Tedford is the Hot Chick

likwid1

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

2:24p, 1/4/12

sbmhsu

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to likwid1 • 2:30p, 1/4/12

Heh, I had a good chuckle out of that, thanks

ohsooso

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to likwid1 • 2:32p, 1/4/12

Well after looking at what UCLA and ASU settled on, the article makes a point.

socaltownie

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to likwid1 • 2:34p, 1/4/12

Funny article but essentially garbage. Unlike Baseball, which is a game that "evolve" at sheer glacial pace, College football circa 2012 looks nothing like college football during the 1970s and 1980s. In those eras Cal usually got 1 (and at best 2) cupcakes on the schedule before going into Pac-10 play. There were years we had to play, as do other low revenue schools, as a sacrificial lamb to fill power teams away schedules. the conference was not diluted in respect to West Coast talent. Bowl invitations only went to the conference champion, not a team that finishes 7-5. Washington was dominant. UCLA was at the peak of their game. Of course USC remained USC. Then there are the Cal factors. It includes dark years in the late 1960s and early 1970s in which the activities on campus essentially precluded us from being able to recruit. Our administration was hostile to sports. We made some horrific hiring decisions. We wouldn't pay people. I hate these articles because it is simply crack for this board Holy War but it is a dumb dumb dumb way to try to defend Tedford.

Our Domicile

Joined: Aug 21, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to likwid1 • 2:35p, 1/4/12

Cal has "the Hot Chick"? Maybe 10+ years ago. Are they sure they're using the right analogy for the current years?

The Duke!

Joined: Nov 20, 2010

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to sbmhsu • 2:35p, 1/4/12

I agree that Tedford deserves a statue. I also agree the logic behind letting his contract wind down and then finding a better coach if he is unable to get us to a BCS. The two are not mutually exclusive.

socaltownie

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to ohsooso • 2:37p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">ohsooso;667114 said:</div><hr>Well after looking at what UCLA and ASU settled on, the article makes a point.<hr></blockquote> UCLA conducted one of the worst, maybe the worst ever, coaches searches. It simply boggles the mind that AG was this ill prepared until you realize he is the same chump that hired Rick the Slick. ASU's implosion frankly was inexplicably bad. But Graham did have success at Tulsa so I wouldn't discount him as much as Mora.

okaydo

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 2:40p, 1/4/12

<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="

" />" />" />" />" />

manus

Joined: Jan 11, 2010

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to ohsooso • 2:44p, 1/4/12

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.... We will never be an Oregon, USC, or an Alabama. Our football DNA is more Wisconsin, MIchigan, Ohio State.... An old latin proverb is relevant to those of us who are the sunshine pumpers of Cal football: "Glory is the shadow of virtue." Fiat lux.

likwid1

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 2:45p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667124 said:</div><hr>UCLA conducted one of the worst, maybe the worst ever, coaches searches. It simply boggles the mind that AG was this ill prepared until you realize he is the same chump that hired Rick the Slick. ASU's implosion frankly was inexplicably bad. But Graham did have success at Tulsa so I wouldn't discount him as much as Mora.<hr></blockquote> I think that, if you hire a new coach and he is not [U]better [/U]than the old coach, the move is a disaster for reasons of continuity and stability. Although I think the author is overrating Tedford, I do believe that it is definitely not a given that the next HC will be better than Tedford. In fact, I would not even say that it is probable. I witnessed Synder (good), Gilby (horrible), Marriucci (wash), Holmoe (horrible), and Tedford. Even elsewhere, I have seen a slew of bad hires. No AD thinks the hire is bad at the time. The author's point is well taken: the Cal HC job is not the type of position that ensures that there will be proven, great coaches vying for the job.

