Tedford. It may be that we did play tougher opponents on average -- I just think this effect is overstated. It's not like we were constantly playing a muderers' row in non-conference before he arrived, and frankly it becomes harder to play good teams once your own team gets good -- they aren't as willing to take you once you aren't a body-bag game yourself. It just seems wrong to me to hold this up as a reason that Tedford isn't as good as he looks.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;667834 said:</div><hr>Ah, I thought you meant those were the teams we played under Mike White. Even so, that's 25 years' worth of non-conference games compared to 10 years with Tedford. It may be that we did play tougher opponents on average -- I just think this effect is overstated. It's not like we were constantly playing a muderers' row in non-conference before he arrived, and frankly it becomes harder to play good teams once your own team gets good -- they aren't as willing to take you once you aren't a body-bag game yourself. It just seems wrong to me to hold this up as a reason that Tedford isn't as good as he looks.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Out of 25 years prior to Tedford we played 15 games OOC games against Perennial top 5 programs. We played USC and Washington every year during eras where they were often 2 of the top 5. We played UCLA every year, many in which THEY were a top 10 team.<br /><br />During the first half of Tedford's run he played PAc-10 football in a "down" era for the conference - really facing only Pete the Cheats top 5 USC program. Otherwise, the rest of the conference was "poor". It is telling that as Furd and Oregon emerged, they started to clobber us.<br /><br />Pumpers never take the long view. When you do, the flaws are just so obvious.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667846 said:</div><hr>It is telling that as Furd and Oregon emerged, they started to clobber us.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />And yet, even with those losses we're still posting better records than we usually did in the pre-Tedford years.<br /><br />I'm disappointed in the post-2008 Cal seasons too, but I don't think JT's overall record is as inflated as you say (relative to previous Cal coaches).

