drizzlybears brother;841967927 said:

---

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.

---

Thanks for your post. You make some excellent points, but I think a few of your thoughts are problematic and self-contradictory.

First, I do think "ordinary" fan support has a lot to do with terminating a coach. Of course, you also need elite donor support for the buyout and for hiring a replacement. But "Fire ______" chants make a huge difference when they are on national television. So do empty seats. I remember Steve Lavin's last year at UCLA. As soon as he walked on the floor at Haas, the entire Pavilion cheered like crazy. We were so happy he was UCLA's coach. I am sure their athletic director took notice.

Ordinary ticket sales and television ratings are important factors for generating revenue. And in both of these areas ordinary fan support matters tremendously.

Second, if only the donors matter then risk shouldn't be such a huge factor. I assume that many of these donors didn't made their fortunes by refusing take a major risk to improve their situations.

That being said, you make some very good points. Once it can be determined that Tedford can't get us to the ultimate goal (yours is a bit higher than mine), then it doesn't matter. And it seems that the vast majority of Cal fans now agree we have reached that point. I thought this after 2007, but I was an outlier back then.

We need to take the risk and higher a great coach. Sandy has done a great job of hiring coaches thus far (Montgomery, Gottlieb) and I have to think that counts for something.

The Duke!;841967911 said:

---

R90 and SoCalTownie,

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

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.

---

Cal football NEEDS to be highly successful and bringing in fans and advertising dollars or we're facing a financial disaster. We built it, with money borrowed from JP Morgan/Chase, hoping they'd come, but on opening day most of the ESP seats weren't sold.

We NEED to consistently be a top-25 team, a contender for the Pac-12 title, and prominent in the eyes of Bay Area sports fans, or the athletic department will have screwed the university badly.


I personally NEED for Cal to do it the right way, with integrity, hard work, intelligence and a long term, strategic view. Football, the way most schools play it, is an institution that exploits, injures and even kills young people. It promotes violence, greed, dishonesty and a host of other negative human traits. It's an exciting and fascinating strategy game, though, which helps me ignore the negative aspects and is the main reason I enjoy watching it.


Tedford can get us to the top of the conference and do it by setting a good example for all fans and programs. He's been bringing in the recruits. Our roster in two years should be much stronger than our roster is now. He now has the facilities to bring in even more and better recruits and train them better.

The quarterback position is huge, and we haven't had a good enough one to lead our offense consistently and reliably in several years. Hinder, Klein or Goff could be the guy that leads us back to the top 10.

Offensive line is huge too, and we should be much stronger there over the next couple years.


There's a lot that I see Tedford doing that is based on his high principles rather than on winning at any cost. He plays and develops more players instead of overworking and injuring his best players. He has a complex pro-style offense instead of one that focuses on executing a smaller set of plays to perfection. He sticks with plays and strategies that aren't working because they can and will work eventually. His defense is based on strategy and assignments rather than aggression. I can respect those things, but they're lost on most fans.

Tedford is probably going to have to move away from some of his higher principles this year to win more games, fill the stands, and pay the bills of our athletic department. If he can't get this team to win more down the stretch and generate a lot more excitement about next season then the AD is going to have to absorb another big expense and terminate his contract early. More likely than not, that would be a mistake, because the replacement would not do a better job than the current coach and we'd lose a lot of the positive momentum we've gained in the eyes of recruits seeking integrity and loyalty in a coach.

This has got to be one of the more educational threads running. And while the OP's topic was somewhat hypothetical, the issues brought up are very relevant to the present condition of the Cal football program.

While I am not an "apologist" myself, far from it, I do think I understand what their sentiments are so I'll weigh in on that as well as some other things that have been brought up. I prefer to refer to "apologists" as "J.T. et. al." or (JTea)

1) I think there is a fundamental philosophy that Tedford and his supporters share that many of us don't. That is that the primary goal is to serve the needs of the university and it's students. The needs of the fans and the larger community are way down on the list of priorities.

