I have posted after each of the last several games posts dealing with various limitations Cal faces that typically are not part of the equation facing our opponents.

Yesterday I posted about limitations imposed on the game day experience that can be blamed on various sources, and in fact, some issues Cal had tried to fix at times, and had its efforts blunted. This means limitations on program revenues. I had posted previously on economic limitations, budget limitations, institutional limitations, and some limitations we as Cal sports fans prefer (e.g, for some strange reason we want our players to graduate).

My thought process was that at some point, you guys would figure out that Cal isn't for everyone, Cal has many more limitations and can't accept just anyone to represent us in the coaching profession or as athletes, and that presently there are huge institutional and economic barriers to the changes many of you are demanding. We can't start paying our assistants what udub or SC pays. We can't spend the kind of money UCLA does on termination pay for the revolving door in Westwood. Its hard enough to get the same usual suspects to pay for the new stadium and SAHPC. And those top coaches you want to pay millions to will be unacceptable unless the new Chancellor has a major pair. Oh, instead you want a lame duck Chancellor to change the coaching staff yesterday. Right...

It will not be so easy to get a coach that deals with all these limitations (and limitations on program revenues) as well as say Monty, because there are not so many of these guys around. Other than maybe Dave Shaw or arguably OSU's Riley, both of whom are untouchable, I can't think of the guy who knows west coast recruiting and can or wants to deal with all this sh!t a Cal coach has to address (anyone who starts with Gruden, Petrino, and similar guys (why not a good SEC type coach?) just don't get the limits Sandy operates under. Even the UCLA coach doesn't work, because as a long time professional coach, he clearly, in the eyes of this campus, doesn't get the concept of student athletes.

Look, the head coach is not going to change until this season is over, no matter what happens on the playing field. Let the season play out. The AD is freaking competitive, and when the season is over, if she isn't satisfied, and she can find a situation and someone who meets all these limitations, let her act. We may have to wait or maybe JT turns things around. But do appreciate that Cal is different, and as such, the decision process will need to be overly complicated and involve the new Chancellor. We are not the standard BCS school that simply replaces a coach with another big resume, high paid coach Any times things go bad. If you want that, go root for SC, Arizona, Udub, etc. They don't have our limitations and issues.

Wife - thanks for this. Everyone needs to be reminded of this from time to time. We don't want it to be true to this extent (that there are so many more confounding factors, especially this and next year). We want what we want when we want it. We need to deal with the here-and-now, but that ain't easy.

But let's hope Sandy keeps this simple. Start first by getting someone who can coach football really well. There are a lot of guys out there that who are chomping at the bit for a Cal-type job. They may not stay here long, they may have problems keeping assistants, they may not get the 'right' graduation numbers but a well coached team will once again make Cal Football fun to watch. And who knows, all the pieces may come together in one magical year under this guy and we may make it to the Rose Bowl. This isn't as complicated as you make it. Tedford did it for a while, Bruce Snyder did it for a while. It can be done. But if Sandy goes off and tries to hire someone who can handle the limitations she may just overlook the fact that the guy just isn't that good a football coach. We have one of those right now.

I think you've summed up what it's like to be a Cal fan. It's frustrating as all heck, but I wouldn't change it for the world.

Its also worth noting how few ADs we've ever had who managed to *do* anything about any of those limitations. This one did- she got us the facilities we'd been in desperate need of for over 30 years. And she said quite clearly at the stadium launch press conference that that effort had consumed almost all of her department's attention for the last few years, and that she was glad that they'd now be able to focus on other things again. I for one wouldn't have wanted her making a coaching change in the midst of that- finding a new head football coach isn't something you want your AD doing in the interstices of an even bigger project.

And I'm also guardedly hopeful that she's maybe got enough left in the tank to do something about some of the other limitations, too. Customer service at the ATO this year is just miles better than its been any time in my memory, and our PR and marketing are also much improved. Even the in stadium experience is better than the last couple of years- fewer hokey adds and hokey contests, and more Cal band. Seems like she's maybe listening to what the fan base wants- and that's not exactly been a Cal tradition when it comes to the athletic department. So I'm gonna hold tight and see what gets done about things like parking, game day transportation, on campus tailgating, etc. I'm betting it doesn't just get left alone.

