dajo:

I don't read OP that way at all. I think what Wifey is saying is that there are certain challenges that Berkeley faces that make it more difficult to field a perennially successful team than many other places (FWIW, Stanford faces some similar challenges). Fact: we have not had a consistently successful football program since the early 1950's (the '59 Rose Bowl was an aberration as was Snyder's one successful year, and 1975). Tedford cannot be blamed for the 60+ years of futility, can he? The pattern is pretty clear: Snyder had one year of success in 5; Tedford was pretty successful in bringing the program to a competitive level, but has regressed significantly; White managed one very good year (and sanctions), but pretty much every coach since Waldorf has been more unsuccessful than successful. Given that, it is reasonable to conclude that all of the problems aren't the result of having Tedford as coach.

Now, do I suggest keeping JT? Absolutely not. What I do believe is that any attempt to build a truly successful program will need to take into consideration the unique challenges of Cal: a sometimes hostile political climate, a "unique" community that is great for some, not so much for others; financial challenges, etc. Can it be done? I believe so--and I believe that OP has the same view--but it will probably require "thinking outside the box" - as Stanford did with Harbaugh.

UrsaMajor;841959170 said:

---

dajo:

I don't read OP that way at all. I think what Wifey is saying is that there are certain challenges that Berkeley faces that make it more difficult to field a perennially successful team than many other places (FWIW, Stanford faces some similar challenges). Fact: we have not had a consistently successful football program since the early 1950's (the '59 Rose Bowl was an aberration as was Snyder's one successful year, and 1975). Tedford cannot be blamed for the 60+ years of futility, can he? The pattern is pretty clear: Snyder had one year of success in 5; Tedford was pretty successful in bringing the program to a competitive level, but has regressed significantly; White managed one very good year (and sanctions), but pretty much every coach since Waldorf has been more unsuccessful than successful. Given that, it is reasonable to conclude that all of the problems aren't the result of having Tedford as coach.

Now, do I suggest keeping JT? Absolutely not. What I do believe is that any attempt to build a truly successful program will need to take into consideration the unique challenges of Cal: a sometimes hostile political climate, a "unique" community that is great for some, not so much for others; financial challenges, etc. Can it be done? I believe so--and I believe that OP has the same view--but it will probably require "thinking outside the box" - as Stanford did with Harbaugh.

---

Ursa, the OP came across as very defeatist to me. We have a history as you outline. We can either accept that history as our future or we, as alumni, can change it. That's all. It's up to us. And I think the big donors want to change it - that's why they built the fancy new building.

Dajo, perhaps his tone was more defeatist than you or I would be, and it doesn't seem that we don't disagree fundamentally. The only thing I would say to your last point is that while it is up to us to a degree, it is important to recognize the unique difficulties of Cal (not limitations, because I don't believe they are necessarily limiting) and plan accordingly. OP was right in pointing out that the typical SEC coach or NFL retread is not a good fit for us. Doesn't mean that we can't find a coach who will bring us to a level we want, but just that the AD has to think more carefully about who that person might be, and perhaps take some risks in hiring.

wifeisafurd;841959029 said:

---

inside the Athletic Department to most, if not all of this. I really mean this. Sandy hired a lot of new people who come from professional organizations like the the Giants or large programs like TOSU, and who are saying why not change things. But my experience with big public entities like Cal (my primary client is a large public entity), is change is a lot like turning an air craft carrier. It takes time, persistence and a lot of energy. Good post.

---

Bottom line. If Cal + Head Coach = unacceptable performance, than the Head Coach needs to change. Head Coach is the variable in the equation, not Cal. It could be (for sake of argument) that the Cal side of that equation makes unacceptable performance an absolute certainty. But you don't accept unacceptable peformance. You have to keep trying where you can.

But some of you need to understand something. Cal is not going to change appreciably. It was a miracle that we hit a window where we got the facilities upgraded (a window, IMO that is now closed). If you are going to keep looking at Cal football as a sports franchise, you are going to flat out be unhappy. Cal is Cal. It is your school. You root for Cal for different reasons than you root for an NFL team. The funny thing is, you all knew this when we sucked year after year after year. Win a little bit and some of you lose sight of this.