MrGPAC

Joined: Sep 7, 2009

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

2:52p, 1/4/12

In the movie the poster references, the idea is you "can't get a person more than 2 levels above your rating", on a scale of 1-10. The idea is we think we are 8's when we are actually 5's, and that we were really 2's before Tedford arrived. They rank Tedford as an 8, and are saying we are so ridiculously high above our level we will never be able to get better. I'll agree with them that we were a 2 before Tedford arrived (academic sanctions, terrible record, no recent reputation for winning). I think we were a 5 in 2006, and with our new facilities and top recruiting classes, combined with location and commitment to football by the admins, we could very well be an 8. I don't think the article takes any of that into account. The state of football at Berkeley is completely different from what it was when Tedford was hired...and Tedford deserves a lot of credit in making that happen. And yes, if we are an 8 that means we can get a coach anywhere from a "6" to a "10". Here's hoping that Tedfords eventual replacement is a 10. ~MrGPAC

socaltownie

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to manus • 2:54p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">manus;667135 said:</div><hr> We will never be an Oregon, USC, or an Alabama. Our football DNA is more Wisconsin, MIchigan, Ohio State.... <hr></blockquote> BTW - you do realize that all those schools have been to MULTIPLE RoseBowls since we last appeared. I believe they hold 5 national championships between them. Should we be so lucky.....

Cal_Fan2

Joined: Jul 26, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to manus • 2:57p, 1/4/12

<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.... We will never be an Oregon, USC, or an Alabama. Our football DNA is more Wisconsin, MIchigan, Ohio State.... An old latin proverb is relevant to those of us who are the sunshine pumpers of Cal football: "Glory is the shadow of virtue." Fiat lux.<hr></blockquote> This writer is correct on the fact that he gives kudos to JT and that he is an "8" in regards to Cal.....he is wrong that Cal fans (except Spazzy, CGB and some others here) think our program is an "8" Hell, not even JT or Sandy think our program is at an 8 level and certainly not most fans....he was right when he said 5..or maybe 6. We can however get back to the higher points with everything in place. By the way.....Oregon isn't even Oregon. Before Chip Kelly they weren't any powerhouse and without looking, I'm sure we have beat them more in the last 10 years than the other way around.

GB54

Joined: Jul 29, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to manus • 3:01p, 1/4/12

<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.... We will never be an Oregon, USC, or an Alabama. Our football DNA is more Wisconsin, MIchigan, Ohio State.... An old latin proverb is relevant to those of us who are the sunshine pumpers of Cal football: "Glory is the shadow of virtue." Fiat lux.<hr></blockquote> We wish.

Looperbear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 3:03p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667118 said:</div><hr>Funny article but essentially garbage. Unlike Baseball, which is a game that "evolve" at sheer glacial pace, College football circa 2012 looks nothing like college football during the 1970s and 1980s. In those eras Cal usually got 1 (and at best 2) cupcakes on the schedule before going into Pac-10 play. There were years we had to play, as do other low revenue schools, as a sacrificial lamb to fill power teams away schedules. the conference was not diluted in respect to West Coast talent. Bowl invitations only went to the conference champion, not a team that finishes 7-5. Washington was dominant. UCLA was at the peak of their game. Of course USC remained USC. Then there are the Cal factors. It includes dark years in the late 1960s and early 1970s in which the activities on campus essentially precluded us from being able to recruit. Our administration was hostile to sports. We made some horrific hiring decisions. We wouldn't pay people. I hate these articles because it is simply crack for this board Holy War but it is a dumb dumb dumb way to try to defend Tedford.<hr></blockquote> Well, in the 15 plus years before Tedford took over, I think we had 3 7 win seasons, 2 with Snyder and 1 with Gilby. We we were Furd's beotches even when they had the likes of Elway, Willingham and Wiggin, hardly great coaches. So to have only ONE losing season in 10 years at a school with a losing tradition and the worst facilities in the pac10 is remarkable. As far as scheduling, before Tedford arrived Cal played patsies like UOP and San Jose State (and SDSU), or at least they're patsies to Tedford teams.