...given what I know of your background relative to S&LG, you do give some incredibly rational input to what has to some degree held us back for years. And yes, if we really think about getting the kind of facilities we now have in and of itself is pretty amazing given the economic climate we all live in, especially at the State where the inflow to their coffers is about 2/3 of what it was 4-5 years ago.

I think what is going on up here and there is a post above where someone suggests making some of us pay for what he perceives as negativity so to some degree this board is a reflection of the frustration we all feel. I think we might be more positive if sometime during the last 50 years we had just had one run at greatness so that we could all be sitting back and saying, "Well at least Aaron Rodgers took us to that great Rose Bowl win!" If we had that some of us might be more forgiving of JT as they are up in Corvallis for Riley as he has at least been to a BCS game and won if my mind serves me well.

On the flip side you also mention getting a big name, highly paid coach for Cal and why that wouldn't work and I also agree with you there. But, take a look at Stanford and Harbaugh. Here was a guy from the U of San Diego, a diamond in the rough. Yes, they were never going to keep him, but ahhh the memories he provided will keep those Furdies warm for many winters. So, maybe we can find the hot young coach who will get us our Rose Bowl since it just doesn't seem like JT can, and yes that decision isn't going to happen till the end of the year if at all! So, back again to this board and why it is the way it is...we just are frustrated over not having won a Rose Bowl since 1938, and when I see poor GldnBear71 is gone without HIS Rose Bowl and know I graduated one year later, well you get the idea.

Thanks for the sanity check!

:cheer :gobears: :cheer

I don't buy it wife. This is a good, attractive job. Is it perfect? No. It's not Florida, USC, or Texas, but then again most jobs aren't. There are a lot of very promising coaches that would jump on a cal offer.

wifeisafurd;841958588 said:

---

I have posted after each of the last several games posts dealing with various limitations Cal faces that typically are not part of the equation facing our opponents.

Yesterday I posted about limitations imposed on the game day experience that can be blamed on various sources, and in fact, some issues Cal had tried to fix at times, and had its efforts blunted. This means limitations on program revenues. I had posted previously on economic limitations, budget limitations, institutional limitations, and some limitations we as Cal sports fans prefer (e.g, for some strange reason we want our players to graduate).

My thought process was that at some point, you guys would figure out that Cal isn't for everyone, Cal has many more limitations and can't accept just anyone to represent us in the coaching profession or as athletes, and that presently there are huge institutional and economic barriers to the changes many of you are demanding. We can't start paying our assistants what udub or SC pays. We can't spend the kind of money UCLA does on termination pay for the revolving door in Westwood. Its hard enough to get the same usual suspects to pay for the new stadium and SAHPC. And those top coaches you want to pay millions to will be unacceptable unless the new Chancellor has a major pair. Oh, instead you want a lame duck Chancellor to change the coaching staff yesterday. Right...

It will not be so easy to get a coach that deals with all these limitations (and limitations on program revenues) as well as say Monty, because there are not so many of these guys around. Other than maybe Dave Shaw or arguably OSU's Riley, both of whom are untouchable, I can't think of the guy who knows west coast recruiting and can or wants to deal with all this sh!t a Cal coach has to address (anyone who starts with Gruden, Petrino, and similar guys (why not a good SEC type coach?) just don't get the limits Sandy operates under. Even the UCLA coach doesn't work, because as a long time professional coach, he clearly, in the eyes of this campus, doesn't get the concept of student athletes.

Look, the head coach is not going to change until this season is over, no matter what happens on the playing field. Let the season play out. The AD is freaking competitive, and when the season is over, if she isn't satisfied, and she can find a situation and someone who meets all these limitations, let her act. We may have to wait or maybe JT turns things around. But do appreciate that Cal is different, and as such, the decision process will need to be overly complicated and involve the new Chancellor. We are not the standard BCS school that simply replaces a coach with another big resume, high paid coach Any times things go bad. If you want that, go root for SC, Arizona, Udub, etc. They don't have our limitations and issues.

---

To be completely fair, we are not the standard BCS school also in that our head coach gets paid ~$2.5 million.

And I'm not really sure we are in a position to claim the "our student-athletes are real student-athletes" line more so than any other Pac-12 school. Sure, our classes may be slightly more difficult to pass by some non-quantifiable measure compared to another school ....but American Studies is American Studies.