You can go to Cal games, enjoy yourself, be happy about the wins, be down about the losses, and when the performance is not acceptable argue for change. You can do all these things and enjoy being a Cal fan. Frankly, it is so sad to see so many of you so unhappy and so angry to be Cal fans, and also to know that a lot of you will almost always remain so. You can't blame Tedford or even Holmoe for that.

midtownwestbear;841959053 said:

---

This. A million times. In the words of Michael Jordan (the commercial) ... or maybe you're just making excuses.

---

Sandy can't hire Saban or the kinda coach equipped to deal with Alabama's issues (and given their fan base, they have plenty of issues). Just the coach's pay would send the faculty into a frenzy, and unless you know someone who wants to be our Phil Knight, Cal can't afford him. Nor would Cal be attractive to the type of coach that Alabama is looking for. Saban doesn't have time to worry about graduation rates (I don't think the guy sleeps). I keep seeing these analogies that ignore the realities that the AD has to address when she makes her recommendations to the new Chancellor. They are not excuses if there not excuses. You do appreciate that the next Chancellor could be some academic who has never even been to a football game or even care to attend a game.

wifeisafurd;841959305 said:

---

Sandy can't hire Saban or the kinda coach equipped to deal with Alabama's issues (and given their fan base, they have plenty of issues). Just the coach's pay would send the faculty into a frenzy, and unless you know someone who wants to be our Phil Knight, Cal can't afford him. Nor would Cal be attractive to the type of coach that Alabama is looking for. Saban doesn't have time to worry about graduation rates (I don't think the guy sleeps). I keep seeing these analogies that ignore the realities that the AD has to address when she makes her recommendations to the new Chancellor. They are not excuses if there not excuses. You do appreciate that the next Chancellor could be some academic who has never even been to a football game or even care to attend a game.

---

You're just messing with people now, right?
If not ok. First, you know that Sandy does not need to hire "the kinda coach equipped to deal with Alabama's issues..." Why not? Because the Bear job is a country club compared to what Bama has to deal with!!!! Evidence? If Saban had a situation where he did not play a Bigelow he would receive 500 death threats before he went to bed. In addition every radio program, tv station, and newspaper in the state would be up in arms over it. For Tedford he barely is asked about it in ONE press conference and then DOES NOT HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION!!!!!

Second, if JT is so worried about the grad rates, then the Bears must be better than every school in the current top 25, right? Are they? In addition, Tedford then could never bring in high talent/questionable character guys like they do at Florida with guys like Chris Martin!!!! Oh wait....

Anything else?

Shorter wifeisafurd -

"We can't hire Saban so we will always suck"

OaktownBear;841959258 said:

---

Bottom line. If Cal + Head Coach = unacceptable performance, than the Head Coach needs to change. Head Coach is the variable in the equation, not Cal. It could be (for sake of argument) that the Cal side of that equation makes unacceptable performance an absolute certainty. But you don't accept unacceptable peformance. You have to keep trying where you can.

But some of you need to understand something. Cal is not going to change appreciably. It was a miracle that we hit a window where we got the facilities upgraded (a window, IMO that is now closed). If you are going to keep looking at Cal football as a sports franchise, you are going to flat out be unhappy. Cal is Cal. It is your school. You root for Cal for different reasons than you root for an NFL team. The funny thing is, you all knew this when we sucked year after year after year. Win a little bit and some of you lose sight of this.

You can go to Cal games, enjoy yourself, be happy about the wins, be down about the losses, and when the performance is not acceptable argue for change. You can do all these things and enjoy being a Cal fan. Frankly, it is so sad to see so many of you so unhappy and so angry to be Cal fans, and also to know that a lot of you will almost always remain so. You can't blame Tedford or even Holmoe for that.

---

Oakbear is my favorite poster, and there is a lot I agree with for better or worse. A few points:

1) As a preliminary, there are a lot of younger Bear fans who are not used to us sucking. Its been a good ride the last decade.

