I realize that few (if any) people would classify themselves as "Tedford apologists." But there are certainly some on this board who drift considerably in that direction, albeit with caveats.

Some want to give him another full year. Others want to let him play out his contract. Some have expressed that they want to see if he can get us to 5 or 6 wins this year. Some feel that we owe him something for his years of dedicated service. Others feel that the financial hit of the buyout is too much, so we should delay any decision for at least a little while.

If you fall within or somewhat near any of these categories, please answer the following questions:

Is the goal of Cal football to make and win the Rose Bowl?

Does Tedford give us the best shot at making the Rose Bowl?

In order to make the Rose Bowl, we most likely will have to beat USC at least once (probably twice) . . . can we do this with Tedford as our coach?

Considering that Tedford has had 11 years and makes more in one year than many of us will make in a lifetime, what are realistic expectations at an elite university in a beautiful area with world-class facilities and a roster loaded with talent? 4 wins? 5 wins? 6 wins? 7 wins? 8 wins?

There are none left. Give it up Bro....

liverflukes;841967745 said:

---

There are none left. Give it up Bro....

---

Clearly you haven't read some of these threads. There are a number of people who fit within or near the categories I described. I am just trying to understand their "big picture" thinking here.

I really don't care who our coach is . . . so long as he gets us to a Rose Bowl.

Other people seem to have lower standards. I would just like to pin down those standards so I can understand them better.

The Duke!;841967744 said:

---

I realize that few (if any) people would classify themselves as "Tedford apologists."
Considering that Tedford has had 11 years and makes more in one year than many of us will make in a lifetime, what are realistic expectations at an elite university in a beautiful area with world-class facilities and a roster loaded with talent? 4 wins? 5 wins? 6 wins? 7 wins? 8 wins?

---

Are you or have you ever been a member a member of the Tedford Apologist Party? (TAP)

No Comment

Would you be willing to name names of former TAPSTERS or those on this board whose statements may have indicated

1) subliminal support 2) comments that suggest any leanings toward words like "integrity" "right way" "person of character," well known FRONTS for Tedford Apologists?

No Comment

Did you know, Mr. Chairman, that this Board is full of secret TEDFORD APOLOGISTS who will often cover their nefarious leanings with statements like "needs to improve" other muted criticism?

I take the Fifth, your honor.

No wonder our football team is in such trouble!

Funny.

I never claimed the board is "full" of Tedford apologists. But there are several people who think that he needs more time, we owe him another year, it's too expensive to let him go, etc., etc.

I just want to know what they think of the program "big picture" wise. Is the goal to be a respectful 7-5 or 8-4 team with the occasional humiliating season every now and then (2007, 2010, 2012)?

Or is the goal to get to the Rose Bowl?

Bearacious;841967766 said:

---

Are you or have you ever been a member a member of the Tedford Apologist Party? (TAP)

No Comment

Would you be willing to name names of former TAPSTERS or those on this board whose statements may have indicated

1) subliminal support 2) comments that suggest any leanings toward words like "integrity" "right way" "person of character," well known FRONTS for Tedford Apologists?

No Comment

Did you know, Mr. Chairman, that this Board is full of secret TEDFORD APOLOGISTS who will often cover their nefarious leanings with statements like "needs to improve" other muted criticism?

I take the Fifth, your honor.

No wonder our football team is in such trouble!

---

The goal is to employ Jeff Tedford. Obviously.

The only apologists who really matter are Sandy and the Chancellor and I would guess their goals are substantially less grandiose than those of the average poster on this board. I seriously doubt national or conference titles are a requirement. Our administration doesn't aspire to be Alabama, or even tOSU or Michigan. Probably 8 wins/bowl game most years would guarantee lifetime employment so long as we don't regularly lose to LSJU and occasionally beat a conference leader.

59bear;841967779 said:

---

The only apologists who really matter are Sandy and the Chancellor and I would guess their goals are substantially less grandiose than those of the average poster on this board. I seriously doubt national or conference titles are a requirement. Our administration doesn't aspire to be Alabama, or even tOSU or Michigan. Probably 8 wins/bowl game most years would guarantee lifetime employment so long as we don't regularly lose to LSJU and occasionally beat a conference leader.