HaasBear04;841958781 said:

---

I don't buy it wife. This is a good, attractive job. Is it perfect? No. It's not Florida, USC, or Texas, but then again most jobs aren't. There are a lot of very promising coaches that would jump on a cal offer.

---

But,

1) Many big name coaches won't consider the job because of the atmosphere/limitations; and

2) Cal's view of the world significantly limits the pool of eligible candidates, and I suspect any move at the end of this season would require going out on a limb and hiring a less experienced (and inexpensive) coach (and staff) like when Harbaugh was hired by Furd.

You then have JT's supporters (including many large donors) wondering what Sandy was thinking. Harbaugh took several years to turn the Furd program around, and he is a difficult personality. Bowlsby took less grief since Harbaugh was following Walt Harris and Buddy Tevens, not the coach with most wins in the program's history.

Even a negabear being in Sandy's shoes would have to think long and hard about giving JT another year ( I say this assuming the team wins more games - all bets off if the only victory is So. Utah and say WSU).

BTW, there are a lot of Bears who like all the limitations that exist. They say its what Cal and Berkeley are about. I am not trying to make value judgements as much as discuss the issues/challenges that exist out there.

The salary issue is an interesting one, and cuts both ways in my mind. And probably deserves a separate discussion.

Finally, while I understand the frustration (believe me, we all do), let me suggest the rhetoric should be dialed down some until the season is over.

wifeisafurd;841958834 said:

---

But,

1) Many big name coaches won't consider the job because of the atmosphere/limitations; and

2) Cal's view of the world significantly limits the pool of eligible candidates, and I suspect any move at the end of this season would require going out on a limb and hiring a less experienced (and inexpensive) coach (and staff) like when Harbaugh was hired by Furd.

You then have JT's supporters (including many large donors) wondering what Sandy was thinking. Harbaugh took several years to turn the Furd program around, and he is a difficult personality. Bowlsby took less grief since Harbaugh was following Walt Harris and Buddy Tevens, not the coach with most wins in the program's history.

Even a negabear being in Sandy's shoes would have to think long and hard about giving JT another year ( I say this assuming the team wins more games - all bets off if the only victory is So. Utah and say WSU).

BTW, there are a lot of Bears who like all the limitations that exist. They say its what Cal and Berkeley are about. I am not trying to make value judgements as much as discuss the issues/challenges that exist out there.

The salary issue is an interesting one, and cuts both ways in my mind. And probably deserves a separate discussion.

Finally, while I understand the frustration (believe me, we all do), let me suggest the rhetoric should be dialed down some until the season is over.

---

Don't mean to be insensitive, but this sentiment is just sad. It's like a domestic violence victim thinking she deserved the beating and deciding to stick it out because she can't find someone better.

I always enjoy your posts--reasonable, thoughtful, and informative.

I agree with just about all you say. Sandy knows she's in a very difficult place; she has been committed to a competitive football program from the beginning, but now with the SAHPC and stadium, it has moved from a "commitment" to an outright necessity. This is why I bristle at thoughtless posters who write that the AD "doesn't care" about football, or is "satisfied" with a .500 team, or "only cares about Olympic sports." At the same time, both Tedford's contract and the limitations that Cal presents make it difficult for her to act with impunity. Not only are we/is she hampered by actual financial considerations, but the politics of Cal are different from just about anywhere else--including UCLA. We consider Barsky, et al., to be a misinformed annoyance, but others on campus--including a large segment of the student body (whose tuition keeps increasing)--listen to him and his ilk. Even if one or more "sugar daddies" could be found to pay JT's buyout, it would have to be handled very delicately, because the niceties of just where the money came from escapes the anti-athletic crowd. OTOH, IA must reduce the overall support from the university from $8 million this year to less than $5 million by 2014, and further in subsequent years. Thus, if football revenue (including ESP's) declines, something must be done.

I agree with those who suggest that the route that Stanfurd took: a dynamic but unproven young coach is the way to go. There are clearly 3 tiers among BCS schools in terms of coaching salaries. There are the OSU's, LSU's, UT's who are willing to pay $5 million+ for a name head coach as well as high salaries for top-level assistants. We are not in that group, shouldn't be in that group, and will never be in that group. There is also a small lowest tier group--schools that are BCS in name only: the Indiana's, Rice's, Duke's that are never going to compete. We are in the middle group--schools that are trying to compete with the big boys, but are going to be at a financial disadvantage. Cal is never going to eliminate the Computer Science Dept. in order to increase the football budget (although dumping Barsky makes this an attractive idea). Thus, the success of our football program is going to require considerable creativity and not an insignificant amount of luck. We did well in hiring Tedford in 2002--he was an up-and-coming young coach who was able to bring a team that could go toe-to-toe with the big boys for a time. Hopefully we can luck out next time as well.

