socaliganbear;841987067 said:

---

Bernie is my uncle.

---

Hahahaha. Is it true or not? One never knows on an anonymous message board......

Cal_Fan2;841987069 said:

---

So what?....am I wrong in saying he was an Investment Adviser, Financier and crook?....he certainly wasn't an investment banker as tommie said....

---

He actually isn't my uncle. BUT, I did attend his auction. Almost bought some loafers.

NYCGOBEARS;841987072 said:

---

Hahahaha. Is it true or not? One never knows on an anonymous message board......

---

HAHAHAHAHAHA

No. That's just how ridic this thread is.

socaliganbear;841987075 said:

---

HAHAHAHAHAHA

No. That's just how ridic this thread is.

---

Man, I can't wait for those drinks. We're gonna have fun!

socaliganbear;841987074 said:

---

He actually isn't my uncle. BUT, I did attend his auction. Almost bought some loafers.

---

....oh, a wise guy huh?....."why I oughta....."

SkyBear;841986998 said:

---

You'd have to bury your head in the sand to deny all the pre-season posts from pumpers going so far as to say Negabears are fake fans, don't support the team, and sometimes saying that they should find somewhere else to post. Negabears have not done that to pumpers with any regularity

---

Dude, you're cracking me up. Don't you think it would be odd if "negabears" called pumpers fake fans? Why would a fake fan come here to pump a team they aren't a fan of? And why would negabears claim a pumper doesn't support the team? So, to your claim that negabears don't do those things, I say you're right.

Cal_Fan2;841987052 said:

---

LOL....this thread is hilarious...oh, by the way, Bernie Madoff was not an investment banker; he was an Investment Adviser and Financier....and CROOK.

---

Ok London whale or calling your clients muppets, bankrupting countries, etc plenty of other examples of bloodsuckers, does it have to go in to the details to prove the point that just because you are working in investments doesn't means you are have great returns on your investments or for your clients.

Some cpas I know are horrible in math. Some psychologist cannot even admit their own mental issues. Just like Tedford cannot coach himself out of a shoebox.

tommie317;841987123 said:

---

Ok London whale or calling your clients muppets, bankrupting countries, etc plenty of other examples of bloodsuckers, does it have to go in to the details to prove the point that just because you are working in investments doesn't means you are have great returns on your investments or for your clients.

Some cpas I know are horrible in math. Some psychologist cannot even admit their own mental issues. Just like Tedford cannot coach himself out of a shoebox.

---

Bad simile. You should have said, "Just like Tedford cannot play QB in the Pac-12" - which would be true, but only partially true because he still does have a pretty damn good arm.

SmellinRoses;841986687 said:

---

...at every turn posting anymore. Oh, they were very wrong.

Tedford as a lousy coach is no revelation. Yes, there are financial/future attendance reasons but the university owes it to the great kids who have committed to Cal to get rid of him.

Still don't follow the notion of giving Tedford credit for "sticking around." This is a guy who demanded a $500k bonus on top of the already high salary he demanded to coach through the stadium opening.

Good riddance.

---

Less drag.

Phantomfan;841986699 said:

---

I would not call it funny.


I was hoping they were right. I hate when my negativity turns out to be correct.


What is troubling for Sandy is that if the INTERNET cannot produce people willing to defend him, even as trolls, in larger numbers than BobbyG, things are VERY bad for the program.



People like to pretend that forums like this are not representative of the fan base. I disagree. They are a very good way to see the general feeling of the fan base. It is pure unfiltered opinion. It is almost 100% anonymous so people are free to say whatever they are REALLY thinking, without censoring to avoid risking breaking relationships. You will NEVER see someone go off on Sandy in person, regardless of how they real feel, for example.


You have to understand though, that the pumpers will over shadow the negas after wins, and then it will flip after losses. When we are doing "OK" negas will be more vocal.

