By now, it is clear that the vast majority of Cal fans want JT gone (preferably yesterday). On the other hand, his no-buyout contract is a huge impediment. Railing at Sandy Barbour for not "pulling the trigger" is pointless, because as I have posted before, this must be a strictly business decision. The athletic department must increase revenue and cut spending to reduce the campus contribution to $5 million by 2014 (it is currently between 8-10). Incurring a large salary hit for the football coach won't accomplish that. Thus, the argument for firing Tedford now is that the cost in lost ticket revenue and ESP seats will be greater than the cost of his contract. The problem here is that it is essentially betting on the come; without hard data (poor attendance, cancelled ESP pledges) it is hard to make that case convincingly. Because this is the first year back in CMS, the attendance may be somewhat inflated as well.
Obviously, contributions from donors will be needed to make up the cost of Tedford's salary as well as the salary of a new coach (and assistants). While some important Cal supporters are disgusted with Tedford, they may or may not be willing to make 7 figure contributions here. Remember, there are a plethora of needs the campus has--including especially undergraduate scholarships--and I would never fault a donor for choosing academics over athletics. We make what I consider a generous contribution to IA every year, but any additional donations go to specific academic needs, not football. Does this make me a "bad fan?" I hope that there are donors willing to step up, but I would never criticize anyone for how they choose to donate their own money.
I also believe that the criticism of Sandy for supporting Olympic sports is misplaced. The same posters who were furious when the announcement was made that baseball, rugby, etc. were to be cancelled are now complaining that not enough resources go into football. Let's face it: we are between a rock and a hard place, and as important as replacing Tedford is, it may be next to impossible in the short term. In that last statement, I hope I am wrong.
Obviously, contributions from donors will be needed to make up the cost of Tedford's salary as well as the salary of a new coach (and assistants). While some important Cal supporters are disgusted with Tedford, they may or may not be willing to make 7 figure contributions here. Remember, there are a plethora of needs the campus has--including especially undergraduate scholarships--and I would never fault a donor for choosing academics over athletics. We make what I consider a generous contribution to IA every year, but any additional donations go to specific academic needs, not football. Does this make me a "bad fan?" I hope that there are donors willing to step up, but I would never criticize anyone for how they choose to donate their own money.
I also believe that the criticism of Sandy for supporting Olympic sports is misplaced. The same posters who were furious when the announcement was made that baseball, rugby, etc. were to be cancelled are now complaining that not enough resources go into football. Let's face it: we are between a rock and a hard place, and as important as replacing Tedford is, it may be next to impossible in the short term. In that last statement, I hope I am wrong.