A short note. I don't agree with the idea behind the comment "American Studies is American Studies." Actually, that is a seriously academic major including history, literature, poli sci, and economics. I know a number of academicians in major universities whose undergraduate degrees were in American Studies. In fact, while there are some less rigorous degrees that athletes take, we don't offer "golf management," "sports management," or "mass communication," like the ASU's of the world.

This year is going to end on a positive note, but in the meantime, less freaking out means less action on here. That's the internet for ya.

...or maybe JT turns things around.

Lost me here.

UrsaMajor;841958866 said:

---

I always enjoy your posts--reasonable, thoughtful, and informative.

I agree with just about all you say. Sandy knows she's in a very difficult place; she has been committed to a competitive football program from the beginning, but now with the SAHPC and stadium, it has moved from a "commitment" to an outright necessity. This is why I bristle at thoughtless posters who write that the AD "doesn't care" about football, or is "satisfied" with a .500 team, or "only cares about Olympic sports." At the same time, both Tedford's contract and the limitations that Cal presents make it difficult for her to act with impunity. Not only are we/is she hampered by actual financial considerations, but the politics of Cal are different from just about anywhere else--including UCLA. We consider Barsky, et al., to be a misinformed annoyance, but others on campus--including a large segment of the student body (whose tuition keeps increasing)--listen to him and his ilk. Even if one or more "sugar daddies" could be found to pay JT's buyout, it would have to be handled very delicately, because the niceties of just where the money came from escapes the anti-athletic crowd. OTOH, IA must reduce the overall support from the university from $8 million this year to less than $5 million by 2014, and further in subsequent years. Thus, if football revenue (including ESP's) declines, something must be done.

I agree with those who suggest that the route that Stanfurd took: a dynamic but unproven young coach is the way to go. There are clearly 3 tiers among BCS schools in terms of coaching salaries. There are the OSU's, LSU's, UT's who are willing to pay $5 million+ for a name head coach as well as high salaries for top-level assistants. We are not in that group, shouldn't be in that group, and will never be in that group. There is also a small lowest tier group--schools that are BCS in name only: the Indiana's, Rice's, Duke's that are never going to compete. We are in the middle group--schools that are trying to compete with the big boys, but are going to be at a financial disadvantage. Cal is never going to eliminate the Computer Science Dept. in order to increase the football budget (although dumping Barsky makes this an attractive idea). Thus, the success of our football program is going to require considerable creativity and not an insignificant amount of luck. We did well in hiring Tedford in 2002--he was an up-and-coming young coach who was able to bring a team that could go toe-to-toe with the big boys for a time. Hopefully we can luck out next time as well.

A short note. I don't agree with the idea behind the comment "American Studies is American Studies." Actually, that is a seriously academic major including history, literature, poli sci, and economics. I know a number of academicians in major universities whose undergraduate degrees were in American Studies. In fact, while there are some less rigorous degrees that athletes take, we don't offer "golf management," "sports management," or "mass communication," like the ASU's of the world.

---

http://catalog.berkeley.edu/undergrad/majors.html

We don't have mass communications because they renamed it to Media Studies. I'd say some of these classes are not rigorious at all:

Conservation and Resource Studies, B.S.

Ethnic Studies, B.A.
Forestry and Natural Resources, B.S.
Gender and Women's Studies, B.A.
Native American Studies, B.A.
Social Welfare, B.A.

Society and Environment, B.A.
Theater and Performance Studies, B.A.

SmellinRoses;841958874 said:

---

...or maybe JT turns things around.

Lost me here.

---

I predicted a five victory season after the first game, and got grief for being a pessimist. Now I am getting grief the other way. I have witnessed seasons where teams somehow turn it around (sometimes without coaching, a la UCLA basketball's run to the title, when the entire team just ignored Harrick), or just fall apart after a bad start. I am still standing by my predication, but I have no idea what will happen. There are a lot of problems that need fixing. FWIW, I think next year Cal has the potential to be very good next year. I can see the oline getting a lot bigger, a potential star QB, Bigs and Laslo as a great running tandem, good, young WRs, and maybe even healthy TEs. And the front 7 on defense, with the PSU transfer, could be outstanding. If JT is around, he has a talented team to work with.