NJbear

Joined: Jan 14, 2011

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to likwid1 • 3:04p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">likwid1;667140 said:</div><hr>I think that, if you hire a new coach and he is not [U]better [/U]than the old coach, the move is a disaster for reasons of continuity and stability. Although I think the author is overrating Tedford, I do believe that it is definitely not a given that the next HC will be better than Tedford. In fact, I would not even say that it is probable. I witnessed Synder (good), Gilby (horrible), Marriucci (wash), Holmoe (horrible), and Tedford. Even elsewhere, I have seen a slew of bad hires. No AD thinks the hire is bad at the time. The author's point is well taken: the Cal HC job is not the type of position that ensures that there will be proven, great coaches vying for the job.<hr></blockquote> I disagree, if only b/c of recent hires in the conference and because Cal has so much more to offer than it once did (not saying it's a given, like you said, but our chances of landing a high profile coach are much improved). If Washington St and Arizona can hire Leach and Rich Rod, there is no reason why Cal can't hire someone great too. Cal has a lot going for it didn't before and that many programs don't (see: CA recruiting, new facilities, renovated stadium, bay area location/weather - this is all from a coaches perspective, btw) that would allow it to attract a great coach. The only question now is how much would we be willing to spend. Today, I feel like it doesn't matter if you're a traditional power or not when it comes to hiring coaches b/c even traditional powers have a hard time hiring great coaches - just look at Michigan last year. IIRC no one prominent/proven wanted the job and they settled on Hoke (sp?). Of course, being a traditional power can't hurt.

68great

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to likwid1 • 3:11p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">likwid1;667140 said:</div><hr>I think that, if you hire a new coach and he is not [U]better [/U]than the old coach, the move is a disaster for reasons of continuity and stability. Although I think the author is overrating Tedford, I do believe that it is definitely not a given that the next HC will be better than Tedford. In fact, I would not even say that it is probable. I witnessed Synder (good), Gilby (horrible), Marriucci (wash), Holmoe (horrible), and Tedford. Even elsewhere, I have seen a slew of bad hires. No AD thinks the hire is bad at the time. The author's point is well taken: the Cal HC job is not the type of position that ensures that there will be proven, great coaches vying for the job.<hr></blockquote> There are two great coaches now available who have plenty of experience as College HC's; plus both have experience in the PAC12 and have had good success at those schools;both have been Coach of the year and one even has NC to his resume. I say Cal should hire either Rick Neuheisel or Dennis Erickson IMMEDIATELY. Either one would be a major improvement on JT. :sarc:.

likwid1

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to NJbear • 3:15p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">NJbear;667174 said:</div><hr>If Washington St and Arizona can hire Leach and Rich Rod, there is no reason why Cal can't hire someone great too.<hr></blockquote> I don't consider Rich Rod great. Leach is a good Xs and Os coach, but he has more baggage than LAX. He has an ongoing lawsuit against another BCS institution, a US Senatorial candidate, as well as funk with ESPN. No school wants funk with ESPN. No one else but WSU would have hired Leach. I predict that ESPN will discreetly try to sink him behind the scenes. If he makes any bad moves, such as a recruiting violation, he is going to get roasted.

BearClause

Joined: Jul 24, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Looperbear • 3:18p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Looperbear;667171 said:</div><hr>Well, in the 15 plus years before Tedford took over, I think we had 3 7 win seasons, 2 with Snyder and 1 with Gilby. We we were Furd's beotches even when they had the likes of Elway, Willingham and Wiggin, hardly great coaches. So to have only ONE losing season in 10 years at a school with a losing tradition and the worst facilities in the pac10 is remarkable. As far as scheduling, before Tedford arrived Cal played patsies like UOP and San Jose State (and SDSU), or at least they're patsies to Tedford teams.<hr></blockquote> Didn't SDSU have Marshall Faulk?

likwid1

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to BearClause • 3:20p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BearClause;667201 said:</div><hr>Didn't SDSU have Marshall Faulk?<hr></blockquote> I saw that game. Faulk was there. But they weren't good.