---

:tedford

59bear;841967779 said:

---

The only apologists who really matter are Sandy and the Chancellor and I would guess their goals are substantially less grandiose than those of the average poster on this board. I seriously doubt national or conference titles are a requirement. Our administration doesn't aspire to be Alabama, or even tOSU or Michigan. Probably 8 wins/bowl game most years would guarantee lifetime employment so long as we don't regularly lose to LSJU and occasionally beat a conference leader.

---

I would agree with you 100% 8 years ago. But two things give me reason to think this either is no longer the case or will soon no longer be the case:

1) We took on a massive amount of debt to finance the new stadium and the SAHPC. This requires that we fill the house and ESP sections. 8 wins will probably not get us there.

2) The Chancellor and AD have both been very clear that financial self-sufficiency is the goal of the Athletics Department. This can only be accomplished through substantially increased football revenues. And 8 wins will [U]certainly[/U] not get us there.

For these two reasons, I think there is a fair assumption that Sandy has legitimate pressure to strive for excellence (as opposed to mediocrity) in football.

"talk to the mansion bitch"..........

Since I've started a couple Hate-Bait threads, I suppose I should take the Luv-Bait here.

I'm still an "apologist." There's been a huge overreaction by fans to a string of losses, and mob psychology has taken over, especially on this board.

The players are skilled and knowledgable, thanks to excellent coaching. It's a fast paced game and all players make mistakes. The teams we play are talented too. Football is a strategic guessing game. In their rush to rationalize their anger at losing, "fake fans" are jumping on any mistakes or bad decisions by players and coaches and ignoring the good plays and good decisions.


As for the question on the purpose for Cal football?

The athletic department sees football as their cash cow. It pays their salaries and gives them the power they crave.

The university sees the potential for the football program to be a big revenue source, but it's also a big potential revenue drain. It's a gamble and we've raised the stakes with the stadium renovation.

Many students see it as entertainment, enhancing the college experience. Most students are too busy and focused on their studies, jobs and hobbies to really care.

Alumni see how it unites us and keeps us connected to Cal.

To different degrees, we all have different values and priorities for the program:
Entertain the fans
Win games
Make us proud
Make money for the school
Set a good example for youth
Help our athletes become upstanding citizens
...etc.

But on Saturdays (hopefully) we're all united in rooting for the team to beat whichever team we're playing against.

The Duke!;841967767 said:

---

Funny.

I never claimed the board is "full" of Tedford apologists. But there are several people who think that he needs more time, we owe him another year, it's too expensive to let him go, etc., etc.

I just want to know what they think of the program "big picture" wise. Is the goal to be a respectful 7-5 or 8-4 team with the occasional humiliating season every now and then (2007, 2010, 2012)?

Or is the goal to get to the Rose Bowl?

---

...for the unintended "goal" this year is to be the door mat for the league.

The only one "rationalizing" here is you. Stop patting yourself on the back for your sanctimonious defense of the indefensible.

What is the goal of Cal Football?

Win all the games.
National Championship.
Every year.

You don't expect less do you?

R90;841967816 said:

---

Since I've started a couple Hate-Bait threads, I suppose I should take the Luv-Bait here.

I'm still an "apologist." There's been a huge overreaction by fans to a string of losses, and mob psychology has taken over, especially on this board.

The players are skilled and knowledgable, thanks to excellent coaching. It's a fast paced game and all players make mistakes. The teams we play are talented too. Football is a strategic guessing game. In their rush to rationalize their anger at losing, "fake fans" are jumping on any mistakes or bad decisions by players and coaches and ignoring the good plays and good decisions.


As for the question on the purpose for Cal football?

The athletic department sees football as their cash cow. It pays their salaries and gives them the power they crave.

The university sees the potential for the football program to be a big revenue source, but it's also a big potential revenue drain. It's a gamble and we've raised the stakes with the stadium renovation.

Many students see it as entertainment, enhancing the college experience. Most students are too busy and focused on their studies, jobs and hobbies to really care.

Alumni see how it unites us and keeps us connected to Cal.

To different degrees, we all have different values and priorities for the program:
Entertain the fans
Win games
Make us proud
Make money for the school
Set a good example for youth
Help our athletes become upstanding citizens
...etc.

