does JT get one more year ? or will it be a BIG THANK YOU JT( put these last wins on your next resume ) but the program is going in another direction ???


3 ranked teams out of 5 ... lets go bears

5-0 or 4-1 they'd have a pretty tough time justifying his firing with the money involved.

No brainer he will get one more year with that type of record to end the season.

But I don't see it happening

Early or not, it is Big Game Week! Only game that matters right now is Stanford. Beat the trees! With an Axe. Right to the neck!

If Cal finishes 4-1, then JT would be completely secure.

Cal would be 7-5 with wins over Stanford (#22), Washington, Oregon State (#8), UCLA (#25)....

thebearshavewon;841978583 said:

---

early or not, it is big game week! Only game that matters right now is stanford. Beat the trees! With an axe. Right to the neck!

---

focus on the the task at hand right in front of our eyes we got to want it bad got to want it more than them

get the ax back !!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO, they honor his contract, no extension and send him out a winner.

Regardless of what he does in the next year or two...

RJABear;841978584 said:

---

If Cal finishes 4-1, then JT would be completely secure.

Cal would be 7-5 with wins over Stanford (#22), Washington, Oregon State (#8), UCLA (#25)....

---

I think he would be very secure. However, with that type of finish and the players coming back next year the expectations will be very high(again!)

My $0.02:

If JT goes 5-0, we won't get rid of him and shouldn't. He will have gone a long way towards proving the criticisms of him (yes even among the donor community) wrong. In addition, if he won his bowl game, the resulting 9 wins would, I think, auto-extend his buyout-free contract by a year, further increasing the cost of firing him. Of course, I don't see any chance of this happening.

There is a small chance we go 4-1. I think he would remain the coach in that case as well, though it would be debatable whether he should. Does a 7-5 regular season with an FBS win really make up for years of mediocrity? Of course, our overall schedule will be one of the toughest in the country (@tOSU + PAC-12 without Col and AZ). And fan excitement will be back with the strong closing run, especially if we win our bowl game.

I see 5-7 or 6-6 as the likeliest possibilities. I think 5-7 with a BG loss and he's gone. 6-6 with a BG win followed by a bowl win and be probably stays. The cutoff is probably somewhere between there, even though if it were up to me and I had the money to be more than just a low level ESP donor, I would work to replace him even in the 7-6 with BG win scenario.

SRBear;841978580 said:

---

5-0 or 4-1 they'd have a pretty tough time justifying his firing with the money involved.

---

If he goes 3-2 I think he stays. That would probably be wins against Utah on the road, wash and either winning back the axe or beating a top 10 ore st team. There's just too much money that a face plant is about the only thing that will get him fired.

Why do you guys do this to yourselves?

Take it one game at a time. Otherwise, you'll just be disappointed.

ManBear;841978607 said:

---

Why do you guys do this to yourselves?

Take it one game at a time. Otherwise, you'll just be disappointed.

---

+1 i'm just looking forward to taking time off of grad school and flying back to Cal for the Big Game!!

RJABear;841978584 said:

---

If Cal finishes 4-1, then JT would be completely secure.

Cal would be 7-5 with wins over Stanford (#22), Washington, Oregon State (#8), UCLA (#25)....

---

It's all about momentum in program direction. With this finish, momentum would definitely be positive even with a bowl game loss or average recruiting class. Then it will all be about a new era with a post-Maynard/Allen offense.

the_purple_drank;841978612 said:

---

Cal has never... NEVER... been a 2nd half season team under Tedford. With the last 5 years, it's get off to a fast start against weak competition and hang on until the end.

It's hilarious how much you guys are kidding yourselves. Theoretically, it could only mean good news, because if Tedford fails to reach that 7-5 mark, then the fans here will be very disappointed, and will want Tedford fired.

Or, those fans will try to dig up reasons as to why Tedford should not be fired (ie, we lost at home to a great Arizona State team! And we beat Washington State on the road, and they beat a great UNLV team!!) and believe that he'll lead us to the promise land next year.

---

Actually - I think we were better last year in second half than the first half - Maynard definitely was. Anyways, this thread and all the posts here are stupid. After every win, the negabears are quiet for 2 days, then come out in force and try to bring everybody down. I notice there are almost no posts analyzing the upcoming big game - this board has really gone downhill. Any any attempts to start such a thread are still taken over by negabears trying to change the subject.:hatters

RJABear;841978584 said:

---

If Cal finishes 4-1, then JT would be completely secure.