2) Speaking more big picture about Cal changing, the next Chancellor faces even bigger issues than whether to change the football coach. The academic side presently has an unsustainable economic model, and many on the academic side appear unwilling to compromise their principles to change the existing model. It would take a lot of discussion beyond this post on privatizing professional schools, allowing corporate or business sponsors, cost reforms, moving out unproductive faculty and administrative deadwood, upgrading internal computer systems, internet classes and on and on to even begin to address a sustainable approach that doesn't involve the continuous easy fix of simply raising tuition through the roof. And at some point, there will be major blow-back on tuition increases, and the window to increase tuition will close. Everyone of these reforms means a challenge to some special interest on campus. Maybe with a different mindset, some of the limitations Cal sports faces go away. Maybe we finally get a Chancellor that grows a pair. But im my opinion, any such changes will not come fast or without pain.


Schools like Stanford have had to change, and have changed, and so can Cal, both in terms of the way it handles academics and sports. In fact, the Assistant Chancellor has been able to implement certain reforms with Cal I/A. Cal will never be a sports franchise, but that doesn't mean Cal can't at least follow best practices among its peers. Ultimately (unless the State funding returns), Cal will have to adapt or the quality of the school will diminish.

3) If the head coach's performance is unacceptable (on various criteria including win/loss percentage), there is no doubt in my mind this AD will recommend a new coach after the season is over. She is proactive. But who knows if a new Chancellor will react favorably to any such recommendation?

That looks like a Bocce ball court...along side a putting green. Pretty nice.

dajo9;841959338 said:

---

Shorter wifeisafurd -

"We can't hire Saban so we will always suck"

---

And we don't need to suck, assuming we get the right Chancellor. None of this was my premise. But hiring for the Alabama and Cal jobs are very different, and I think most people here get that. Hanging on to someone who is turning into the new Saban may be an issue if Alabamas or the NFL comes calling, but I would love to have that problem.

wifeisafurd;841959442 said:

---

And we don't need to suck, assuming we get the right Chancellor. None of this was my premise. But hiring for the Alabama and Cal jobs are very different, and I think most people here get that. Hanging on to someone who is turning into the new Saban may be an issue if Alabamas or the NFL comes calling, but I would love to have that problem.

---

I know there are better people than me on deciding who we should hire, I just want to hear that we'll be hiring somebody new next year. We have a lot of talent. I think the bounceback could be tremendous.

wifeisafurd;841958588 said:

---

"...and that presently there are huge institutional and economic barriers to the changes many of you are demanding... just don't get the limits Sandy operates under... Look, the head coach is not going to change until this season is over, no matter what happens on the playing field... go root for SC, Arizona, Udub, etc. They don't have our limitations and issues."

---

89Bear;841959047 said:

---

"So the missing piece is coaching. The AD made the decision to extend the coach with a contract that can't be dealt with now."

---

Wife brings up a couple of very valid points, as always, (and, I believe, unintentionally exaggerates several others), but my biggest problem with his OP is in his characterization of Director Sandy. Currently, the biggest "economic barrier" and "limitation and issue" was caused by AD Sandy [U]herself[/U]. She is not a victim of circumstances; she is the one who caused the most offending circumstance. She is not so much the lone, courageous heroine fighting against mighty institutional giants; she is the institutional party who has burdened the program with that unconscionable long-term contract with no buyout clause. She has little standing to cry, "Woe is me! Woe is me!" Compared to Bob Bockrath and other past Cal ADs, she is a genius and a keeper, but in this instance she has some dirt in her hands.

wifeisafurd;841959339 said:

---

"If the head coach's performance is unacceptable (on various criteria including win/loss percentage), there is no doubt in my mind this AD will recommend a new coach after the season is over. She is proactive."

---

That is a bit circular. If something is "unacceptable," then it is likely to no longer be accepted. The question is what would be so "unacceptable" in her mind to spark her into proaction. I hope I'm mistaken, but I have the strong impression her standard of unacceptability is lower than that of most fans of the program. That is why those who believe a change at the top is necessary after this season see no other recourse than letting her know of our sentiments loudly, often, and during this season so that she does not interpret silence or merely mild murmurings as tacit assent to the status quo.

82gradDLSdad;841959108 said:

---

I really am hoping you say no.

---

It is, that is the Cal basketball court.

BearyWhite;841959044 said:

---

Are you saying that's high or low?

By the most recent numbers, 2% of Cal students gained admission via an exception to the general academic requirements, while 44% of Cal athletes received an exception. I think those numbers are similar to other schools.