But on Saturdays (hopefully) we're all united in rooting for the team to beat whichever team we're playing against.

---

Pretty well worded. The OP is obviously way biased when every question has "Rose Bowl" in it.

I will answer that question. I don't know if it is MY goal but I am convinced, completely, it is the goal of multiple administrations

WIN WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE FACT UCB IS THE WORLDS #1 RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

So what does that mean.....

A) The university exists, first and foremost, to conduct research. I hate to break it to those that hold a BA/BS from UCB but you are a necessary evil. The majority of faculty are pleased as punch if they can figure out a way to only teach grad courses.

B) One of the constraints imposed by this is that the ICA department is under extreme pressure NOT to operate at a deficit. There are many schools which would not worry about the deficit of the department that leads Sandy to lose sleep. For example, SDSU operates continually in the red. Not an eye batted and limited faculty blow back. But when this is taking away from RA support.......

C) The athletes can NOT embarrass the university off the field. Thank goodness we have not had the serious criminal problems of several Pac-12 schools but I can pretty much bank on the fact that if that were to occur the player would be expelled. No one game suspension for domestic violence.

D) The players can NOT embarrass the university in the classroom (to a point). I am not going to argue that every S-A takes the hardest classes on campus (see above, undergraduate education is an afterthought). There are special admits. But the Mike White cheating scandal spelled his DOOOM. Chuck Muncie spelled his DOOOM to the second power.

In my own opinion (and I know many on the board disagree) that puts a "ceiling" on Cal. In Football (I do not think this is necessarily true in hoops) I don't know if you can hold to A through D and compete with USC and Oregon YEAR OVER YEAR. You might catch lightening in a bottle and be able to do it one year.

Or put another way. The gap between CAL and Furd and UCLA compared to the rest of the conference in respect to research university is quantum. There is actually a LOT more parity in the Big 10. But it is laughable to compare the research aspirations of say an ASU to UCB. They are, to an extent, entirely different higher education institutions.

And let me close by observing this. I would take a bet straight up that should, in some alternative universe, Cal find its own Phil Knight or Boon Pickens the faculty would come unglued if that sugar daddy did not spread the wealth GENEROUSLY to non-athletic efforts. Indeed, there would be faculty pressure to turn down such gifts.

SkyBear;841967850 said:

---

I have to disagree with your fundamental premise that Cal's academic priorities are somehow an obstacle, because your premise would only be relevant if it meant that Cal's academic priorities either:

1) Limited funding to the point where Cal does not have the facilities to attract and train recruits enough to compete. The new upgrades disprove this point.

OR

2) Made it too academically tough to get elite recruits. Cal has been pulling in Top 25 recruiting classes the past few years, so that point is disproven.

So I don't think Cal's academic priorities are an obstacle at all.

---

Bah. Ask yourself whether any Cal coach could sustain the wink wink nod nod attitude toward sexual assault practiced at USc and Oregon toward their top players?

Or this.....if a Cal Basketball player had been arrested on a charge that he was PIMPING A 16 YEAR OLD GIRL the coach would have been summarily fired.

And the deficit matters a huge amount. Don't think capital, think operating funds....or do you not believe that the revolving door at the assisstant level and our relatively low salaries there puts at us at a disadvantage compared to USC which have had much greater stability in the assistant ranks and pay much more for the services of these coaches.

It isn't "academics." It is the reputation of the university and how that matters a great deal to who really has the juice at UCB - RESEARCH ORIENTED FACULTY. Keep in mind - the vast majority of THEIR peers and competitors work at schools (Ivy, Cal Tech, Chicago, UCSD) which DE-EMPHASIZE athletics. Can not begin to count the number of highly ranked by publication and reputation researchers that wear as a badge of pride their affiliation with universities where athletics take a very very very back seat.

SkyBear;841967859 said:

---

Stanford seems to do just fine.

---

I would urge you to see Furd as an exceptional exception to the rule.

What Furd offers is probably the ONLY Ivy-league undergrad experience in the country (small intro classes , research oriented majors where upper division SEMINAR courses taught by active researchers, residential campus, alumni contacts and relationships) that ALSO offers high level D1 sports.

In a nation of 300 million there are going to be a handful of kids that want the above AND excel in football.