highwireact

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 3:24p, 1/4/12

I think one of the mistakes fans and media make is to assign too much importance to bringing in a head coach that had success as a head coach at the D1 level (even moderate success) rather than taking some risk and hiring a rising star from the assistant coaching ranks or a head coach from the FCS level. If you take a quick look at the USA Today top 10 (before the bowl games) it looked like this: 1. LSU (Miles) 2. Alabama (Saban) 3. Oklahoma State (Gundy) 4. Stanford (Shaw) 5. Oregon(Kelly) 6. BSU (Petersen) 7. Arkansas (Petrino) 8. Wisconsin (Bielema) 9. South Caronlina (Spurrier) 10. Kansas State (Snyder) 3 of the coaches were highly successful D1 head coaches at previous stops (Saban, Petrino, Spurrier), 1 was moderately successful (Miles), but the other six had not been head coaches at the D1 level before (basing my information on a quick College Football Data Warehouse search). I'm sure it would be very difficult for Cal to get someone like Petersen who would probably go to a big power program if he ever left Boise St. But I don't think it would be difficult at all to get a quality guy from the assistant coaching ranks (someone like Bielema or Gundy) or someone from a lower division (Kelly or Harbaugh type). The tough part about doing it this way, is that whoever is doing the hiring has to be willing to stick their neck out a bit and be a good scout of coaching ability.

stanfurdbites

Joined: Sep 4, 2009

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Cal_Fan2 • 3:29p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Cal_Fan2;667165 said:</div><hr>This writer is correct on the fact that he gives kudos to JT and that he is an "8" in regards to Cal.....he is wrong that Cal fans (except Spazzy, CGB and some others here) think our program is an "8" Hell, not even JT or Sandy think our program is at an 8 level and certainly not most fans....he was right when he said 5..or maybe 6. We can however get back to the higher points with everything in place. <hr></blockquote> CF2, I'm a little insulted you didn't specifically name me out. LMMT might have a beef with you too. We're two of the biggest pumpers around, at least on the growls board. :beer:

socaltownie

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Looperbear • 3:30p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Looperbear;667171 said:</div><hr>Well, in the 15 plus years before Tedford took over, I think we had 3 7 win seasons, 2 with Snyder and 1 with Gilby. We we were Furd's beotches even when they had the likes of Elway, Willingham and Wiggin, hardly great coaches. So to have only ONE losing season in 10 years at a school with a losing tradition and the worst facilities in the pac10 is remarkable. As far as scheduling, before Tedford arrived Cal played patsies like UOP and San Jose State (and SDSU), or at least they're patsies to Tedford teams.<hr></blockquote> I guess I wasn't clear. When you play 12 games and 2.5 of them are against Sister of mercy schools; 2 of them are against the Zona's it isn't the cat's f'ing meow to get 7 wins. Now contrast that when you are playing 11 games. Your 3 OOC have only 1 patsey and some years YOU are the sacrificial lamb playing away to help a power school pad ITS W-L. You have USC and Washington EVERY year on the schedule - often both in the pre-season top 5. You get to play UCLA during an era when _IT_ was competing for national championships. You don't get the Zona's. You don't GO to a Bowl game unless you WIN the Pac10. Has Tedford improved the program? Absolutely. But the article fails to mention what Syder, and especially Mike White achieved, arguably under MUCH harder circumstances. You have to take that into account before trying to conclude that Tedford is an 8 and we are a 3. San Diego is currently blowing up for a similar reason. Yes, it is NICE that Norv has never had a losing season. But he has competed during an historically AWFUL period in the AFC West. You have to put things in context and during the early years Tedford had the "luck" to go against 8 Pac-10 teams experiencing some truly awful coaching. He currently faces a MUCH stronger coaching corp. BTW - THis is PRECISELY the same debate had about Ben Braun during the later stages. His record was padded against some truly AWFUL pac-10 BB coaches. When things improved in the conference, they started to beat us.

socaltownie

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 3:32p, 1/4/12

And you do realize that Tedford's Bears have a losing (I believe under 400) record against Ranked teams? If pumpers don't get that is a problem, they never will.