<blockquote><div class="name-said">okaydo;667130 said:</div><hr><img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />" /><hr></blockquote><br /><br />This picture proves it. JT is actually like the chick on Seinfeld who goes from stunningly hot to witch depending on the lighting. <br /><br />Here JT looks tanned, athletic, on top of his game - a "winner". Other times like on Cal Sports Report, he'll be slouched in a chair wearing gym shorts and he looks fat, lethargic, bored, self-satisfied, unmotivated and hideous.<br /><br />Perhaps he is just a "small town 10" - a girl who seems hot in her town, but take her to LA and real competition and she just seems sort of cute. So, yeah, be proud that she was your girl back home, but now you have to move up to compete in the big city.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;667854 said:</div><hr>And yet, even with those losses we're still posting better records than we usually did in the pre-Tedford years.<br /><br />I'm disappointed in the post-2008 Cal seasons too, but I don't think JT's overall record is as inflated as you say (relative to previous Cal coaches).<hr></blockquote><br /><br /><Sigh>. Because going 7-6 in the current era is equivalent, in the past, of going 5-6 or even 4-7. _IF_ Theader could have dropped some of those games against 'bama or Florida and substituted in the Blue Hose that is +1 to the Win. If you can play the Dawgs not during the era of being number 1 in the nation but when they are going 0-11 there is another. If you can go to a Bowl game without winning conference that probably also helps (and motivates your guys).<br /><br />This is the same darn argument made to support Braun - "Hey, it was HORRID before Lou so we have to stay the course". <br /><br />Defend Tedford because he recruits well, represents the university well, and can get donors to donate. Suggest that the grass is always greener and that with his buy out we couldn't afford a great coach. But it isn't at all clear that the historical comparisons backward mean anything - as it is a different era in college football. Plus again, the coaches of old struggled under institutional constraints that boggle the mind.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>Pumpers never take the long view. When you do, the flaws are just so obvious.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Hmmm? Over Tedford's whole tenure, Cal has been one of the best programs in the Pac. Of course, how you want to define success will change how you view that to some degree - if you measure by BCS bowls, obviously the success hasn't been there, but if you measure by total bowls, by avoiding losing seasons, by overall Pac record, it has, but defining success is just a matter of opinion. Anyways, I would say it's just as easy to characterize "negas" as not taking the long view and just looking at the last 2-3 years. Overall, I don't find those generalizations very useful, or the past all that relevant, as what we're all concerned about (or should be, at least) now is what the program is going to accomplish going forwards, right?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667872 said:</div><hr>This is the same darn argument made to support Braun - "Hey, it was HORRID before Lou so we have to stay the course". <hr></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not making that argument. I just think Tedford's record is more legit than you do. Just because he has that record, though, does not mean he's guaranteed to be as good (or better) in the future. And given the improved institutional support, we probably should expect better.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667872 said:</div><hr><Sigh>. Because going 7-6 in the current era is equivalent, in the past, of going 5-6 or even 4-7. _IF_ Theader could have dropped some of those games against 'bama or Florida and substituted in the Blue Hose that is +1 to the Win. If you can play the Dawgs not during the era of being number 1 in the nation but when they are going 0-11 there is another. If you can go to a Bowl game without winning conference that probably also helps (and motivates your guys).<br /><br />This is the same darn argument made to support Braun - "Hey, it was HORRID before Lou so we have to stay the course". <br /><br />Defend Tedford because he recruits well, represents the university well, and can get donors to donate. Suggest that the grass is always greener and that with his buy out we couldn't afford a great coach. But it isn't at all clear that the historical comparisons backward mean anything - as it is a different era in college football. Plus again, the coaches of old struggled under institutional constraints that boggle the mind.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />:beer:<br /><br />I think that the change in mindset and goals changed not with SB and JT but with Chancellor Tien and Coach Snyder. Up until that time, there was little if any institutional support for winning or wanting to see Cal win on the field. With Tien's actual support of coexistence of sports and academics and Snyder's success on the field, it was shown that Cal could actually win. I think this was the turning point in Cal football. I bet that if BB hadn't of dropped the ball on the flight back from the Citrus bowl, there would have been a much different story written in Strawberry Canyon in the following years.<br /><br />Sure JT has done well, but the ability to win, with some support from the university/community, was not his doing. He was just the coach that happened to come in next after some miscues (Gilby, Mooch, and Holmoe) and he was decent, and in the long run will be proven to be average. We misfired in those other hires, like many other schools do and continue to do, in our stretch of until we got JT. I'm not putting him down as a person, but he's average and this resembles the latter years of the Braun era. Most of the world is average, and without out that, there wouldn't be any bell-curves. We've simply grown as a university to expect to win like the other schools, which with the right coach I think is possible.<br /><br />:rant<br /><br />:gobears:

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>he's average and this resembles the latter years of the Braun era<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I hate the Braun comparisons. Dunno how much anyone here knows basketball, but Braun isn't an average basketball coach. He's far, far below average, and close to the bottom. When it comes to actual coaching - teaching players to play the game, making them better as players - he was completely and utterly inept. I don't know nearly as much about football as I do about basketball, and I don't feel I can make nearly as informed a statement on JT when it comes to teaching fundamentals and such...but with all the guys that end up going to the NFL, I have a hard time seeing a comparison. With even average coaching Devon Hardin would be in the NBA right now. Braun didn't provide that. Even if the end results were somewhat average (and I'm not sure they were towards the end of his stint) because he brought in enough talent...there was just such a glaring problem with his inability to coach, the program needed to move on.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BTUR;668050 said:</div><hr>...Even if the end results were somewhat average (and I'm not sure they were towards the end of his stint) because he brought in enough talent...<b>there was just such a glaring problem with his inability to coach, the program needed to move on</b>.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />my point exactly. granted, there's nothing GLARING like all those times braun would call a full TO and we'd end up turning the ball over or end up with a really difficult look.......but i think we have enough evidence (in the football context) that JT just doesn't seem to do well as a HC.........

Geez. Forget all the arguments. <br /><br />I just liked looking at that girl!