2) For JT et. al., serving the university and the students means bringing in revenue and mentoring the players to make it in the world after they leave school.

3) The JTea believe that JT has ushered in an era of respectability and integrity that goes beyond the disappointing graduation rates. They think it will be hard to find another coach that gives Cal both respectability on the field and lack of embarrassment off the field. For a while the insiders could spin things to convince fans to "buy the product" so that they could also accomplish their revenue goals. But that has started to break down.

4) To them the real performance goal on the field is not a championship (although they won't admit this) but whatever accomplishes the following 2 goals simultaneously.

1. Helping players learn NFL schemes and perform at an NFL level so they can get drafted.

2. Perform as a team well enough to keep seats filled, brand merchandise sold and TV contracts signed. That has generally meant winning about 8 games per year and going to a bowl.


[SIZE="2"][U]HERE IS THE RUB[/U][/SIZE]

THE ABOVE 2 GOALS ARE ACTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER, ESPECIALLY WHILE JT IS STILL HEAD COACH.

So, to answer your question Duke!, your goal of getting to the rose bowl is a great representation of what separates most of us fans from the JTea insiders. And what was once a mere emphasis, creating an NFL pipeline reputation, has become a myopic obsession that has actually sacrificed the on-field performance. Instead of using simpler college schemes that are easy to learn and more appropriate for student athletes burdened with studies, he tries to force feed the more complicated NFL schemes onto players who end up spending most of their limited college years with their heads down over playbooks rather than with their heads up making plays!!

The reason why JT has to go is because, despite the obvious and continuous problems with this, he won't change. The 1 defense I have of JT is that it could be that this plan is being imposed on him by the administration. If this is the case, then replacing JT won't change things until we also replace those responsible for this disasterous miscalculation.

[SIZE="2"][U]A COMMENT TO THOSE MAKING COMPARISONS WITH UCLA AND FURD[/U][/SIZE]

I think these are appropriate. But the most appropriate comparison is UCLA and that has not gotten much attention compared to furd. UCLA also must deal with the same financial burders that Cal has. Yet UCLA fired a coach and hired another one who replaced most of the assistants. The result, as has been the case throughout the conference over the last few years, is dramatic improvement in on field performance.

The real litmus test of what really matters, isn't how Cal differs from other Pac-12 schools, but how a single Pac-12 school differs from itself after making a coaching change. The evidence is overwhelming. Despite all the great points made by socialtownie (much that I agree with) the evidence shows that Cal will improve with a coaching change despite the challenges they face. I agree that Cal's challenges may prevent them from beating the Oregons and the $Cs of the conference, but they should be able to put a product on the field that is competitive with the OSUs, the furds and the UCLAs. And that has not been happening under JT for some time.

[SIZE="2"]WITH REGARD TO O-LINE RECRUITING[/SIZE]

I agree that this is a key factor, but keep in mind that, because of Michalczik's coaching, we had a dominant O-line in the early JT years although many of them were not top recruits. In 2009 and 2010, it was the opposite. We had a great O-line on paper but, under Marshall and before Blasquez, they were poorly coached and out of shape. I have heard it said many times by football insiders that high school rating matter less with linemen. As long as they have the genetic footprint (size) they can be coached into top form. Plus, while we may lose the recruiting battle with USC for linemen, we have been very competitive with the rest of the conference in that area. Oregon and furd surpassed us only recently.

Finally, IMHO there is not a single head coach in the conference who would have invested in Zach Maynard over Allen Bridgeford in 2011 even with the O-line problems, especially after his midseason slump. Yes Shaw is standing by Nunes right now, but that is not a comparable scenario. This year, he let Lucus start over Sebastian because of seniority and Anderson continues to overshadow Bigelow. Hinder could be the best bench QB not named Kline, but he won't see the field. For these reasons JT has shown that he no longer has the capacity to put his best players nor a winning team on the field and that is a financial liability (loss of ticket sales) that the administration can no longer afford to ignore.

