CrimsonBear;841957886 said:

---

FF,

Why are you reading into the game so much? I was at the Coliseum in my schwitty Cal visitor seat. This game was not like last week at the Shoe. (After Williams intercepted that pass, I actually let myself believe that Cal was going to beat OSU. We know what happened after that.)

At no time did I think Cal was going to win yesterday. And I actually agree with you that Bigs probably would not have made the difference between a win and a loss. He would have made it closer, but Cal just isn't good enough.

But here's the big difference in our takeaways. It's not on Maynard or D'Amato or any player. It's on JT and the assistants (and to some extent, Sandy and the AD).

This is CFB, JT is in charge of everything. He buys the groceries, he's the chef and he gets to decide the menu (old Parcells metaphor).

JT has the authority, how are you NOT holding him accountable?

You ask posters here (since some are b*tching about the loss) what they would do differently that would guarantee a win. How is that relevant?

I work at an investment fund. One of the few (but important) things I have in common with JT is that our key performance measurements are 100% transparent. Mine is return on the fund, his is W-L. If I have a crappy quarter or even worse, a full year of bad returns, our investor relations department is not going ask our investors (big or small) what "they would do differently." It's not relevant. They just take their money out of the fund.

Unfortunately, that's not an option for most of us. We are always going to be Cal fans. What we would do differently as HC of Cal is of no consequence. As you can see from the majority of replies to your OP, the relevant answer to your post is that most of us would get a new HC.

---

Say Crimson, it wouldn't be against your firm's rules to turn one of your clients into a rabid Cal football fan would it? Possibly one that has about $9 mil to bail us out? Just show him DeSean's punt return TD against Tennessee, Bigelow's twirling TD run against Ohio St. and Oski catching that out of bounds pass against $C and see if he budges. C'mon man, you can swing this.

Arcadiabear;841957028 said:

---

I would have Given birdg and hinder a fair shot during fall camP
I would have prepped the team for bridg starting the first game
I would run bigelow 10+ times a game. On play action amd fakes as well
I would have used a trick play, a flea flicker, etc
I would have run CJ inside, bigelow outside, use my personell well

I would have gone for the TD instead of the First FG where he ran maynard middle to center the ball
I would have sat maynard for bad body language

I would have challenged that fumble without the reminder from my WHOLE TEAM

enough for ya?

---

Now we're getting somewhere. I would add that, if ZM hadn't shown immediate improvement in his tendencies in the second Q of the Nev game, I would have put AB in for the third Q and Hinder in for the fourth. Then, ZM for first Q of SUU and, if no fire, AB, then Hinder and play the one who plays better. If JT couldn't see what was coming when every two bit amateur could, then maybe he's got a case of Urban Meyer-itis and needs to take a year off to save his personal health. Now, you have the kid just walking off the field during play. What'll it take now, JT? Will he have to take 3 knees in a row?

freshfunk;841957898 said:

---

I wasn't asking about his entire body of work. I was asking what you would've done differently today to win. If that question offends you then it's time to move on to the next thread or start some meds.

---

More personal attacks.

You've gotten plenty of responses to some of the thing people would do different than Tedford, and like another poster says, you've just ignored them all.

freshfunk;841958120 said:

---

I'm not saying winning against $C is impossible. Of course that's ridiculous.

Like I said before. To me it comes down to two things:
* Your team's talent and playing up to its potential.
* Your opponent's talent and playing up to their potential.

If both teams play to their potential, then the one with greater talent wins (coaches & players).

Upsets happen all the time because teams that have more talent don't play to their potential.

With the way $C was rolling (on offense and defense) where were we not playing to our potential?

Sure our guys may be underdeveloped and that's on the coaches. I won't deny that. But I don't think there was a big difference talent/potential-wise from OSU game last week. I think $C is just WAY better than OSU was and that's why we were able to stay in it against OSU but get utterly dominated by $C.

---

You are seriously undervaluing (really dismissing) the extreme importance of scheme and strategy in football.

Harbaugh didn't just get lucky that the Stanford players and then the Niners players all of a sudden started "playing to their potential" when he showed up. He adopted schemes and strategies that gave him an edge. Same players, much better result.

Kelly's scheme and strategy allowed him to turn a program that consistently recruited worse than ours and put fewer players in the NFL into a National Championship contender.

freshfunk;841957262 said:

---

I don't think we had so much mental gaffes today as we didn't talent differential. Mental is something you can fix. You can't magically make our guys 25% faster/stronger/bigger with the stroke of a wand. There are limits.

---

If this was the case, a Nevada team with a significantly lower talent level than us should have had no chance of beating us at home.

SoCalBear323;841958123 said:

---

Say Crimson, it wouldn't be against your firm's rules to turn one of your clients into a rabid Cal football fan would it? Possibly one that has about $9 mil to bail us out? Just show him DeSean's punt return TD against Tennessee, Bigelow's twirling TD run against Ohio St. and Oski catching that out of bounds pass against $C and see if he budges. C'mon man, you can swing this.

---

SCB,

I wish I had that kind of pull. Here's the other issue. If you are a big time donor (or one of a handful that ponies up the $9 million), wouldn't you want to decide on the next coach (or at least have a lot of input into the decision)?

There is no way Sandy is going to allow that. Take this for what it's worth. It's a contact of a great friend of mine (I know, half step above Boston Market, but I do trust this guy implicitly). From him, JT has done a very good of endearing himself to some big time donors. Sandy, much less so. Further complicate this w/ a new Chancellor as Birg retires and there is a lot of moving parts.