But UCs DO NOT offer the above. It doesn't make Cal inferior to Furd - but it does make it different. Just look at the size of the undergrad student body and you can see Cal and Furd are DIFFERENT.

Here is another way to see this. No other "quasi-Ivy" competes in a power conference other than Furd. So their football team does actually, from time to time, recruit well.

But they are NOT unique in hoops. And, for the most part, they have not excelled in BB the way that their football team has occasionally reached certain heights.

To at least be a force in the PAC12 and not be a laughing stock. And to all the Apologists and Tedord lovers ( which are few ), You get so pissed at us and say we are not supportive. etc.... But sh*t, bottom line, Our team and coach play terrible and we are pissed off. We are pissed, We are pissed. I am not happy,.... PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!

SkyBear;841967872 said:

---

I just don't see how any of that would stop our football team from being successful. The Stanford comparison is relevant because it proves that tough academic standards for admission don't keep a school from being successful in football. The rest of the stuff you mentioned doesn't impact the football team at all. You're continually hinting at the premise that good academic standards means low football standards, when I've shown you proof that that's not the case, especially with our recruiting classes. We have the talent. It's on our roster RIGHT NOW. No campus politics or anything can be blamed for Top 25 recruiting classes not performing like a Top 25 team.

---

No. Do not conflate "high academic standards" with "research oriented university". They are close but not one in the same.

You need to objectively consider why Furd and Cal are DIFFERENT (other than they are snobs) to understand why they might recruiting different kinds of kids (and why, unlike Cal, they really do play on a national recruiting pool). Or are you saying that this doesn't make a BIG difference - and that we can do just fine being a regional, rather than national, recruiter.

In respect to recruiting class rankings I do not put much stock in the RANKINGS because they don't do simple things - like control for size of class, positions, etc and because the "stars rankings" cannot even HINT at being objective (we know that raters "inflate" the stars of players offered by elite programs - and we know it physically impossible for someone to review/scout THOUSANDS of HS players).

And again, the key thing is to look at this over a number of years.


My explanation is a logical one for the cap on the program's success. I like it better than Indian burial ground curses.

Just to expand. A player at a "high academic oriented" university probably SLIDES if his grades are good and yet he gets in trouble off the field. But not true at cal.

Or think about it this way - name 10 other schools that would have dismissed a key guy in the front line the week before the NCAAs for ALLEGATIONS of lifting lap tops - when the police didn't even file charges.

(BTW - I am completely supportive of dismissing Amoke but I understand that realistically that puts us at a disadvantage compared to 80% of the programs in America which would not have).

socaltownie;841967870 said:

---

I would urge you to see Furd as an exceptional exception to the rule.

What Furd offers is probably the ONLY Ivy-league undergrad experience in the country (small intro classes , research oriented majors where upper division SEMINAR courses taught by active researchers, residential campus, alumni contacts and relationships) that ALSO offers high level D1 sports.

In a nation of 300 million there are going to be a handful of kids that want the above AND excel in football.

But UCs DO NOT offer the above. It doesn't make Cal inferior to Furd - but it does make it different. Just look at the size of the undergrad student body and you can see Cal and Furd are DIFFERENT.

Here is another way to see this. No other "quasi-Ivy" competes in a power conference other than Furd. So their football team does actually, from time to time, recruit well.

But they are NOT unique in hoops. And, for the most part, they have not excelled in BB the way that their football team has occasionally reached certain heights.

---

I reject your premise about undergraduate education at Cal.

I would encourage you to look at the US News and World Report. Cal, Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Michigan, Northwestern, and UCLA are within the top schools. Their methodology for assessing schools is VERY problematic. But if you are in the top 35, you are good. All of these schools are up there. They are all considered great destinations for faculty. And they are all better than us at football.

So it isn't just furd.

I would argue that the "fake fans" are apologists like you who are fans of Jeff Tedford first and fans of Cal football second. I am a true fan of Cal football, and I want to see us be consistently successful on the field. I could care less who the coach is so long as he achieves that objective. Tedford is just not delivering.

R90 and SoCalTownie,

I appreciate both of you playing ball and engaging me on this issue.

For the record, I am a pragmatic idealist. I don't care who our coach is, as long as he is advancing us towards the (my?) goal of watching Cal play in and win a Rose Bowl before I die. If that is Tedford, great. If it someone else, great. I really don't care who the coach is so long as we are advancing towards the goal and there are no grave ethical violations.