No one likes losing so quit your whining, tape 'em back on and fly straight and leave everyone else alone that doesn't want to hear it.

wifeisafurd;841958901 said:

---

I predicted a five victory season after the first game, and got grief for being a pessimist. Now I am getting grief the other way. I have witnessed seasons where teams somehow turn it around (sometimes without coaching, a la UCLA basketball's run to the title, when the entire team just ignored Harrick), or just fall apart after a bad start. I am still standing by my predication, but I have no idea what will happen. There are a lot of problems that need fixing. FWIW, I think next year Cal has the potential to be very good. I can see the oline getting a lot bigger, a potential star QB, Bigs and Laslo as a great running tandem, good, young WRs, and maybe even healthy TEs. And the front 7 on defense, with the PSU transfer, could be outstanding. If JT is around, he has a talented team to work with.

---

Forget the naysayers wiaf...I pretty much agree with almost all your posts here...they are usually thoughtful and precise. I figured 6 wins earlier this year but I don't see how we will go bowling now unless something dramatically changes...

Your first point is that it would be difficult to get rid of Tedford. Hard to argue with that. You second point is that the job is not attractive. I don't agree. In addition to the many obvious good things at Cal, including competitive if not top pay, is that it must be the least stressful job in a major conference. It is difficult to imagine Tedford's lack of even semi-recent success along with his reason-defying decisions being met with such indifference anywhere else. The press is soft and the fans have low expectations and are naive. Cal is the place where people think you can turn things around in year 11.

Sluggo

wifeisafurd;841958901 said:

---

I predicted a five victory season after the first game, and got grief for being a pessimist. Now I am getting grief the other way. I have witnessed seasons where teams somehow turn it around (sometimes without coaching, a la UCLA basketball's run to the title, when the entire team just ignored Harrick), or just fall apart after a bad start. I am still standing by my predication, but I have no idea what will happen. There are a lot of problems that need fixing. FWIW, I think next year Cal has the potential to be very good next year. I can see the oline getting a lot bigger, a potential star QB, Bigs and Laslo as a great running tandem, good, young WRs, and maybe even healthy TEs. And the front 7 on defense, with the PSU transfer, could be outstanding. If JT is around, he has a talented team to work with.

---

Hey- I got through most of your post!...Could have used Fortt Saturday- he is an important component at this point.

UrsaMajor;841958866 said:

---

A short note. I don't agree with the idea behind the comment "American Studies is American Studies." Actually, that is a seriously academic major including history, literature, poli sci, and economics. I know a number of academicians in major universities whose undergraduate degrees were in American Studies. In fact, while there are some less rigorous degrees that athletes take, we don't offer "golf management," "sports management," or "mass communication," like the ASU's of the world.

---

Those who dismiss American Studies (Amy and UCLA fans make a big deal of it) do not understand what it is. It is a multidisciplinary major. The course work is from Cal's world renowned Econ, Poly Sci and History Departments. The same classes taken by Econ, Poly Sci and History majors with the same work load and grading standards. The reason athletes major in it, is not because it is easy, but because the wider availability of classes from multiple departments allows them to schedule around football practice, team meetings and travel (including for Friday games--Thursday night games in basketball) and still maintain progress towards a degree.

In most of these cases, you are wrong:
CNS is a science major that melds economics, geology, biology, etc. A friend of mine teaches in CNS and is doing research on plant genetics that I guarantee you wouldn't understand.

Society and Environment is also an interdisciplinary major that involves both science (physics, oceanography, biology) and sociology, economics, poli sci. Just because it is titled by content rather than discipline doesn't mean that it's light.

Theater and performance is for artists, musicians, actors, directors, etc. Similar to the Yale Drama Program, or the NYU School of Performing Arts. Very demanding and rigorous, even if not classically "academic."

Forestry and natural resources is a science major.

Social Welfare can be relatively easy, but it is a pre-professional degree program.