---

But our general academic requirements (UC minimums) are higher than those of other schools (other than UCLA). There are the A-G Subject requirements and the 3.0 GPA minimum (in the A-G courses), not to mention the SAT which is scaled.

Here is what USC says about their minimum:

Quote:

---

There is no minimum requirement or absolute "cutoff" for grades, class rank or test scores. USC evaluates prospective students through an individualized, comprehensive review process that takes these, and many other factors, into account. Regardless, we have found that GPA and standardized test scores are powerful predictors of success at USC, so they do play a significant role during our review process.

---

Stanford also has no minimums. So no athlete is considered an "exception" to their admissions process.

I will accept all you say as true. I also will say I appreciate the candor. Then why spend the money on these facilities upgrades? To be mediocre? Or worse? Why tell everybody you want to compete at the highest levels, then put this type of program on the field? Why hold hostage the fans that support this program with forced donations and seat licenses just to watch a football game?

When Cal built the SAHPC and redid CMS and came out with their seating plans and ticket policies they told everyone that Cal was now "big time". Cal wants to act like Northwestern behind closed doors but tell everyone else that this is big boy football and charge outrageous money to attend these games.

Cannot have it both ways. Either you are in it to win it, or you just want to participate. Lets all break out the juice boxes and participation trophies and ribbons and just enjoy the game. No excuses. They built these facilities under the guise they were needed to compete at the "highest levels". So compete at the highest levels or get out. But do not build them, charge "highest level" pricing and then expect everybody to buy this silly argument that "Cal is unique" or "Cal is not for everyone" crap. I can accept mediocre or worse. It has been the state of affairs for most of my adult life. I will still be a fan.

But if you want us to buy mediocrity or worse, then charge like it. Either you are serious about winning or you are not. WIAF you are telling me that Cal is not really serious about winning. That there is a self imposed ceiling. That is very discouraging to hear. if true it will make it really hard to support the program going forward. I really dislike false advertising. What you suggest reeks of this.

If you want to be a big program you have to act like one. No cheating, no academic fraud, but a serious coach and staff with the approriate resources to win. If you will not or cannot provide that at a minimum then go join the Ivy League. But do not ask me to pay big time pricing, if you are not interested in putting forth a product worthy of the investment.

Excellent post, 6956. I especially like the excerpt in bold.

6956bear;841959650 said:

---

I will accept all you say as true. I also will say I appreciate the candor. Then why spend the money on these facilities upgrades? To be mediocre? Or worse? Why tell everybody you want to compete at the highest levels, then put this type of program on the field? Why hold hostage the fans that support this program with forced donations and seat licenses just to watch a football game?

When Cal built the SAHPC and redid CMS and came out with their seating plans and ticket policies they told everyone that Cal was now "big time". Cal wants to act like Northwestern behind closed doors but tell everyone else that this is big boy football and charge outrageous money to attend these games.

Cannot have it both ways. Either you are in it to win it, or you just want to participate. Lets all break out the juice boxes and participation trophies and ribbons and just enjoy the game. No excuses. They built these facilities under the guise they were needed to compete at the "highest levels". So compete at the highest levels or get out. But do not build them, charge "highest level" pricing and then expect everybody to buy this silly argument that "Cal is unique" or "Cal is not for everyone" crap. I can accept mediocre or worse. It has been the state of affairs for most of my adult life. I will still be a fan.

But if you want us to buy mediocrity or worse, then charge like it. Either you are serious about winning or you are not. WIAF you are telling me that Cal is not really serious about winning. That there is a self imposed ceiling. That is very discouraging to hear. if true it will make it really hard to support the program going forward. I really dislike false advertising. What you suggest reeks of this.

If you want to be a big program you have to act like one. No cheating, no academic fraud, but a serious coach and staff with the approriate resources to win. If you will not or cannot provide that at a minimum then go join the Ivy League. But do not ask me to pay big time pricing, if you are not interested in putting forth a product worthy of the investment.

---

Troll deep, troll silent...