I hope these comments were helpful.

Just to close and be clear

A) Tedford is underperforming even if you accept a ceiling

B) But I also think that we need to understand that 8 win seasons are not the bottom of the curve. Given our constraints I see 6-6 being about as awful as it should ever get but thinking we will win 9 or more every year seems misguideded

C) UCLA struggled a LOT under the new era of football (which I peg around the time that ESPN/DISNEY and NIKE started throwing OOODLES of money into it.) 6 games does not at all prove that Mora is the answer. Indeed, the first time one of his players gets arrested for assault will be his Rubican moment. I am expecting, given his background, an EPIC fail.

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.

---

Does this qualify as one of the douchiest posts of the year?

R90;841968084 said:

---

He plays and develops more players instead of overworking and injuring his best players. He has a complex pro-style offense instead of one that focuses on executing a smaller set of plays to perfection. He sticks with plays and strategies that aren't working because they can and will work eventually. His defense is based on strategy and assignments rather than aggression. I can respect those things, but they're lost on most fans.

---

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with this section. If you're not, you should be. You honestly believe that it's better to rest your best players (for what exactly?), have a complex playbook that precludes mastery, and continue to use strategies that are not working in the (completely unjustified) hope that they will someday work? Please be joking.

-R

sketchy9;841968107 said:

---

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with this section. If you're not, you should be. You honestly believe that it's better to rest your best players (for what exactly?), have a complex playbook that precludes mastery, and continue to use strategies that are not working in the (completely unjustified) hope that they will someday work? Please be joking.

-R

---

With only 50% irony I would suggest that Tedford Bears would make PERFECT San Diego Chargers. Marty, are you listening?

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.

---

Frankly, I don't think the former 19th century-era weightroom was a big negative for DeSean, Keenan Allen, the running backs or any other skill player. But I would guess a quality high school lineman who is hoping to play in the NFL has as one major goal in college to get bigger and stronger. That sort of player is not going to be happy to be shown an obsolescent workout facility and be told you can only lift during certain hours because of the various sports sharing that facility. Ergo, we have trouble recruiting linemen. My hope is that with SAHPC, that will change.

However, I still think we also need a new coach. I just think too much water has gone under the bridge with Tedford, and I have a suspicion that the players might be tuning him and the rest of the coaching staff out at this point.

R90;841967816 said:

---

I'm still an "apologist." There's been a huge overreaction by fans to a string of losses...

---

A string of losses that extend for over five years. An overreaction only in the eyes of people who embrace mediocrity.

R90;841967816 said:

---

The players are skilled and knowledgable, thanks to excellent coaching.

---

What an absurdly ignorant comment. You clearly have no concept of coaching.

sketchy9;841968107 said:

---

You honestly believe that it's better to rest your best players (for what exactly?), have a complex playbook that precludes mastery, and continue to use strategies that are not working in the (completely unjustified) hope that they will someday work? Please be joking.

---

Football is a brutal sport. If you have 3 backs capable of producing at this high level, don't run one into the ground, breaking down his body more than is necessary. Use them all in the situations they're best suited for: Isi as a versatile threat on most 1st & 2nd downs, CJ short yardage and most obvious passing situations. Bigelow for a limited number of specialized plays and on special teams. That's been the plan and it's what they've all been prepared for. Bigelow has exceeded expectations and they're in the process of preparing him to be a bigger part of the offense.

Tedford has probably been too ambitious with the playbook. Teaching the players all the complexity of an NFL type offense is a noble goal, but it has failed so far. Hopefully he's learning from that. Meanwhile, players are getting better with their execution through repetition. Don't count out the possibility that this team will perform much better over the rest of the season, specifically because the offense starts functioning the way it has been designed to function.