I tend to agree about some of the ethnic studies programs, however.

sluggo_Cal;841958909 said:

---

Your first point is that it would be difficult to get rid of Tedford. Hard to argue with that. You second point is that the job is not attractive. I don't agree. In addition to the many obvious good things at Cal, including competitive if not top pay, is that it must be the least stressful job in a major conference. It is difficult to imagine Tedford's lack of even semi-recent success along with his reason-defying decisions being met with such indifference anywhere else. The press is soft and the fans have low expectations and are naive. Cal is the place where people think you can turn things around in year 11.

Sluggo

---

Job maybe unattractive to big name coaches that people here keep mentioning, who have other options. Also, we probably can't pay those coaches what they want for themselves and their staffs. I think someone like a young Harbaugh would jump at the job, despite the limitations.

WIAF,

Appreciate your sentiments, but I wondr if part of the culture needs to be changed and part of that change is the reponsibility of the AD, Chancellor and Head Coach (to a very minimal extent). Cal has some challenges but every school has challenges to varying degrees. Cal is letting in kids with FB scholarships that would not get into Cal on their own merit. Now I don't have an issue with that per se as FB scholarships encompass such small portion of the student numbers that's it's close to insignifcant.

I think people have to expect and push for change in the way things are done and not just accept things ebcuase that the way they are. I'm not suggesting Cal needs to become a football factory by any stretch, but I do think Cal is certainly capable of being Top 25 Football program. The facilities were one of the biggest issues holding Cal back.

Cal in a very dangerous place with loads of money having been spent to get the training facilities built and the stadium upgraded yet not performing on the field. Especially when money is needed from the PSLs or what ever you want to call them.

I think Cal AD chancellor need to understand that college football is billion dollar enterprise and it needs to be treated as such. That means making the Cal experience go off like a professional experience. Having greater outreach in the surrounding communities. Cal can't rest on its laurels it needs to be chasing down business and getting corporate sponship from the big spenders.

Synergy ... synergy.

Cal stadium app if doesn't already exist, get apple down to the campus on game days. Bring out big tents for exhibition items on game days.

It goes back to making the game more of an event than a game.

That's why the SF Giants are selling out every game when other winning teams don't. It's an experience beyond just the game.

I'm sure for some it is an experience but I don't get that feeling at a Cal game as I do when I see the Giants.

calumnus;841958915 said:

---

Those who dismiss American Studies (Amy and UCLA fans make a big deal of it) do not understand what it is. It is a multidisciplinary major. The course work is from Cal's world renowned Econ, Poly Sci and History Departments. The same classes taken by Econ, Poly Sci and History majors with the same work load and grading standards. The reason athletes major in it, is not because it is easy, but because the wider availability of classes from multiple departments allows them to schedule around football practice, team meetings and travel (including for Friday games--Thursday night games in basketball) and still maintain progress towards a degree.

---

Sure I took classes from all three departments myself. And I most definitely feel for athletes who suffer from scheduling difficulties. I didn't mean to insult anyone who majored in American Studies, or is an American Studies scholar (someone who has a B.A. in American Studies and someone who has a PhD in American Studies can hardly be said to have studied the same thing), so I apologize if I have. I really do.

But if you're telling me passing a Econ or Poly Sci course (likely one of the easier ones; and sure as hell not Econometrics) at Cal is substantially harder to pass a similar liberal arts course at some other Pac-12 school, it just sounds like excuses. Sure, we can tout our university all we want, but I'd reserve that for people who actually go to Cal for the academics outside the football context and bust their tails for academics in any major, from American Studies to EECS.

RaphaelAglietti;841959009 said:

---

WIAF,

Appreciate your sentiments, but I wondr if part of the culture needs to be changed and part of that change is the reponsibility of the AD, Chancellor and Head Coach (to a very minimal extent). Cal has some challenges but every school has challenges to varying degrees. Cal is letting in kids with FB scholarships that would not get into Cal on their own merit. Now I don't have an issue with that per se as FB scholarships encompass such small portion of the student numbers that's it's close to insignifcant.

I think people have to expect and push for change in the way things are done and not just accept things ebcuase that the way they are. I'm not suggesting Cal needs to become a football factory by any stretch, but I do think Cal is certainly capable of being Top 25 Football program. The facilities were one of the biggest issues holding Cal back.

Cal in a very dangerous place with loads of money having been spent to get the training facilities built and the stadium upgraded yet not performing on the field. Especially when money is needed from the PSLs or what ever you want to call them.