The new chancellor is extremely important for our Cal world. Football is a huge potential money maker for UC. Our rival across the bay is proving with investment in good people and strong support staff of football this leads to success and bcs money.
If they can do it we can do it too. But we must allow an AD to do the things necessary. With the money invested in facilities it would be insane to not also invest in the people that produce greatness.
I'd argue it won't take a new leader with anything more than common sense. Cal football can make money for the athletic department, for the city, for the school and be a net positive for the entire Cal community. The infrastructure is in place and not going anywhere, people won't pay to support a program they know is not trying. Holding back will hurt the entire Cal community and is suicide for the athletic department.
Any chancellor that plays that loser card for any department or program at Cal should be fired. UC is about striving for greatness in everything we do. At least it used to.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841959587 said:

---

Wife brings up a couple of very valid points, as always, (and, I believe, unintentionally exaggerates several others), but my biggest problem with his OP is in his characterization of Director Sandy. Currently, the biggest "economic barrier" and "limitation and issue" was caused by AD Sandy [U]herself[/U]. She is not a victim of circumstances; she is the one who caused the most offending circumstance. She is not so much the lone, courageous heroine fighting against mighty institutional giants; she is the institutional party who has burdened the program with that unconscionable long-term contract with no buyout clause. She has little standing to cry, "Woe is me! Woe is me!" Compared to Bob Bockrath and other past Cal ADs, she is a genius and a keeper, but in this instance she has some dirt in her hands.

---

You're thinking about this is all wrong; backwards, even. Let's review:
SAHPC construction costs: $150 million (approx.)
Cal Memorial Seismic Corrections and renovation costs: $321 million (approx.)
Sunk costs of Tedford's contract 2013-2015: $8.4 million (approx. over 3-year period)

The sunk costs of the remaining 3-years of Tedford's contract are about 1.78% of the combined costs of building the SAHPC and renovating Cal Memorial.

Further, if we look at the cost to the program of not building the SAHPC and not renovating Cal Memorial, the sunk costs of Tedford's contract get even smaller. Without Tedford's contributions and his continued tenure since the 2006 season, please tell the board how or if there would have been any window of opportunity to raise funds to build the SAHPC and renovate Cal Memorial.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841959587 said:

---

That is a bit circular. If something is "unacceptable," then it is likely to no longer be accepted. The question is what would be so "unacceptable" in her mind to spark her into proaction. I hope I'm mistaken, but I have the strong impression her standard of unacceptability is lower than that of most fans of the program. That is why those who believe a change at the top is necessary after this season see no other recourse than letting her know of our sentiments loudly, often, and during this season so that she does not interpret silence or merely mild murmurings as tacit assent to the status quo.

---

I think that you have spoken most eloquently and thoughtfully that you do not understand what will drive SB's decision to retain or fire Tedford after this or any other season.

It's all about football revenue. Not wins and losses (although it will be cited by journalists and others as a proximate cause for either action); it's about football revenue. And that includes not only season ticket sales, ad revenue, and merchandise sales, it also includes ESP sales (maybe most importantly, ESP sales).

You can scream all you want and as loudly as you want. The actions that will speak the most loudly and the most eloquently is the sound of wallets slamming shut.

I think starting yet another thread about negativity is baiting even more nagitivity. Like 4 pages worth of it.

Facepalm.

WIAF- it seems to me that point #2 has been in play forever. Cal has always had special interests on campus that must be dealt with. But the parties involved in the facilities projects know this. They found a way to get it done. Now they are faced with the very real possibility that the stadium will have lots of empty seats each game (2012 will be ok, but future seasons may not be) because of apathy among the fans.

In order to fill the stadium for games other than Stanford (and maybe USC or UCLA) the team will need to be good. There are not enough die hard fans to do it. The stadium may be wonderful but that only lasts a short time. Winning will become necessary. The parties involved had to know this. Donations are also tied to winning. The more winning the more donations. Sports/football donations I mean although overall giving generally goes up when the football is good as well.

So what is the plan to change the outlook? Well it appears to me that there is NO plan. Cal now has its facilities upgrades and therefore will win. Afterall it was the only missing piece. The facilities were/are necessary but have always been oversold to the public at large as more important to success than reality. Winning and the prospect of future winning is more important. The coach sells that to the recuits and fanbase in general. Where is JT? Missing in action.