I appreciate the concern about character, higher principles, and doing things the right way. I disagree with your ultimate assessment, but I am in full agreement with your concern about not exploiting players. I share those concerns as well. But I have two follow up questions:

First, is it not conceivable that we could hire a coach with character who can also produce a better on-field product than Coach Tedford is currently putting forth?

Second, does the radical drop in APR scores problematize the notion that Tedford does things the right way and does not exploit players?



[LEFT][/LEFT]

R90;841968084 said:

---

Cal football NEEDS to be highly successful and bringing in fans and advertising dollars or we're facing a financial disaster. We built it, with money borrowed from JP Morgan/Chase, hoping they'd come, but on opening day most of the ESP seats weren't sold.

We NEED to consistently be a top-25 team, a contender for the Pac-12 title, and prominent in the eyes of Bay Area sports fans, or the athletic department will have screwed the university badly.


I personally NEED for Cal to do it the right way, with integrity, hard work, intelligence and a long term, strategic view. Football, the way most schools play it, is an institution that exploits, injures and even kills young people. It promotes violence, greed, dishonesty and a host of other negative human traits. It's an exciting and fascinating strategy game, though, which helps me ignore the negative aspects and is the main reason I enjoy watching it.


Tedford can get us to the top of the conference and do it by setting a good example for all fans and programs. He's been bringing in the recruits. Our roster in two years should be much stronger than our roster is now. He now has the facilities to bring in even more and better recruits and train them better.

The quarterback position is huge, and we haven't had a good enough one to lead our offense consistently and reliably in several years. Hinder, Klein or Goff could be the guy that leads us back to the top 10.

Offensive line is huge too, and we should be much stronger there over the next couple years.


There's a lot that I see Tedford doing that is based on his high principles rather than on winning at any cost. He plays and develops more players instead of overworking and injuring his best players. He has a complex pro-style offense instead of one that focuses on executing a smaller set of plays to perfection. He sticks with plays and strategies that aren't working because they can and will work eventually. His defense is based on strategy and assignments rather than aggression. I can respect those things, but they're lost on most fans.

Tedford is probably going to have to move away from some of his higher principles this year to win more games, fill the stands, and pay the bills of our athletic department. If he can't get this team to win more down the stretch and generate a lot more excitement about next season then the AD is going to have to absorb another big expense and terminate his contract early. More likely than not, that would be a mistake, because the replacement would not do a better job than the current coach and we'd lose a lot of the positive momentum we've gained in the eyes of recruits seeking integrity and loyalty in a coach.

---

SchadenBear;841968095 said:

---

Does this qualify as one of the douchiest posts of the year?

---

?

The Duke!;841968191 said:

---

First, is it not conceivable that we could hire a coach with character who can also produce a better on-field product than Coach Tedford is currently putting forth?

Second, does the radical drop in APR scores problematize the notion that Tedford does things the right way and does not exploit players?

---

1st. Certainly conceivable. I don't like the odds though.
2nd. Yes, it's a problem. Hopefully it's just a statistical blip.


and GoOoOo.... thanks for the chuckle. Ironic in the extreme.

FlourBear;841968203 said:

---

This is an important concept for Cal fans to master, but unfortunately very few actually do. You see, Furd is not a real school. People call it a "junior" university all the time, but they don't realize what they are actually saying. Yes, you said it - it is not a real school. Now stop and think about the significance of what you (and others) just said: it is not real.

People claim it is academically on par with places like MIT and CalTech. Are we really supposed to believe this? Has anyone ever been to MIT?? Was anyone here raised with kids who went to MIT? Those kids are smart to begin with, have no lives, and all they've ever done their whole lives is watch Star Trek and study. And while they're in college, all they do all day is study. They make the average Cal student look like a jock, frat boy, sports junky, or all of the above. Furd's students, on the other hand, were never even interested in studying much to begin with and once they got to college they don't spend half as much time in the library as MIT kids. I mean, 12% of Furd's undergrads are D1 athletes. Are we really supposed to believe those athletes, during the 8hrs/day they're not playing sports, are even in the same intellectual ballpark as the kids at MIT? Does anyone have any idea how disrespectful such an idea is to those Trekkies? There is no way that is even remotely possible.