Cal would be 7-5 with wins over Stanford (#22), Washington, Oregon State (#8), UCLA (#25)....

---

Am I the only one who thinks Oregon at home is a more winnable game than Oregon State on the road? I know Oregon is a better team, but I just have bad feelings about the Beavs and Mike Riley.

Let me remind folks if we were to go 5-0 there is a good chance we'd be in the Pac-12 title game. Tedford's job would be permanently secure.

BTW there is only one game that matters and it is Furd.

going4roses;841978575 said:

---

does JT get one more year ? or will it be a BIG THANK YOU JT( put these last wins on your next resume ) but the program is going in another direction ???


3 ranked teams out of 5 ... lets go bears

---

Do you seriously think this is a question?

First of all, 5-0 is a near impossibility. 4-1 is doable but very tough. A better question is what happens if he goes 3-2 or 2-3. Actually, I think it is not necessarily certain he'll be fired in any case. Hopefully we don't need to test that question.

But 5-0? We would have won 7 straight and beaten a top five team in the country. We might even be in the Pac-12 title game. Our losses would be against the top 2 teams in the Pac-12 south, OSU on the road, and Nevada. How pissed could anyone really be about Nevada at that point?

4-1? win 6 out of 7 down the stretch, presumably losing to Oregon. It is possible at that point that we could have losses to 4 top 10 teams, likely top 15-20.

Add the defensive players coming back, the skill positions on offense. The promise of Kline, and a large buyout. Yes, it is a dead certainty he comes back if he wins 4 or more down the stretch. Only becomes a question at 3, and I doubt it even then. I know many don't want to hear more promises and I understand that, but there are also many who think this program is on the upswing next year.

I am sick of pissing away winnable games because of terrible in game coaching. Starting Bridgford against Nevada cost us the game and to not tell the team in advance was just plain stupid.

Not going for it with a 4th and 1 at Ohio State likely cost us the Signature win of the Tedford debacle. I , personally, have seen enough of the playing not to lose rather than to win coaching.

Cal has had a tough schedule to date and it doesn't look like it's going to get any easier. The guys have to tough-it-out with no BYEs and it will call on our depth at various positions to hold off opponents.

A little calculation at mid-season and we find that the teams we have lost to hold a 23-3 edge against all opponents. That's an 87% winning margin. Overall, the teams we have played amount to 33-14 and 5 of those losses are owned by WSU and 4 of those losses belong to SUU. The record does disclose a challenging schedule.

I wouldn't spend a nano second dreaming about a 5-0 or 4-1 finish to the season. It's just not gonna happen.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves, we beat an overrated crappy ucla team and a horrible Wsu team. 3-2 still looks like best case scenario

tommie317;841978685 said:

---

Lets not get ahead of ourselves, we beat an overrated crappy ucla team and a horrible Wsu team. 3-2 still looks like best case scenario

---

UCLA definitely handed us that win. At least we took it. WSU was the worst football performance I have ever seen. Maybe the Chargers in the second half last night comes close, but not really. We caught both of those teams at their absolute worst. That, or Clancy P is a GD genius.

the_purple_drank;841978664 said:

---

The problem is, talent-wise, we are better than Nevada and Arizona State. Everybody in the conference would rank us 3rd or 4th in terms of actual talent, and the recruiting experts would agree with that.

In other words, we should be 5-2 at this point. The fans who expected 8 wins (such as myself) expected this team to be 5-2. The only losses should have been to Ohio State and USC. Yet, we are 3-4. Nevada certainly does not have more talent than Cal, and I'm not going out on a limb to say that I think we outclass Arizona State in talent, as well.

THAT is the issue. We've seen coaching errors repeat itself. We've seen 'play not to lose' football. The academic issue with Maynard and not telling the team about it until the night before is beyond bewildering. Not playing Bigelow, or Avery Sebastian, or Broussard, or Forbes, or Jefferson alone probably cost us one of those losses.