Cal_Fan2

Joined: Jul 26, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to stanfurdbites • 3:37p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">stanfurdbites;667222 said:</div><hr>CF2, I'm a little insulted you didn't specifically name me out. LMMT might have a beef with you too. We're two of the biggest pumpers around, at least on the growls board. :beer:<hr></blockquote> I'm sorry...it was like an awards ceremony, I didn't want to leave anyone out so I went with generalities...LOL.... I left out the prolific Nega's too since we all know who they are....:beer:

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 4:08p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667223 said:</div><hr>I guess I wasn't clear. When you play 12 games and 2.5 of them are against Sister of mercy schools; 2 of them are against the Zona's it isn't the cat's f'ing meow to get 7 wins. Now contrast that when you are playing 11 games. Your 3 OOC have only 1 patsey and some years YOU are the sacrificial lamb playing away to help a power school pad ITS W-L. You have USC and Washington EVERY year on the schedule - often both in the pre-season top 5. You get to play UCLA during an era when _IT_ was competing for national championships. You don't get the Zona's. You don't GO to a Bowl game unless you WIN the Pac10. Has Tedford improved the program? Absolutely. But the article fails to mention what Syder, and especially Mike White achieved, arguably under MUCH harder circumstances. You have to take that into account before trying to conclude that Tedford is an 8 and we are a 3.<hr></blockquote> 1. The idea that Cal only plays more "sisters of mercy" these days is overblown. I took a look at Bruce Snyder's best season (1991), and you know what our non-conference schedule was? University of the Pacific, San Jose State, and a Purdue team that finished 4-7. In Keith Gilbertson's best year (1993), we played San Jose State, San Diego State, and freakin' TEMPLE (they went 1-10 that year). In Mike White's best year (1975) we had SJSU and Air Force on the schedule. Are we really playing more bad teams now? If I look at Sagarin's ratings for Cal's schedule strength during the Tedford years they aren't low, only once in the lower half of Div 1 (2005). So I don't know that the argument about us playing an easier schedule now than in the Snyder/Gilby days really holds up. Major conference teams have been scheduling non-conference patsies for a long time. Just because we also play some doesn't mean we're playing a weaker slate than we played 15 years ago or a weaker slate than anyone else in the country. 2. What do the Zona schools have to do with it? Sometimes they are good and sometimes they are not. We play one or both in most seasons, including in Snyder's day. Why does JT get an advantage from this and previous coaches didn't? 3. Agreed that it's easier to get 7 wins with a 12-game slate than with an 11-game season, but it's not just about 7 wins -- it's about having winning seasons PERIOD. Those 3 seasons that Looperbear cited represent ALL of our winning seasons in the 15 years before Tedford. It still speaks to our general futility in the years before JT, even if you want to nitpick about the extra game we play now. Now, this is not to say that JT gets a pass forever just because he pulled us out of the muck and into the middle of the pack. Cal has indeed made a commitment to better facilities and is more supportive of the football program than it has been in a long time, and at some point JT will have to show return on that investment or else he'll be gone. But it doesn't help the debate to make up arguments about how it was supposedly tougher to win before he arrived and started winning. I don't really think it was.

socaltownie

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to sycasey • 6:27p, 1/4/12

<Sigh>....data..... The original article looks at our winning percentage during the 25 years PRIOR to JT's arrival to reach is stellar conclusion. Zona's entered the conference in 1978. So one adjustment we need to make is to make is think about how we treat the change in conferences and how that impacts the analysis. During Tedford's reign we have played OOC Baylor New Mexico state Michigan State Airforce K State Southern Miss Colorado State Illinois Airforce New Mexico State Southern Miss Sac State Illinois New Mexico State Tenn Minnesota Portland State Tenn. Vols Co. State Lois. Tech Michigan State Maryland Co State Maryland Eastern WA Minnesota Davis Nevada Colorado Fresnick Colorado Blue Hose At BEST, in the era played, we have TWO games against traditional powers (Tenn x2). We played traditional BDW in the Big Ten. We played some ACC teams. We played CSU long since the demise of the inter-mountain conferences In Contrast, if you start with Mike White we played Alabama Florida x2 Georgia x2 Oklahoma x2 Tennessee x2 Nebraska x3 Michigan Miami x2 There are additional leaners throughout the Pre-Teford History, including Illinois, A&M, Missouri, CU during the better buffs history. San Jose State isn't ANYTHING now like it was then (remember when the Spartans were actually RANKED?) Plus in a number of years we played everyone in conference with just 2 OOC games - often against two decent opponents, It is simply bad history to compare then to now. I am not arguing that Theader or Kapp were as good of coaches as Tedford but it is clearly true that he is coaching in an era where it is "easier" to put together a .600 winning percentage than in the previous period.