Take computers, for example. Go back 4 or 5 decades, back when all the real discoveries were being made. At that time Furd didn't even have the slightest interest in computers, science, or engineering. They viewed science and all its accompanying witchcraft as means for immoral ones to try to disprove the Bible. As a result, the average uneducated person had more of an interest in computers than the Furds. People (taxpayers especially) knew they were being developed by the military to fly airplanes and such, but the information was top secret so no one knew what exactly it was. And then a few years later Furd comes along and claims they invented it all. I mean, are we really supposed to believe such a thing? Are we really supposed to believe that David Packard, an ex-Furd football player, invented all that computer stuff in his garage? Somehow his hammer, screwdriver, and old football paraphernalia were more advanced than trillions of dollars of taxpayer money and hundreds of thousands of dedicated man-hours by the young men and women in our armed serves? Does anyone have any idea how disrespectful such a ridiculous idea is to the US military? Are we really supposed to believe such a thing? I mean, I've heard some whoppers in my time, but that's really over the top. It's not possible, it's not real. That's why people call it a "junior" university.

What is the relevance? The problem is Furd's detachment from reality extends into their sports programs as well. Their football team, for example, went 1-11 and then got commitments from Andrew Luck and RG3. Do you really think any other school could do something remotely similar to that? Do you think any other fanbase would get disappointed if, after going 1-11, two of the nation's top recruits weren't standing in line to go their program? But because they are our rivals, we get disappointed that we can't do the same thing. Our board of legal experts (unfortunately we don't have a medical school to evaluate what's actually humanly possible) looks for someone to back into a corner, hold accountable, and then blame, and the first one everyone looks at is the coach. The program gets uprooted, and we have to start over. Cycle repeats.

Now that our panel has JT backed into a corner, are we all sure we're ready to repeat the cycle?

---

9thCircuitBear, is that you? It's been a long long time!

I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you mean by constraints. Are you speaking primarily of us being a "research university?"

Perhaps you define this term differently than I do. In my world, a research university is defined as a place where professors have lower teaching loads but are expected to produce more research.

So I might have to teach a 4/4/2 load at a community college or a 3/4 load at a private liberal arts school or a 3/2 at a Cal State. But since Cal is an R-1 research university, I would only be expected to teach a 2/2 and I would be given sabbaticals every once in a while to complete major projects.

This is the standard definition of a research university in the realm in which I operate. And every university in the Pac-12 is a research university by this definition. There are big differences in the size and scope of libraries and labs, and also the quality of students that these institutions can attract. But the basic plot is still the same. There are no "bad" academic jobs in the Pac-12 in this market.

But do you mean something more expansive?

As far as football goes, we are a very highly ranked university in one of the most beautiful areas in the country. We have a beautiful stadium and a world-class SAHPC. We compete in a major conference. And football players have plenty of academic support and individual attention from faculty, GSI's, and tutors. This is why I have trouble seeing the broader constraints that are hindering our success right now.

socaltownie;841968092 said:

---

Just to close and be clear

A) Tedford is underperforming even if you accept a ceiling

B) But I also think that we need to understand that 8 win seasons are not the bottom of the curve. Given our constraints I see 6-6 being about as awful as it should ever get but thinking we will win 9 or more every year seems misguideded

C) UCLA struggled a LOT under the new era of football (which I peg around the time that ESPN/DISNEY and NIKE started throwing OOODLES of money into it.) 6 games does not at all prove that Mora is the answer. Indeed, the first time one of his players gets arrested for assault will be his Rubican moment. I am expecting, given his background, an EPIC fail.