---

You guys are both right. Cal has played a very tough schedule and lost to some good teams. But, if we're going to be a BCS caliber team, we need a new coach. Tedford just doesn't have what it takes to beat the Pete Carrolls, Nick Sabans, Urban Meyers, Chris Aults, Chip Kellys, or even Lane Kiffins of the business.

The coaching is dragging us down. I was at the season opener, and Cal is far superior to Nevada in terms of athletes. They are a good team, but Tedford has no excuse for losing that game at home. Losing that game is an indication that Tedford just doesn't have it.

In the past, we had the talent to mask his shortcomings. But, the Pac-12 has improved, and we've just had season after season of disappointment and underachievement. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Tedford is set in his ways.

It's hard to pinpoint, but whatever "it" is that Harbaugh has, Tedford just doesn't it. We need a new young coach who'll come in look Lane Kiffin in the eye and say "What's your deal?" or slap Chip Kelly on his back after a victory.

going4roses;841978575 said:

---

does JT get one more year ? or will it be a BIG THANK YOU JT( put these last wins on your next resume ) but the program is going in another direction ???


3 ranked teams out of 5 ... lets go bears

---

If Tedford keep it CLOSE in the BG game loses, he will be here...


The "Fire Tedford" mantra has calmed down a lot since Isi got put at 2nd/3rd string and Cal started winning. IMHO, allowing Bigelow significant playing time, Starting Avery and making CJA the goto back might have saved his job (all while calling into question his ability to coach even more). IMHO, his refusing to play Bigs CJA and Avery, then finally caving and suddenly winning, with those guys being large factors, is reason to fire him...

We need a coach who puts those guys on the field BEFORE the entire fan base knows they are the best players on the team... not 5 games after everyone other than the COACH has it figured out.


BTW, CJA Bigs and Avery are exactly the reason "Negas" have a hard time believing the best players are on the field when Riley and Maynard are starting...

I don't think we should keep JT even if he goes perfect the rest of the season.

It's not about one season. It's about a pattern of underperformance. JT's been here for a long time and we have no conference championships and no Rose Bowls appearances, let alone wins. He's had the time to build a program and it hasn't happened. Time to find someone who can.

If we go 5-0 we finish at 8-4 and go to a decent bowl. If we win the bowl, the ninth win actually triggers an automatic contract extension based on JT's previous deal.

going4roses;841978575 said:

---

does JT get one more year ? or will it be a BIG THANK YOU JT( put these last wins on your next resume ) but the program is going in another direction ???


3 ranked teams out of 5 ... lets go bears

---

bearsandgiants;841978687 said:

---

WSU was the worst football performance I have ever seen.

---

Huh, I've seen worse Pac-12 performances. Tuel was pretty dangerous and was a play or two from making it interesting. Wazzu was within one score of Oregon State @ Oregon State the week before. They're not as bad as you think.

6bear6;841978651 said:

---

A little calculation at mid-season and we find that the teams we have lost to hold a 23-3 edge against all opponents. That's an 87% winning margin. Overall, the teams we have played amount to 33-14 and 5 of those losses are owned by WSU and 4 of those losses belong to SUU. The record does disclose a challenging schedule.

---

So what? Tedford has, over the past decade, cemented his reputation as a coach who cannot consistently beat decent to good teams and builds his W-L record be beating creampuffs from OOC and the bad teams in the PAC.

I hate (not really) to keep posting this stupid spreadsheet analysis I did last year, but the records don't lie. Tedford is 0-9 versus PAC opponents with more conference wins than losses in the last two seasons, and a shameful 4-19 since 2007. 10-27 over the decade of his rule to demonstrate to all his middling success.

It's great that he always has a tough schedule to fall back on to rationalize his poor performances over the years.

going4roses;841978594 said:

---

focus on the the task at hand right in front of our eyes we got to want it bad got to want it more than them

get the ax back !!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

ha jokes on me ... i feel bad ... going to corner to stfu

the_purple_drank;841978664 said:

---

The problem is, talent-wise, we are better than Nevada and Arizona State. Everybody in the conference would rank us 3rd or 4th in terms of actual talent, and the recruiting experts would agree with that.

In other words, we should be 5-2 at this point. The fans who expected 8 wins (such as myself) expected this team to be 5-2. The only losses should have been to Ohio State and USC. Yet, we are 3-4. Nevada certainly does not have more talent than Cal, and I'm not going out on a limb to say that I think we outclass Arizona State in talent, as well.