<blockquote><div class="name-said">mouseandcat;668092 said:</div><hr>my point exactly. granted, there's nothing GLARING like all those times braun would call a full TO and we'd end up turning the ball over or end up with a really difficult look.......but i think we have enough evidence (in the football context) that JT just doesn't seem to do well as a HC.........<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I dunno, seems to me most of that evidence is from the last 2-3 years, whereas there's plenty of positive evidence (especially from earlier years), as well. Recruiting is on a roll, we're still putting guys in the NFL (showing their development/playing at a high level), including guys like Mohammad and Conte whose star ratings don't necessarily suggest they were headed that way, and coach M is back, so that's good, too. I think one major difference between football and basketball is the influence of assistants - they play a much bigger role in development in football than basketball. A basketball team of 15 guys (where only ~7 play meaningful minutes) is small enough that the head coach can be intricately involved in their individual development. With a football team, each position group has that many guys, so it seems to fall mostly on the position coaches to coach them up. I like the recent coaching staff changes - Tosh + Gould + Coach M are great, I like Tedford getting involved with QB's again, Ambrose seems like a solid candidate for DB's, not so sure on Kenwick or Keisau but those were the two strongest units on the team this year, so that's good...so I dunno, guess I'm more optimistic about things?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">manus;667135 said:</div><hr>The writer is dead-on target: JT and his coaches made Cal football relevant. And, what has made it relevant for recruits is that they can learn their trade in this program....<br /><br />We will never be an Oregon, USC, or an Alabama. Our football DNA is more Wisconsin, MIchigan, Ohio State....<br /><br />An old latin proverb is relevant to those of us who are the sunshine pumpers of Cal football: "Glory is the shadow of virtue." <br /><br />Fiat lux.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Oregon was never an Oregon until The guy just before chip. Then they gave him the AD chair and handed it over to Chip.<br /><br />Nike had money before that. PK would have made an euqally big (relative to the standing of football at the time) financial impact back then... They did not, and Oregon was hardly "Oregon". Oregon is #72 all time programs in wins. <br /><br /><br />The very fact you say Oregon, USC, or an Alabama (two powerhouses and johnny come lately), means that Cal COULD be in that group.<br /><br />The fact that you say Cal DNA is line with Wisconsin, MIchigan, Ohio State (#46, #1, and #6 winningest programs in HISTORY), shows you must believe that Cal should be one of the top teams in the country...<br /><br />(Cal is #36)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />That or you are ridiculously ignorant about football. <br />I guess you could be trying to be funny.

To be clear, the hot chick NEVER throws up on herself...<br /><br />Tedford has.<br /><br /><br />Tedford was the Hot chick; The Hot chick bought Cal a gym membership, introduded it to new people, arranged interviews...but clearly at some point he realised he was with a 5, and stopped running, started drinking, and ended up disgusting. <br /><br />Meanwhile, Cal went to the gym, got a great job, studied, made a ton of new friends, bought a great new house... (fans, donations, media, SAHPC, Stadium, etc)... Suddenly Cal is attractive on its own.<br /><br /><br /><br />You know how you can tell Tedford was not as great as claimed, and Cal was not as bad as claimed ... they are still dating.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">mouseandcat;668092 said:</div><hr>my point exactly. granted, there's nothing GLARING like all those times braun would call a full TO and we'd end up turning the ball over or end up with a really difficult look.......but i think we have enough evidence (in the football context) that JT just doesn't seem to do well as a HC.........<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I totally agree. I'm not going to profess that I could justify or argue why we should run the spread vs. a pro set or why 3-4 is better than a 4-3 just because I've played intramurals before. I'll say that everyone on this staff knows more about football than 99% of the people who post on this board...but I think we can all see the end results, same thing with Braun...and that's our record and overall performance over the years.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;668214 said:</div><hr><br /><br />That or you are ridiculously ignorant about football. <br />I guess you could be trying to be funny.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I was commenting more from an existential or metaphysical point of reference, with a bit of football zeitgeist thrown in.... Obviously, not from a statistical measure. I wasn't trying to be funny. I have an average fan's appreciation of college football, and have no interest in the kind of ballistics-type detail that others enjoy (=when I played in HS many moons ago, brute force, raw talent, and very elemental coaching was the order of the day). Historically, there was "a time" when Cal was always "in the hunt." Today? You know the story, but who knows, perhaps we are due to catch lightening in a bottle? And, then, it may last a bit; maybe not? That is one of the bedeviling attractions of college football. Will always be a fan, no matter what happens.