the_purple_drank;841978749 said:

---

My mistake. I should have known that relevance extends to 9 years ago.

---

Relevance may not, but NEVER certainly does.

the_purple_drank;841978754 said:

---

lol.

Only once has Cal been a 2nd half season team under Tedford. That makes 1 in 10 years. In other words, it's questionable to say that Cal is not a 2nd half season team, since 2003 shows that the Bears are quite capable of finishing strong.

Are you happy now?

---

I already implied that I agreed with your point. I am now slightly more satisfied with the less hyperbolic manner in which you presented it.

OskiMD;841978722 said:

---

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.

---

OskiMD, this is a pretty interesting way to look at things. Thanks for posting.

So there are two things to take from this: Tedford is not good at beating good pac-12 teams. However, Tedford is good at maintaining stability.

What this data tells me is if we get rid of Tedford, we may have a better chance of winning the conference and we may have a better chance of being really bad. We would have some really bad seasons in front of us, worse than the current one. Though we may get a Rose Bowl out of it. Interesting.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA;841978690 said:

---

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.

---

If you don't know what "it" is, then how are you going to hire "it" ?

OaktownBear;841978737 said:

---

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)

---

I was there for that game. Just my second year at Cal. Young pup.

If this team goes 5-0 or 4-1, I'll start reusing this:

:tedford
:cheer

BobbyGBear;841978617 said:

---

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.

---

Damn....


Oh wait, looking at your avatar, I understand why you are pumping Tedford.

geez wrong thread my bad again

drizzlybears brother;841978771 said:

---

If you don't know what "it" is, then how are you going to hire "it" ?

---

"It" is easy to see but hard to define and label. Harbaugh has it. Saban and Meyers have it. Norv Turner doesn't have it. Mike Singletary didn't have it. Find a guy that has it and bring him in. Done and done.

BobbyGBear;841978617 said:

---

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.

[SIZE="4"]BTW there is only one game that matters and it is Furd.[/SIZE]

---

I just luv it when people keep it simple and to the point.

Look at the teams remaining on our schedule.
If we go 4-1 rest of the way, I will have seen a team that has little resemblance to the one I saw the past 7 weeks.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA;841978907 said:

---

"It" is easy to see but hard to define and label. Harbaugh has it. Saban and Meyers have it. Norv Turner doesn't have it. Mike Singletary didn't have it. Find a guy that has it and bring him in. Done and done.

---

Those without "it" need not apply.

Do you have it? Would I be able to tell?

Did JT ever have it? If so, did he lose his "it"?

It was around here somewhere...

OaktownBear;841978629 said:

---

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

i said im sorry ... and im going to the corner to stfu ... apparently that wasn't enough damn


ps i will not put any limits on this team EVER ..not going to doubt them for nothing or nobody !!!!!!!!!!! GO BEARS

hanky1;841978706 said:

---

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.

---

didnt know that ... another piece to the puzzle

OskiMD;841978722 said:

---

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.

---

What appears to be missing from this analysis is how other coaches and teams have performed when having similar records. If they perform similarly then it would imply that that's what usually happens when the tema performs at that level and its not on the coach per se.

GoldenYears;841979732 said:

---

You have it. I know because you're full of it.

---

Ha. So true.

ManBear;841978607 said:

---

Why do you guys do this to yourselves?

---

Because we are Cal fans. Also I think you mean "ourselves", anyone with 3k posts is in this boat with us.

-kap

going4roses;841979115 said:

---

i

i said im sorry ... and im going to the corner to stfu ... apparently that wasn't enough damn


ps i will not put any limits on this team EVER ..not going to doubt them for nothing or nobody !!!!!!!!!!! GO BEARS

---

Came off harsher than I intended. Sorry. I meant do you really think there is any question that Cal would bring him back if he went 5-0. Cal is not ever going to fire a coach that wins 7 straight to finish the season - certainly not going to buy out his contract.

If Cal were to go 5-0 or 4-1 then everyone here should be furious.

It would be like building a house with a crappy foundation finishing the house and making it look nice and trying to pass it off as a great house. Sure it's aesthetically pleasing but it's still fundamentally poor.