---

The Duke!;841968211 said:

---

I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you mean by constraints. Are you speaking primarily of us being a "research university?"

Perhaps you define this term differently than I do. In my world, a research university is defined as a place where professors have lower teaching loads but are expected to produce more research.

So I might have to teach a 4/4/2 load at a community college or a 3/4 load at a private liberal arts school or a 3/2 at a Cal State. But since Cal is an R-1 research university, I would only be expected to teach a 2/2 and I would be given sabbaticals every once in a while to complete major projects.

This is the standard definition of a research university in the realm in which I operate. And every university in the Pac-12 is a research university by this definition. There are big differences in the size and scope of libraries and labs, and also the quality of students that these institutions can attract. But the basic plot is still the same. There are no "bad" academic jobs in the Pac-12 in this market.

But do you mean something more expansive?

As far as football goes, we are a very highly ranked university in one of the most beautiful areas in the country. We have a beautiful stadium and a world-class SAHPC. We compete in a major conference. And football players have plenty of academic support and individual attention from faculty, GSI's, and tutors. This is why I have trouble seeing the broader constraints that are hindering our success right now.

---

You probably need to go back to the top of the thread. I said the constraint was the fact that Cal is the BEST RESEARCH UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD. As noted prior, that means that there is no tolerance for things like football - geared toward the undergrad body - which would operate in deficit. Faculty also has much more power than at many institutions relative to the President/Chancellor. Reputation of the institution matters a GREAT DEAL to faculty for a variety of reasons. Their "peers" tend to be from schools that do not emphasis/play D1 football.

All that conspires to put football on a VERY short leash compared to other Pac-12 schools who, while claiming to be research universities, really are not. I mean, ASU MIGHT give out PhDs but would you really want one in today's job market? It puts a ceiling on the PROGRAMS ability to do what some posters want - win 10+ games a year and be a perenial BCS contender like, for example, UofO or USC.

Obviously Tedford is failing in the top research university goal by having some of the lowest APR scores in NCAA, if his sucky coaching shouldn't be the cause of his firing, then why can't you agree his failure for graduating our players be a justifiable cause of firing him? Sounds like a double standard to me.

I seriously doubt a coaching change will produce any signficant change in the ESP program. If you haven't bought into that by now, you're not going to buy in on the hiring of a new coach no matter who it is - it's too big of a commitment. I suppose, Chris Peterson might be the exception to that, but it's highly likely the guy we hire (even Gruden) would not change the ESP program. First, people would want to see if the guy can win, and second, if the guy is going to stay.

tommie317;841968265 said:

---

Obviously Tedford is failing in the top research university goal by having some of the lowest APR scores in NCAA, if his sucky coaching shouldn't be the cause of his firing, then why can't you agree his failure for graduating our players be a justifiable cause of firing him? Sounds like a double standard to me.

---

Oh I agree. Tedford is on a shorter leash because Sandy can not defend him by pointing to APR. Monty's capacity to get kids to completion is probably also not helping Tedford hang onto his job.

Seems like the few that are left are satisfied if the team and coaching staff show up for the opening kickoff.

Lots of very good, thoughtful points..might I just add the notion that Cal will NEVER be considered a "football school." Now, that may seem trite and not essential to answering the question of what is our football goal, but in my thinking, it's a different university community and I wonder if it weighs on our ability to even gradually move towards the goal of being a top-level football program. Who in the Cal community cares about football? Sure, Old Blues and those without other teams, like me. Otherwise, it is entertainment and truly important only to those who have to pay for it, the other Cal teams who live off its income , and those who brokered the money. Yes, Tedford took us places, but that bubble burst. Do recruits come to Cal to uphold some kind of football tradition? Or, do some come only to be showcased (KA?)..My point is, we are not a football school - we are a research institution which has been pointed out, with the highest of academic reputations. I recently walked around campus directly behind KA and a few other players from the team before a recent game and [U]no one even recognized them[/U]..Football schools revel in their players. Fans cherish their coaches and go absolutely wild on gameday! Stanford is Duke West, and had a 'lucky' streak..there is no comparison to us there. In Corvallis, the entire city shuts down on Beaver game days and the whole town is orange and black. In Eugene, same thing. We had our own streak a few years ago with AR & Co. Settle for 8+ wins and a bowl game every year? Yep. Cal going to the Rose Bowl makes me laugh and that keeps me sane.