I note that neither of you really answered the question. You spoke about what you think other people's goals are. But you can't read minds any better than I can. We don't really know what the administration's goals are.

I am asking you personally -- what would it take to make you feel like Cal football is where it needs to be? For me it is serious progress towards the ultimate goal of making the Rose Bowl before I die.

What is it for you? Is Tedford doing it now, and if not, do you think he will next year?

Again, thanks for engaging me. I disagree with you. But I respect the fact that you are willing to play ball and discuss this issue.

SkyBear;841967908 said:

---

Okay fair distinction between high academic and research oriented, but not sure how that matters to the football team? You never make the connection, leaving me to guess that you're hinting at the usual assumptions: that the monetary support isn't there for football (disproven by facilities and stadium) or that elite recruits won't get in (disproven by multiple Top 25 recruiting classes)

We have talent on the roster. Yes the rankings aren't perfect, but they most certainly are NOT pure baloney. Almost no one in the college football world denies the talent on Cal's roster. It's the reason why people like Kirk Herbstreit mentioned Cal as a dark horse contender before the season.

No one offered Indian Curse theories or anything similar, so that's a strawman argument. The argument is that Tedford is not a good coach.

---

But then neither were Gilbertson, Synder, Theader, White, Kapp, etc. etc. I am not going to get sucked into defending Tedford cause I am so ready for a change (he plays GUTLESS unexciting football) but 50+ years of futility is observational data that matters.

Here is one way that distinction matters. CAL can't accept (anyone care to prove me wrong) kids that have had significant violations of the law. If the coach did, the faculty would be up in arms. PLays right into the hands of the anti-football guys.

But Oregon, USC and really any other program in the Pac-12 other than Furd can, does, and has.

To me football recruiting is a situation of limited supply and high demand. There really is a difference, for example, between a very good lineman and an ELITE level lineman - and it is almost entirely a function of biology and rare spins of the genetic wheel that allow some 19 year old to carry 310 pounds and run a 4.8 40. If there are constraints upon you, but no constraints on 10 of the programs in your conference, you are playing with at least a couple of pounds of lead in the saddlebag in a handicapped race.

The Duke!;841967911 said:

---

R90 and SoCalTownie,

I appreciate both of you playing ball and engaging me on this issue.

For the record, I am a pragmatic idealist. I don't care who our coach is, as long as he is advancing us towards the (my?) goal of watching Cal play in and win a Rose Bowl before I die. If that is Tedford, great. If it someone else, great. I really don't care who the coach is so long as we are advancing towards the goal and there are no grave ethical violations.

I note that neither of you really answered the question. You spoke about what you think other people's goals are. But you can't read minds any better than I can. We don't really know what the administration's goals are.

I am asking you personally -- what would it take to make you feel like Cal football is where it needs to be? For me it is serious progress towards the ultimate goal of making the Rose Bowl before I die.

What is it for you? Is Tedford doing it now, and if not, do you think he will next year?

Again, thanks for engaging me. I disagree with you. But I respect the fact that you are willing to play ball and discuss this issue.

---

Just to be clear. As a faculty-brat with 40+ years in the UC system I do think I have some pretty clear understanding of the sizzle in the UC stick.

For me - same goal. Before I die (I got about 30 to 35 years left before my actuarial clock starts to look bleak) I want to see them play in a Rosebowl. I don't even need them to win. I know that if that day comes I will be sleeping out before so I can see my beloved Cal Marching band march down Pasadena Blvd. It won't be the same as before they ruined it with the stupid play off and BCS nonsense and expanded the conference but I will still love every moment of it.

So what we need for the above is a coach who can, if the stars align, get us over that hump - and realistically that means being able to go 3-0 or at least 2-1 some year versus Oregon and USC (I assume we face USC in the championship game). That is why Tedford needs to go....because it just isn't realistic to expect him to be able to do that against those PROGRAMS.

SkyBear;841967920 said:

---

Okay, so you're saying the connection between:

A) Cal being a research school

AND

B) Cal's football team playing poorly

is:

C) Cal can't take players with ethics/legal issues.

The goal is to connect Statement A to Statement B.