Steam67

Joined: Sep 20, 2011

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 6:54p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667412 said:</div><hr> San Jose State isn't ANYTHING now like it was then (remember when the Spartans were actually RANKED?) <hr></blockquote> Hell. My old man went to San Jose State. Many of those years we played them, they played us TOUGH, and he never forgets to remind me that they actually beat us one year.

BTUR

Joined: Aug 15, 2011

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 7:39p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667224 said:</div><hr>And you do realize that Tedford's Bears have a losing (I believe under 400) record against Ranked teams? If pumpers don't get that is a problem, they never will.<hr></blockquote> IS that really a problem? Thought exercise here - there are 25 ranked teams, and let's put them in order, best to worst. They all play each other an infinite number of times. Now, we'd expect 12 teams to have winning records, 1 team to be even, and 12 to have losing records, right? So essentially, the ~13 or so (I recognize I simplified it down, and there will likely be some additional variation when you add all the teams in) best programs in the country should have winning records vs ranked teams. Everyone else losing. Do you think my simplistic model is way off, or do you really think it's a huge problem that the program might not be at that level? How many other programs really have been way more successful by those criteria during Tedford's tenure? The thing is - good teams are good, and usually win. I don't see what the problem with losing to good teams is, beyond the simple notion that we'd like our team to be better. Does it matter if "better" means upsetting Oregon compared to beating Washington this past year, or not tripping up against UCLA? Why focus on any one of them individually? Give me more Pac-12 wins, I don't care where they come from. Should I?

calumnus

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Steam67 • 7:54p, 1/4/12

Damn! I love analogies, but every time I try to correct this one ("Tedford is not a girlfriend, but a woman we pay...."<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="

" />" />" />"> it comes out incredibly sexist and offensive. :p

vmfa531

Joined: Oct 18, 2010

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

8:28p, 1/4/12

me tedford = 8, Cal = 2. Damn we are still only a five with all of his help.

sycasey

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to socaltownie • 8:41p, 1/4/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;667412 said:</div><hr>In Contrast, if you start with Mike White we played Alabama Florida x2 Georgia x2 Oklahoma x2 Tennessee x2 Nebraska x3 Michigan Miami x2<hr></blockquote> Okay, I might give you the Mike White years, but if you'll notice Looperbear's original post, he was comparing Tedford's record to the previous 15 seasons. Mike White's time was way before that, and yes, obviously a very different era and so far removed from Tedford's time so as to (IMO) make the comparison not that useful. The more recent seasons before JT arrived provide a more accurate picture of where the program was at the time. Any way you shake it, he's still pretty high on the list of all-time Cal coaches. The original article does mention the previous 25 years, but even that only includes ONE Mike White season (1977), so I'm still not sure that it's terribly relevant to bring up his record in this context.

socaltownie

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to sycasey • 8:17a, 1/5/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;667529 said:</div><hr>Okay, I might give you the Mike White years, but if you'll notice Looperbear's original post, he was comparing Tedford's record to the previous 15 seasons. Mike White's time was way before that, and yes, obviously a very different era and so far removed from Tedford's time so as to (IMO) make the comparison not that useful. The more recent seasons before JT arrived provide a more accurate picture of where the program was at the time. Any way you shake it, he's still pretty high on the list of all-time Cal coaches. The original article does mention the previous 25 years, but even that only includes ONE Mike White season (1977), so I'm still not sure that it's terribly relevant to bring up his record in this context.<hr></blockquote> 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. Lies, Damm Lies, and Statistics ;-)