Bottom line, if JT does wind up with a disaster season (very possible at this point), the money will be there to buy him out. However, that money is going to come with strings. Barbour (and her desire to play along) will be a big part of how it all plays out.

I am beyond frustrated at this point. So far, this has been the worst season for me under JT. Going to games has not been very fun. It's more about hanging out with good friends than the product on the field.

Thank god for Buster and the Giants. After watching the crap show at the Coliseum, my friends and I went to a sports bar and watched the Giants clinch yesterday. It was awesome. Hate to say it, but I should have bailed on going to LA and scalped tickets to ATT and watched that celebration. Sigh.

CrimsonBear;841958532 said:

---

SCB,

I wish I had that kind of pull. Here's the other issue. If you are a big time donor (or one of a handful that ponies up the $9 million), wouldn't you want to decide on the next coach (or at least have a lot of input into the decision)?

There is no way Sandy is going to allow that. Take this for what it's worth. It's a contact of a great friend of mine (I know, half step above Boston Market, but I do trust this guy implicitly). From him, JT has done a very good of endearing himself to some big time donors. Sandy, much less so. Further complicate this w/ a new Chancellor as Birg retires and there is a lot of moving parts.

Bottom line, if JT does wind up with a disaster season (very possible at this point), the money will be there to buy him out. However, that money is going to come with strings. Barbour (and her desire to play along) will be a big part of how it all plays out.

I am beyond frustrated at this point. So far, this has been the worst season for me under JT. Going to games has not been very fun. It's more about hanging out with good friends than the product on the field.

Thank god for Buster and the Giants. After watching the crap show at the Coliseum, my friends and I went to a sports bar and watched the Giants clinch yesterday. It was awesome. Hate to say it, but I should have bailed on going to LA and scalped tickets to ATT and watched that celebration. Sigh.

---

Sandy is in a very precarious position. She's going to want to ride it out with Tedford as long as possible so that she doesn't have to live and die with a new hire that might not even be her first choice. Also, it's hard to imagine a chancellor more pro-athletics than Birg has been. It's good to hear that the money to buy out Tedford is there. However, with all these potentially varying interests, who knows what we end up with?

Regardless, this season has all the makings of being the one that did Tedford in. Seeing how many different ways Tedford can lose a game has been the most interesting part of the season. I have never been less excited to attend a Cal game than I was this Saturday. In years past, I've been heckled mercilessly when leaving the coliseum. This year, SC fans were looking at me like they were going to ask me if I needed a hug.

GoldenYears;841958794 said:

---

I don't find that hard to imagine. The facilities upgrades may have happened on his watch, but too many other things that attempt to marginalize sports have happened on his watch as well.

---

Like?..

rjgoode;841957850 said:

---

I think fresh funk was asking what we could have done different SCHEMATICALLY speaking. A very interesting question indeed. Anyone want to chime in on that question ?

I actually think what we were trying to do on offense was not awful. We did have open receivers and created some good situations on O. Just had a QB unable to process the D, make a read, and deliver the ball under severe pressure all night.

And, yes, we ALL agree playing Bigs more would have been a good idea.

---

One of the schematic issues was the constant lining up and then looking over to the sidelines and changing. When you are facing a team with depth issues and your Oline isn't great you run no huddle. We also should have seen some RB screens, 3 step drops, more counters, some quick hitters, as well as moving the pocket around.

The other issue was play calling and personnel choice. You stymie USC with an interception and your first play call is slow developing run with slow smallish RB? :headbang

Play calling is an art and there is a lot of psychology involved as well as being able to maximize your advantages and minimize your disadvantages.

Why not start the first offensive series with a play action boot to the left with a TE Curl, WR Deep Curl and the 2nd WR running a deep post.

GoldenYears;841959547 said:

---

The near cancellation of five sports without prior notice seems an obvious place to start.

---

That would have been a good thing for the football team and the rest of the surviving sports.

SoCalBear323;841959647 said:

---

That would have been a good thing for the football team and the rest of the surviving sports.

---

And why is that?

Goldenyears, I see your point. However, sometimes you gotta make those tough decisions for the financial health of the athletic department, especially after undertaking the massive retrofit and the SAHPC. Cal has more athletic teams than the majority of D1 schools.

We can do much worse than Birg. Imagine a chancellor that thinks like Barsky?

SkyBear;841959727 said:

---

Why does he need to be Div I to make his point about what head coaches are responsible for?

---

Because nobody is allowed to criticize Tedford unless they are Div 1 or higher because clearly they don't know what they talking about ...

RaphaelAglietti;841959284 said:

---

One of the schematic issues was the constant lining up and then looking over to the sidelines and changing. When you are facing a team with depth issues and your Oline isn't great you run no huddle. We also should have seen some RB screens, 3 step drops, more counters, some quick hitters, as well as moving the pocket around.

The other issue was play calling and personnel choice. You stymie USC with an interception and your first play call is slow developing run with slow smallish RB? :headbang

Play calling is an art and there is a lot of psychology involved as well as being able to maximize your advantages and minimize your disadvantages.

Why not start the first offensive series with a play action boot to the left with a TE Curl, WR Deep Curl and the 2nd WR running a deep post.

---

Good post. You take advantage of a fast, aggressive SC team (that has depth issues on a hot day) with misdirection FIRST--not slow developing sweeps that they can gobble up. Get them running in the wrong direction and then have to recover, tire them out. Fake your normal run up the middle to suck in the safties and then throw deep over the middle behind them.