I can see the connection between Statement A and Statement C, not the connection between Statement C and Statement B.

That's because even with Cal not being able to take players with off-the-field issues, Cal still has too much talent on the roster to be playing how they are playing. Top 25 recruiting classes, multiple years in a row, should be mean a Top 25 ranked football team. No, rankings aren't perfect, but I haven't heard anyone else in the world of college football argue that Cal's classes were over-ranked enough to justify not at least contending for the PAC-12 North.

---

Except that we HAVEN"T recruited anywhere near the top 25 in the one area that counts, by far, the most in college football.....

LINEMEN.

Oh and to be fair (lol)....we are 0-0 in the north right now.

Wrt 'furd and money: The schools are really in very different places. 'Furd has one of the largest endowments in the nation. They aren't facing the financial pressures that a state school faces, especially one in a broke state.

Also there are what fans want (Rose Bowl) and then there's what the school wants (money). There's some alignment but its not the same thing.

The comment about undergrads is quite true. Most profs want to do research and teaching (undergrads in particular) is a necessary evil because they fund the university.

Cal has put itself in this position where they invested heavily in a coach and then doubled-down on renovating the stadium. They didn't do it for a rose bowl. Sorry to break your hearts. They did it because they projected the financial return of having a successful football team. Again some a alignment but not the same thing.

The Duke!;841967744 said:

---

I realize that few (if any) people would classify themselves as "Tedford apologists." But there are certainly some on this board who drift considerably in that direction, albeit with caveats.

Some want to give him another full year. Others want to let him play out his contract. Some have expressed that they want to see if he can get us to 5 or 6 wins this year. Some feel that we owe him something for his years of dedicated service. Others feel that the financial hit of the buyout is too much, so we should delay any decision for at least a little while.

If you fall within or somewhat near any of these categories, please answer the following questions:

Is the goal of Cal football to make and win the Rose Bowl?

Does Tedford give us the best shot at making the Rose Bowl?

In order to make the Rose Bowl, we most likely will have to beat USC at least once (probably twice) . . . can we do this with Tedford as our coach?

Considering that Tedford has had 11 years and makes more in one year than many of us will make in a lifetime, what are realistic expectations at an elite university in a beautiful area with world-class facilities and a roster loaded with talent? 4 wins? 5 wins? 6 wins? 7 wins? 8 wins?

---

Your provocative title was somewhat ameliorated by qualifying "Tedford Apologists" as I'd argue that most of us lean at least somewhat in that direction. Even JT's biggest detractors acknowledge the positives he's brought. He could go 1-10, a la Holmoe, and we'd still be light years ahead of where we were when he took over.

Still, I've been well within the support JT camp, so feel I should comment.

And I'll admit that I too was a supporter of Tom Holmoe going into his final season; so it might be that I suffer a certain loyalty bias that I don't fully appreciate, but I'd say that my support of JT has been for entirely different reasons than was my support for TH. More importantly, I'd say that my Holmoe experience (weird words to type) bears on the current situation and not in JT's favor.

(My basic defense of Holmoe was that he'd been improving our recruiting through his stint and that we'd been in an extended period of coaching turnover that I thought had become very detrimental to the program. And that if he could just get an offensive coordinator that clicked - I really thought he was about to turn the corner. Then he didn't.)

Goal of the Program
No brainer, to win a BCS game every year, and do so within the broader parameters and expectations of our great university.

It's a high goal that is nearly impossible, but that's the goal and anything falling short of it needs to be weighed against alternatives.

Does Tedford give us the Best Shot at Attaining this Goal?
I think it's unlikely.

So then Tedford must go, right?

It all depends on your read of the odds. What are JT's odds of turning things around vs. the odds of the next guys doing so, and at what cost to JT's successor if we extend him? If you think the program is trending down, then JT has got to go. If you think it's not, you're willing to give him more time.

Tedford is a good coach who has gotten a lot right;
He's continued to build talent and may have the most talented collection of players since his arrival;
His results on the field are down, and have been down for a materially long stretch;
Donors' tremendous contributions aside, JT is THE reason we have improved facilities, and the one thing he's always said he needs to be competitive;
The cost of terminating him is a non-factor as it is not specifically the university's to bear, the people making this choice have the means to execute on it.
We play no role in any decision to terminate Tedford as that will be driven by people with different access and influence than us.