THAT is the issue. We've seen coaching errors repeat itself. We've seen 'play not to lose' football. The academic issue with Maynard and not telling the team about it until the night before is beyond bewildering. Not playing Bigelow, or Avery Sebastian, or Broussard, or Forbes, or Jefferson alone probably cost us one of those losses.

---

Except that talent wise we should be worse than UCLA. Just sayin'. I think we'll lose BG (day game and a bad matchup) and wind up 5-7 (wins over Utah and UW, both night games) and he'll be gone.

slider643;841978701 said:

---

I don't think we should keep JT even if he goes perfect the rest of the season.

It's not about one season. It's about a pattern of underperformance. JT's been here for a long time and we have no conference championships and no Rose Bowls appearances, let alone wins. He's had the time to build a program and it hasn't happened. Time to find someone who can.

---

It's a moot point because I think we'll lose 2 or 3 more games but if JT goes 5-0 or 4-1 he's definitely not getting fired.

oskidunker;841978644 said:

---

I am sick of pissing away winnable games because of terrible in game coaching. Starting Bridgford against Nevada cost us the game and to not tell the team in advance was just plain stupid.

Not going for it with a 4th and 1 at Ohio State likely cost us the Signature win of the Tedford debacle. I , personally, have seen enough of the playing not to lose rather than to win coaching.

---

Oskidunker I am certain the no tell sich re maynard starting was focused at the team incl maynard. Our players hadnt shown any fight or fitness until UCLA. I think adjustments that happened were part of a breakthrough by coaches and players. Younger players and coaches handed more rein, and as a.consequence players fired up and playing much much harder, especially on D, whoa, for real. On O Arroyo in the playcallers role and openly recognized is for certain part of the new attitude and results. No question.

KoreAmBear;841978721 said:

---

Huh, I've seen worse Pac-12 performances. Tuel was pretty dangerous and was a play or two from making it interesting. Wazzu was within one score of Oregon State @ Oregon State the week before. They're not as bad as you think.

---

You don't get it. They lost to us. So they stink. UCLA lost to us. So they stink. By definition, every team that loses to Cal stinks. And since every team we beat stinks, we stink. So every team that loses to us stinks. Heck, tOSU almost lost to us, so they stink even though they are undefeated.

Most here are still struggling with their opinion of the future of the program. Some have made up their mind - that's fine, its been a lot of years. Others have made up their mind and fit every game into that conclusion. It's not worth fighting with them on that. Fact is, Tedford has had some good games. Some really good ones. Hell, Holmoe had a few.

Some negabears like to say that pumpers think that being loyal to Tedford is the same as being to loyal to Cal. Maybe that is true. But I see some that seem to think that being disloyal to Cal is the same as being disloyal to Tedford. Equally bad strategy. When I see a Cal fan argue that we got a break on a call that was obviously correct, you see where the bias has flipped. The constant argument to downgrade every single thing we do just demonstrates the headspace. How some can't see the difference between arguing for a new coach and arguing that every accomplishment by the players on this team sucks is beyond me.

If this is Tedford's last year, I'm going to root for Cal in every game he has left, and then pick it up again next year with a new guy. Geez one of the most satisfying wins in a lot of decades at Cal was the last game of one of the worst coaches we've ever had. (and no, I don't mean Rutgers)

KoreAmBear;841978721 said:

---

Huh, I've seen worse Pac-12 performances. Tuel was pretty dangerous and was a play or two from making it interesting. Wazzu was within one score of Oregon State @ Oregon State the week before. They're not as bad as you think.

---

Agreed. They are not a good P12 team and Cal should beat them, but at the same time they are not a pushover and had shown some fight against other good teams this season. I didn't think the game on Saturday showed them to be pushovers either, though clearly they were outmanned by Cal's roster.

the_purple_drank;841978612 said:

---

Cal has never... NEVER... been a 2nd half season team under Tedford.

---

Aaron Rodgers and the Big Nasty 2003 O-Line would like a word with you. 3-5 to start, 5-1 to finish. I don't expect that this year, since Maynard is no Rodgers and the O-Line isn't what it used to be, but you might stay away from using absolutes.