72CalBear;841968332 said:

---

Lots of very good, thoughtful points..might I just add the notion that Cal will NEVER be considered a "football school."

---

really? half a billion dropped on football and we're not a "football school?"

Dang, imagine if people at cal REALLY cared about football.

HaasBear04;841968372 said:

---

really? half a billion dropped on football and we're not a "football school?"

Dang, imagine if people at cal REALLY cared about football.

---

yeah, it's a shame that in the future the empty echoes coming out from our glorious new stadium will be louder than fans cheering for the Bears..

FlourBear;841968429 said:

---

+1

---

:tedford

Golden One;841968312 said:

---

Seems like the few that are left are satisfied if the team and coaching staff show up for the opening kickoff.

---

So it would seem. Truly, have you ever read as much drivel in your life as in this thread?

socaltownie;841968220 said:

---

You probably need to go back to the top of the thread. I said the constraint was the fact that Cal is the BEST RESEARCH UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD. As noted prior, that means that there is no tolerance for things like football - geared toward the undergrad body - which would operate in deficit. Faculty also has much more power than at many institutions relative to the President/Chancellor. Reputation of the institution matters a GREAT DEAL to faculty for a variety of reasons. Their "peers" tend to be from schools that do not emphasis/play D1 football.

All that conspires to put football on a VERY short leash compared to other Pac-12 schools who, while claiming to be research universities, really are not. I mean, ASU MIGHT give out PhDs but would you really want one in today's job market? It puts a ceiling on the PROGRAMS ability to do what some posters want - win 10+ games a year and be a perenial BCS contender like, for example, UofO or USC.

---

I still don't quite understand how you get from your premise (Cal is a top-notch research school) to your conclusion (that this makes winning football games difficult).

I am at a research university that excels at both football and academics. And although many faculty still complain about excess spending in football, many other faculty members understand that the football team directly contributes a lot of money to the library and other academic areas. I think the same would be true at Cal if our football team was more profitable. (By the way, I know several Berkeley faculty members that like football and even make it out to games when they can)

But in order to become more profitable, we need a new head coach who can take the program to the next level. That generates ticket revenue, ESP revenue, merchandising revenue, television revenue, etc.

Being a PhD student at a place like ASU is no easier than being a PhD student at Berkeley. It is less prestigious, but not any easier. In some cases it is harder (a Fulbright application from an ASU student needs to be amazing if he or she wants to compete against people at Princeton, Berkeley, or Michigan).

Both students take a couple of years of classes, but then spend the rest of their time in seclusion conducting research. Both have to write a dissertation. Both have to secure research funding. Both have to be really poor for 5-9 years. Both have to present at academic conferences, where it is not that unusual for the ASU student to outperform the Cal student. The difference is that Cal has bigger and more revered Departments. It is a more prestigious degree, but not necessarily a more difficult one.

And I can assure you that faculty care no more or less about undergraduate education at Colorado, UCLA, Washington, or Arizona than they do at Cal.

Other top research schools are doing much better than us in Football: UCLA, Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, USC, Duke, Michigan, Texas-Austin.

So what [U]specifically[/U] makes it harder at Cal? I can assure you that faculty everywhere object to football and that this has ZERO effect on the actual game planning and execution. If these other schools can do it, why can't Cal? What [U]specifically[/U] about having a #2 ranked history department (Cal) makes winning football games more difficult than have a top 10 history department (Stanford, Michigan, UCLA).