Hail2Calif

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to highwireact • 8:48a, 1/5/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">highwireact;667212 said:</div><hr>I think one of the mistakes fans and media make is to assign too much importance to bringing in a head coach that had success as a head coach at the D1 level (even moderate success) rather than taking some risk and hiring a rising star from the assistant coaching ranks or a head coach from the FCS level. If you take a quick look at the USA Today top 10 (before the bowl games) it looked like this: 1. LSU (Miles) 2. Alabama (Saban) 3. Oklahoma State (Gundy) 4. Stanford (Shaw) 5. Oregon(Kelly) 6. BSU (Petersen) 7. Arkansas (Petrino) 8. Wisconsin (Bielema) 9. South Caronlina (Spurrier) 10. Kansas State (Snyder) 3 of the coaches were highly successful D1 head coaches at previous stops (Saban, Petrino, Spurrier), 1 was moderately successful (Miles), but the other six had not been head coaches at the D1 level before (basing my information on a quick College Football Data Warehouse search). I'm sure it would be very difficult for Cal to get someone like Petersen who would probably go to a big power program if he ever left Boise St. But I don't think it would be difficult at all to get a quality guy from the assistant coaching ranks (someone like Bielema or Gundy) or someone from a lower division (Kelly or Harbaugh type). The tough part about doing it this way, is that whoever is doing the hiring has to be willing to stick their neck out a bit and be a good scout of coaching ability.<hr></blockquote> Using 1 year and 10 teams as a sample size can go the other way as well. I would guess that most years, if we were to look at the bottom 20 BCS programs, we would find the vast majority of those coaches without proven success either. Even if 6 of the top-10 teams' coaches in this year's poll were 1st time HC's, I think using one year doesn't confirm whether it would be difficult or not to just "get a quality guy from the assistant coaching ranks." For instance (and I also did not do an exhaustive search into the history of each coach above), Shaw inherited a pretty good Stanford team - and it may be 3-4 years later before we know whether he is a top HC in his own right. Measuring whether a coach did a good job or not would probably require adding some element of longevity as well as the record of the program itself relative to, say his two predecessors. I am an admitted Sunshine Pumper who likes what JT has done - and while I don't think it is impossible to find a better option, I certainly don't think Cal is "hot enough" that it would be easy to just find a substantially better option out there.

calumnus

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to sycasey • 9:22a, 1/5/12

<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;667529 said:</div><hr>Okay, I might give you the Mike White years, but if you'll notice Looperbear's original post, he was comparing Tedford's record to the previous 15 seasons. Mike White's time was way before that, and yes, obviously a very different era and so far removed from Tedford's time so as to (IMO) make the comparison not that useful. The more recent seasons before JT arrived provide a more accurate picture of where the program was at the time. Any way you shake it, he's still pretty high on the list of all-time Cal coaches. The original article does mention the previous 25 years, but even that only includes ONE Mike White season (1977), so I'm still not sure that it's terribly relevant to bring up his record in this context.<hr></blockquote> Determining that Cal is a 3 just because we dated a couple of 1s for far too long (one because of "personality"<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="

" />" />" />"> is circular logic. At one point in the 1980s when I was at Columbia I shared an apartment with a female roommate (Columbia undergrad) that I would rate a 2 or 3. Nice, but short and plump and not particularly attractive. Yet for several months in 1989 while I lived with her she was dating Alex Baldwin. He bought her expensive gifts. He acted jealous of me. Was Alec Baldwin of 1989 a 3? A few years later he met and married Kim Bassinger (Not work safe) <a href="<a href="<a href="<a href="<a href="http://""""" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://""""</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://"""</a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"""</a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="http://""</a>"" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://""</a>"</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://""</a></a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://""</a></a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="<a href="http://"</a><img""" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"</a><img""</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://"</a><img"</a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"</a><img"</a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="http://"</a><img</a>"" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"</a><img</a>"</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://"</a><img</a></a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://"</a><img</a></a></a> src="<img src="<img src="<img src="

" />" />" />" />"" class="postlink " target="_blank">LINK</a> (See any attempt to use this analogy comes off sexist and offensive....oh well). The point being, just because we settled for too long does not mean we have to be happy with average or even above average now. The only program in the Pac-12 "hotter" than Cal for a coach is USC.