The team is mediocre. The program is falling behind their peers in on field success. The reason is simple. Poor leadership. Poor planning. Yes Cal has some hurdles to overcome internally, but none of that has any hope of happening with the callow leadership in the football program. He pushed hard for the facilities, but the fans are not engaged by JT. They have become a nuisance to him. Same with the media. He simply must be removed. If there is no will (money) to do so, then the program will remain in mediocrity or perhaps worse. While a new coach certainly does not guarantee success, the current one nearly guarantees the staus quo.

If the University along with the athletics department are unwilling to fight the good fight for on field success, then they deserve the apathy that will certainly come. Winning and success must become a priority. If they do success can occur and soon. If they do not and simply give in to the hurdles as to difficult to overcome, then Cal will stay as it is. Same old Cal. Always an excuse.

That is fine. Just do not be surprised when your stadium sits half full for WSU in 2013 because the public wont buy these overpriced tickets and accept the mediocre product being put forth. I know you are not advocating for acceptance, but it seems that you realize that change is unlikely. That I find very disturbing. I cannot fathom undertaking the facilities projects and the cost and then not FULLY supporting the program. It seems as though that is what is happening however. Too bad. So sad. But it really is just so typical. There is a reason so many of our competitors have this little saying. Same old Cal. True. So very true indeed.

FiatSlug;841959893 said:

---

You're thinking about this is all wrong; backwards, even. Let's review:
SAHPC construction costs: $150 million (approx.)
Cal Memorial Seismic Corrections and renovation costs: $321 million (approx.)
Sunk costs of Tedford's contract 2013-2015: $8.4 million (approx. over 3-year period)

The sunk costs of the remaining 3-years of Tedford's contract are about 1.78% of the combined costs of building the SAHPC and renovating Cal Memorial.

Further, if we look at the cost to the program of not building the SAHPC and not renovating Cal Memorial, the sunk costs of Tedford's contract get even smaller. Without Tedford's contributions and his continued tenure since the 2006 season, please tell the board how or if there would have been any window of opportunity to raise funds to build the SAHPC and renovate Cal Memorial.

---

You speak of $8.4 million as if it is a mere pittance and no obstacle for SB. Very odd. Comparative cost analysis where total debt is contrasted to an additional individual cost item (a present payout of a 3-year obligation, plus the costs of a new coaching staff) does not negate the burden of that item; that burden is added to (not subtracted from or ignored b/c of) the total current debt. Perhaps you are used to easily collecting such amounts from private sources, but I doubt she sees it in the same manner as a non-issue. It will be a factor in her decision-making; if the balancing in her mind of other factors is still close enough by the end of the season, it could be the deciding factor for one or more years of retention.

How will bondage to his past and significant contributions improve the future of the program? Enslaving gratitude for what he has done in the past (for which he was handsomely rewarded above market value) to the detriment of the future arguably displays the "backwards" thinking that is so decried.

FiatSlug;841959893 said:

---

I think that you have spoken most eloquently and thoughtfully that you do not understand what will drive SB's decision to retain or fire Tedford after this or any other season.

It's all about football revenue. Not wins and losses (although it will be cited by journalists and others as a proximate cause for either action); it's about football revenue. And that includes not only season ticket sales, ad revenue, and merchandise sales, it also includes ESP sales (maybe most importantly, ESP sales).

You can scream all you want and as loudly as you want. The actions that will speak the most loudly and the most eloquently is the sound of wallets slamming shut.

---

Wallets opened up in the first place because of his great early success in terms of wins and losses. Future ESP sales and other forms of football revenue are greatly dependent on present & future wins & losses. Again, very enigmatic conclusions. Please try again with less groundless condescension and a firmer foundation in logic and facts. I usually expect better thinking coming from you.

calumnus;841959596 said:

---

But our general academic requirements (UC minimums) are higher than those of other schools (other than UCLA). There are the A-G Subject requirements and the 3.0 GPA minimum (in the A-G courses), not to mention the SAT which is scaled.

---

My point was just about the concept of "student-athlete"; when half your athletes don't meet the same academic requirements as the rest of your student body, that term has obviously lost some of its meaning. I don't think we can take much pride in the fact that our athletes don't meet requirements that are stricter than the ones athletes at other schools don't meet.