Still, if JT has a hard ceiling, and it's below conference championships, then you have to move on regardless of any disaster the next guy might prove to be.

I started the season believing that Tedford has it in him to make good on our expectations. Many of the challenges of recent years have been addressed. This is a year that had high expectations and falling short of them creates a turning point for me. Falling well short of them will be a game-changer.

socaltownie;841967922 said:

---

Except that we HAVEN"T recruited anywhere near the top 25 in the one area that counts, by far, the most in college football.....

LINEMEN....

---

True...and we can't blame that on Tosh either.

R90;841967816 said:

---

Since I've started a couple Hate-Bait threads, I suppose I should take the Luv-Bait here.

I'm still an "apologist." There's been a huge overreaction by fans to a string of losses, and mob psychology has taken over, especially on this board.

The players are skilled and knowledgable, thanks to excellent coaching. It's a fast paced game and all players make mistakes. The teams we play are talented too. Football is a strategic guessing game. In their rush to rationalize their anger at losing, "fake fans" are jumping on any mistakes or bad decisions by players and coaches and ignoring the good plays and good decisions.


As for the question on the purpose for Cal football?

The athletic department sees football as their cash cow. It pays their salaries and gives them the power they crave.

The university sees the potential for the football program to be a big revenue source, but it's also a big potential revenue drain. It's a gamble and we've raised the stakes with the stadium renovation.

Many students see it as entertainment, enhancing the college experience. Most students are too busy and focused on their studies, jobs and hobbies to really care.

Alumni see how it unites us and keeps us connected to Cal.

To different degrees, we all have different values and priorities for the program:
Entertain the fans
Win games
Make us proud
Make money for the school
Set a good example for youth
Help our athletes become upstanding citizens
...etc.

But on Saturdays (hopefully) we're all united in rooting for the team to beat whichever team we're playing against.

---

Like it or not, it's a balancing act. Many alumni would not want to pay off Tedford's contract if that meant funding restrictions on non-revenue sports, which is where we are most competitive. The current dilemma is whether the AD ends up with more money by taking the hit on the buyout and a new coach now, hoping for a quick turnaround that gets attendance and the ESP program back on track, or by gutting out another year of Tedford's contract so the buyout is less. It's a guess, with significant ramifications if the AD guesses wrong.

socaltownie;841967849 said:

---

I will answer that question. I don't know if it is MY goal but I am convinced, completely, it is the goal of multiple administrations

WIN WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE FACT UCB IS THE WORLDS #1 RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

So what does that mean.....

A) The university exists, first and foremost, to conduct research. I hate to break it to those that hold a BA/BS from UCB but you are a necessary evil. The majority of faculty are pleased as punch if they can figure out a way to only teach grad courses.

B) One of the constraints imposed by this is that the ICA department is under extreme pressure NOT to operate at a deficit. There are many schools which would not worry about the deficit of the department that leads Sandy to lose sleep. For example, SDSU operates continually in the red. Not an eye batted and limited faculty blow back. But when this is taking away from RA support.......

C) The athletes can NOT embarrass the university off the field. Thank goodness we have not had the serious criminal problems of several Pac-12 schools but I can pretty much bank on the fact that if that were to occur the player would be expelled. No one game suspension for domestic violence.

D) The players can NOT embarrass the university in the classroom (to a point). I am not going to argue that every S-A takes the hardest classes on campus (see above, undergraduate education is an afterthought). There are special admits. But the Mike White cheating scandal spelled his DOOOM. Chuck Muncie spelled his DOOOM to the second power.

In my own opinion (and I know many on the board disagree) that puts a "ceiling" on Cal. In Football (I do not think this is necessarily true in hoops) I don't know if you can hold to A through D and compete with USC and Oregon YEAR OVER YEAR. You might catch lightening in a bottle and be able to do it one year.

Or put another way. The gap between CAL and Furd and UCLA compared to the rest of the conference in respect to research university is quantum. There is actually a LOT more parity in the Big 10. But it is laughable to compare the research aspirations of say an ASU to UCB. They are, to an extent, entirely different higher education institutions.