I think Cal AD chancellor need to understand that college football is billion dollar enterprise and it needs to be treated as such. That means making the Cal experience go off like a professional experience. Having greater outreach in the surrounding communities. Cal can't rest on its laurels it needs to be chasing down business and getting corporate sponship from the big spenders.

Synergy ... synergy.

Cal stadium app if doesn't already exist, get apple down to the campus on game days. Bring out big tents for exhibition items on game days.

It goes back to making the game more of an event than a game.

That's why the SF Giants are selling out every game when other winning teams don't. It's an experience beyond just the game.

I'm sure for some it is an experience but I don't get that feeling at a Cal game as I do when I see the Giants.

---

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.

midtownwestbear;841958788 said:

---

To be completely fair, we are not the standard BCS school also in that our head coach gets paid ~$2.5 million.

---

Are you saying that's high or low?

midtownwestbear;841958788 said:

---

And I'm not really sure we are in a position to claim the "our student-athletes are real student-athletes" line more so than any other Pac-12 school. Sure, our classes may be slightly more difficult to pass by some non-quantifiable measure compared to another school ....but American Studies is American Studies.

---

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.

I'm not sure I fully get the points of the OP. One major piece of information that goes against this "poor us" point of view is the fact that the Bears have now churned out over 30 NFL players in the last several years. That seems to indicate that the talent necessary to achieve success is coming into the program.

I don't believe for a second that the players can't succeed once on campus because their academic load is so much heavier than it is at other schools.

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.

"Coach has to get Berkeley and its ways." BS. Every job in the country has its unique challenges. You think the Alabama job is easy? There are 50 things that coach has to deal with that Tedford does not.

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.

---

1. I'm saying that's high, especially considering our record post-extension.

2. Yep. Thanks for providing facts. I find it aggravating when UCLA fans point to some academic barrier their program has to overcome, and it pains me when Cal fans do the same. Counting pennies.

89Bear;841959047 said:

---

"Coach has to get Berkeley and its ways." BS. Every job in the country has its unique challenges. You think the Alabama job is easy? There are 50 things that coach has to deal with that Tedford does not.

---

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

89Bear;841959047 said:

---

"Coach has to get Berkeley and its ways." BS. Every job in the country has its unique challenges.

---

Life, Berkeley-style! Note the solar panels!

89Bear;841959047 said:

---

You think the Alabama job is easy? There are 50 things that coach has to deal with that Tedford does not.

---

Alabama's nothing -- what about the Arkansas job? You think it's easy covering up a motorcycle wreck with your mistress-slash-employee?

I really am hoping you say no.

82gradDLSdad;841959108 said:

---

I really am hoping you say no.

---

That is JT's house...notice the Cal script on the BB court?.....

82gradDLSdad;841959108 said:

---

I really am hoping you say no.

---

yup.. recently put it up for sale

joshbalt;841958973 said:

---

wife is absolutely correct that there is a segment of coaches who would dismiss Cal out of hand. This doesn't mean the job is unattractive, just that it only fits a certain segment of candidates.

While Harbaugh was obviously very successful I don't think we reach down to FCS schools for a head coach, its either a BCS assistant like Tedford was at Oregon or a head coach from a non-BCS conference.

---

There are probably five to ten coaches who are so hot (Meyer,Saban, etc.) who need to everything to be perfect. But that is hardly limiting. My main point was that getting rid of Tedford would be much, much more difficult than finding a reasonable replacement.

Sluggo

The OP is a classic case of the argument that, "at Cal we lose the right way". Baloney. As alumni we get the football team we demand. That includes our communication to the AD and chancellor and it includes our willingness to open our pocketbooks.

The other problem with the OP is that it suggests our big donors are some of the biggest fools around. It suggests they put millions of dollars into a first-rate facilities project for something they believe will always be second rate (football results-wise) due to special Berkeley limitations. Baloney again. Why would any sensible big-time donor do that? They wouldn't. They donated the money because they want to see us have a first-rate football program and they believe we can. A football team that the weight room can be proud of. And these donors who invested millions to build a first-rate football program are completely aware of any mystical Berkeley "limitations".

Keep the heat on Bears fans. Sticking with Tedford is embarrassing to the university and it is up to us to change the situation.