Cal was far from brilliant against UCLA that doesn't there weren't some good things to take from the game but UCLA played an atrocious game and a lot of those atrocious moments were unforced errors.

When you have to play an up opponent to make your win look better then it wasn't a good win to begin with ...

and before anyone says UCLA beat Nebraska yeah they beat Texas at Texas last year ... good for one shocking win a year and then they play medicore to terrible the rest of the year. Da mora things change da mora they stay the same.

RaphaelAglietti;841979947 said:

---

If Cal were to go 5-0 or 4-1 then everyone here should be furious.

It would be like building a house with a crappy foundation finishing the house and making it look nice and trying to pass it off as a great house. Sure it's aesthetically pleasing but it's still fundamentally poor.

Cal was far from brilliant against UCLA that doesn't there weren't some good things to take from the game but UCLA played an atrocious game and a lot of those atrocious moments were unforced errors.

When you have to play an up opponent to make your win look better then it wasn't a good win to begin with ...

and before anyone says UCLA beat Nebraska yeah they beat Texas at Texas last year ... good for one shocking win a year and then they play medicore to terrible the rest of the year. Da mora things change da mora they stay the same.

---

Mindboggling.

RaphaelAglietti;841979947 said:

---

If Cal were to go 5-0 or 4-1 then everyone here should be furious.

It would be like building a house with a crappy foundation finishing the house and making it look nice and trying to pass it off as a great house. Sure it's aesthetically pleasing but it's still fundamentally poor.

Cal was far from brilliant against UCLA that doesn't there weren't some good things to take from the game but UCLA played an atrocious game and a lot of those atrocious moments were unforced errors.

When you have to play an up opponent to make your win look better then it wasn't a good win to begin with ...

and before anyone says UCLA beat Nebraska yeah they beat Texas at Texas last year ... good for one shocking win a year and then they play medicore to terrible the rest of the year. Da mora things change da mora they stay the same.

---

If Cal goes 5-0 or 4-1 with wins over some or all of Oregon, Stanford, and Oregon State, then it will show that the team has significantly improved over how it started the season. IMO, then you can again make a reasonable argument for keeping Tedford.

I don't actually think that will happen, but if it does I'm not going to downplay the accomplishment -- interesting that you are already doing it even before anything has happened.

RaphaelAglietti;841979947 said:

---

If Cal were to go 5-0 or 4-1 then everyone here should be furious.

It would be like building a house with a crappy foundation finishing the house and making it look nice and trying to pass it off as a great house. Sure it's aesthetically pleasing but it's still fundamentally poor.

Cal was far from brilliant against UCLA that doesn't there weren't some good things to take from the game but UCLA played an atrocious game and a lot of those atrocious moments were unforced errors.

When you have to play an up opponent to make your win look better then it wasn't a good win to begin with ...

and before anyone says UCLA beat Nebraska yeah they beat Texas at Texas last year ... good for one shocking win a year and then they play medicore to terrible the rest of the year. Da mora things change da mora they stay the same.

---

Why the hell would we be furious for Cal turning things around at the half? That suggests that Tedford is changing which is a good sign. And it would mean wins over 3 teams which are currently ranked two of which are in the top 10.

To be displeased with Tedford in this hypothetical situation is madness. Going 5-0 down the stretch would be more than enough reason for one more year since I'd say it suggests strongly that Tedford has made some changes and is looking to reverse our previously downward momentum.

5-0 would be awesome. But even though they have to "play the games," it is not possible. Oregon cannot lose to Cal. Even the close game two years ago was solely due to Oregon overlooking our bad team, and the bad sportsmanship (cheating) by Tedford, for which he blamed Tosh. When Oregon needed to run out the last eight minutes, they had no problem whatever doing it. Some here completely mis-remember that game and seriously think Cal should have won it, but just screwed up. That thinking was wrong then and delusional now.

Guess we won't have to worry about this thread anymore.....:headbang

So if we win out what is the scenario?

LOL Still got UO and OSU on schedule.