So if we can't win, at least be righteous?

There is merit in winning the "right" way. But there is zero glory in losing the right way. Is losing the right way better than winning the "wrong" way? Maybe, depending on who you ask and which part of the country you're in. But losing the right way is at best a zero.

And amen to the poster above re if you want to charge like the big boys, play like the big boys and quit making minor league excuses.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841960400 said:

---

You speak of $8.4 million as if it is a mere pittance and no obstacle for SB. Very odd. Comparative cost analysis where total debt is contrasted to an additional individual cost item (a present payout of a 3-year obligation, plus the costs of a new coaching staff) does not negate the burden of that item; that burden is added to (not subtracted from or ignored b/c of) the total current debt.

---

The point is that if Tedford's salary was necessary to keep Tedford around and subsequently ensure the support of major donors to go ahead with building the SAHPC and renovating Cal Memorial, then it is a small amount when compared to the costs of construction.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841960400 said:

---

Perhaps you are used to easily collecting such amounts from private sources, but I doubt she sees it in the same manner as a non-issue. It will be a factor in her decision-making; if the balancing in her mind of other factors is still close enough by the end of the season, it could be the deciding factor for one or more years of retention.

---

I think it's all dependent on how you look at it. I look at the decision in terms of attendance, or more accurately, renewed ESP subscriptions, season tickets, ad revenue, and merchandise sales. In short, football revenue. If football revenue declines beyond a certain point, that will force SB's hand. If football revenues remains steady or improves, then JT will be retained. The question is what amount of revenue decline is tolerable and still allow Tedford's retention.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841960400 said:

---

How will bondage to his past and significant contributions improve the future of the program? Enslaving gratitude for what he has done in the past (for which he was handsomely rewarded above market value) to the detriment of the future arguably displays the "backwards" thinking that is so decried.

---

The future of the program was improved by construction of the SAHPC and the renovations of Cal Memorial. I sense that you disagree.

Further, I don't know that Tedford was rewarded above market value. To start with, in 2007 there were coaches who were compensated quite handsomely and at higher levels than Tedford was. Second, how does one compensate a coach who has made possible construction projects to improve facilities for not only football, but 13 other sports as well as renovation of about 2/3rds of the stadium?

That is the point that most people seem to have forgotten or have overlooked in this ongoing discussion. Without Tedford's contributions, there would have been no opportunity to build the SAHPC and renovate Cal Memorial. It's a game changer for the football program long after JT stops being head coach at Cal.

Why do you think Bruce Snyder left? I think facilities also played a significant factor in Steve Marriucci's leaving in January 1997, not just that Eddie DeBartolo wanted him to be on the 49ers staff.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841960400 said:

---

Wallets opened up in the first place because of his great early success in terms of wins and losses. Future ESP sales and other forms of football revenue are greatly dependent on present & future wins & losses. Again, very enigmatic conclusions. Please try again with less groundless condescension and a firmer foundation in logic and facts. I usually expect better thinking coming from you.

---

We agree on the bolded part.

As for the condescension, I'm sorry that I left that impression. It certainly wasn't my intent. I think my argument has been grounded in facts and logic. I'm just looking at the same facts differently than most on this board.

Tedford will be let go if the wallets slam shut in sufficient numbers. Actually, I think that Tedford is closer to leaving than most on this board think he is.

He hasn't been extended since early 2009, and there are only 3 seasons left on his current contract after this season is completed. The team needs to win 9 games this season for Tedford to get an automatic 1 year extension.

If there is going to be an other kind of extension, it will almost certainly come with strings attached; it will not be on the terms to which earlier extensions were agreed.

I can't recall the exact details, but I believe that SB worked out such an extension with Ben Braun and he was let go under those terms.

p.s. My point is, I will support Cal no matter what. But when we lose or we're stuck in mediocrity, you have to call a spade a spade. Perhaps things were different multiple decades ago, but today, we're losing and we're playing .500 ball at best because we are not a good football team. When we suck, we must acknowledge that we suck instead of hanging our hats on things that don't matter (oh, our academic requirements are a tad higher than other schools', at least we don't "cheat," well look how much better we are using a 10 year average compared to the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s, etc.). And then try to not suck by addressing what is dragging us down.