And let me close by observing this. I would take a bet straight up that should, in some alternative universe, Cal find its own Phil Knight or Boon Pickens the faculty would come unglued if that sugar daddy did not spread the wealth GENEROUSLY to non-athletic efforts. Indeed, there would be faculty pressure to turn down such gifts.

---

Excellent post. I'm not sure about a "ceiling" on football, but it certainly makes it significantly more difficult for the football program to become elite given the constraints under which it operates. The research university point is absolutely correct.

socaltownie;841967870 said:

---

I would urge you to see Furd as an exceptional exception to the rule.

What Furd offers is probably the ONLY Ivy-league undergrad experience in the country (small intro classes , research oriented majors where upper division SEMINAR courses taught by active researchers, residential campus, alumni contacts and relationships) that ALSO offers high level D1 sports.

In a nation of 300 million there are going to be a handful of kids that want the above AND excel in football.

But UCs DO NOT offer the above. It doesn't make Cal inferior to Furd - but it does make it different. Just look at the size of the undergrad student body and you can see Cal and Furd are DIFFERENT.

Here is another way to see this. No other "quasi-Ivy" competes in a power conference other than Furd. So their football team does actually, from time to time, recruit well.

But they are NOT unique in hoops. And, for the most part, they have not excelled in BB the way that their football team has occasionally reached certain heights.

---

My understanding is that not only has John A. given substantial money to capital projects at the Furd, he's also a generous donor on the operating side. Among other things, that means they don't have to worry about generating revenue from admissions. As I noted in another thread, Furd offers a six-game family ticket that admits two adults with two kids, plus parking, for $299 a year. Cal has nothing remotely similar to that, because the AD at this point can't afford to discount that heavily.

socaltownie;841967921 said:

---

Just to be clear. As a faculty-brat with 40+ years in the UC system I do think I have some pretty clear understanding of the sizzle in the UC stick.

For me - same goal. Before I die (I got about 30 to 35 years left before my actuarial clock starts to look bleak) I want to see them play in a Rosebowl. I don't even need them to win. I know that if that day comes I will be sleeping out before so I can see my beloved Cal Marching band march down Pasadena Blvd. It won't be the same as before they ruined it with the stupid play off and BCS nonsense and expanded the conference but I will still love every moment of it.

So what we need for the above is a coach who can, if the stars align, get us over that hump - and realistically that means being able to go 3-0 or at least 2-1 some year versus Oregon and USC (I assume we face USC in the championship game). That is why Tedford needs to go....because it just isn't realistic to expect him to be able to do that against those PROGRAMS.

---

Wow SoCalTownie, we actually have a lot in common. We share the same goal (to watch Cal in the Rose Bowl before we die). And I am on the same actuarial clock (30-35 years).

Although my parents aren't academics, I am a PhD candidate at one of the few "elite" academic schools that succeed in football and whose Athletic Departments actually give money back to the University (not vice-versa).

For whatever it is worth, in this academic market there isn't anyone in my field in a position to choose between working at Northwestern, Texas, Notre Dame, Cal, or Harvard. Any one of those would be absolute dream jobs. Heck, Oregon State--a school whose academics many Cal alums deride--would be world-class at this point! And because it is a buyer's market, these schools are all expecting similar things out of their new faculty hires.

I wasn't aware that you had turned the corner and wanted a new head coach. Good to know.

SkyBear;841968026 said:

---

I agree we don't have good linemen. But you can't blame the lack of quality linemen on being research-oriented. Unless you can think of a reason why being research-oriented would prevent us from getting quality linemen while simultaneously NOT prevent us from getting quality recruits in other positions?

I can't think of one. Thus, it's my claim that the "ceiling" is caused solely by Tedford, not by being research-oriented.

And the Champion of each division is determined using ALL conference games, both divisional and cross-divisional. Those losses to USC and ASU count against us being able to win the North.

---

Linemen are in MUCH higher demand than any other position...in part because you need 5 of them.

I stand corrected. I thought that UCLA got the south because of doing better against the south. WOW...really down year for the zonas, Utah and CU last year.

All this talk about high academic standards and research conveniently ignores the (relative) success of UCLA. They are a UC school with world-class faculty and probably more stringent admissions requirements for athletes than Cal. And they've managed to win the Rose Bowl sometime after the release of the transistor.

-R