When things really get bad, the pumpers stop posting, apathy sets in, and if you see that on the INTERNET, it is only a short time before it shows in the stands. Average fans care less than the people who used to post and now dont have the desire to bother defending.


/rant

---

Seriously, how would you know that things are very bad for SB if only BobbyGBear is defending JT on the interwebz?

You must be smoking or drinking sumpthin'.

RJABear;841986938 said:

---

I tried to be civil. What are you trying to accomplish ? You made several incorrect assumptions and then jumped to inflammatory conclusions. Please stop before you make yourself look silly.

---

RJA, save your breath. This has been Tommie's MO since day 1. Not attacking but just being straight and serious. He frequently behaves this way and appealing to him to act differently is a serious waste of time. After years of this kind of behavior you just have to accept that people will not change, much like DO.

SkyBear;841986998 said:

---

A reasonable person wouldn't ask for proof. You'd have to bury your head in the sand to deny all the pre-season posts from pumpers going so far as to say Negabears are fake fans, don't support the team, and sometimes saying that they should find somewhere else to post. Negabears have not done that to pumpers with any regularity. What pumpers are going through now from Negabears is a well-deserved "I told you so. Now you know you've been supporting the problem."

---

I called someone a fake fan after they posted a thread saying they were rooting for the bears to lose. It's one thing to want to replace the HC. It's another to want us to lose. In my book that IS a fake fan. I don't see that so much an insult as a better description of what this person is. What sort of "fan" wants the team to lose? Look up the definition of "fan." It will NOT say one who wishes for their team to lose.

The only explanation of justifying this sort of logic is that this person would sacrifice anything in order to win because their true motivation is making themselves feeling good about winning instead of actually rooting for our team.

The term fake fan came up after CJ used it after game 3 or 4. This never came up preseason. That's pure hyperbole like everything else in this post. Playing victim is pathetic considering the negas have driven all the positive messaging away.

NYCGOBEARS;841986698 said:

---

In life, hindsight is 20/20. On the interwebs, I guess it makes you a soothsaying sanctimonious genius.

---

Hindsight? Tedford's coaching has been extremely poor for the last five years. Based on objective evaluations, many Cal fans have opposed him for a long time. You know this. Please don't position our situation as a recent development. It is simply dishonest. The only recent development is the nearly universal awareness of the problem.

Californication;841986711 said:

---

...Some of us prefer to say something positive or say nothing at all. When there isn't much positive to say, it isn't very fun to post.

And finally, when one's posts are met by such intense vitriol for trying to be positive...

---

Genuinely positive posts are seldom met with vitriol. They are a precious commodity in these times. What raises the ire of many is wilful ignorance. An abject refusal to accept reality. Supporting a head coach who has been hurting our football program years is not "positive" regardless of how people like to consider it / themselves. At best it is naive. At worst disloyal to the players and University.

SkyBear;841986763 said:

---

Honestly, it depends on the ex-pumper. A lot of sunshine pumpers accused (explicitly or implicitly) negabears of not being real fans, or not supporting the team. In fact, some do that to this day. Those pumpers need to eat humble pie.

---

Spot on, SkyBear.

grandmastapoop;841986769 said:

---

It's in poor taste because on some level it is celebrating being right about something that none of us wanted.

---

Depends on what you mean by that. None of us want anything bad for our University which is precisely why so many of us have wanted Tedford out for years.

BMroom;841986844 said:

---

...Some fans were grumbling a long time ago that Tedford should go, but their evidence was scant and insufficient for others.

If they are convinced now, shouldn't you be happy that your position has more support, rather than patting yourself on the back for setting the failure bar so low?

---

Scant and insufficient evidence? That is a thoroughly inaccurate comment. The hallmarks of Tedford's poor coaching have been on display for a long time. If you can't spot the multi-year trend it's because you haven't been following the team or simply don't understand football. As for the low failure bar comment... I truly wish we didn't have to hit rock bottom (seemingly every time) before Cal fans call for a change. It makes a mockery of our supposed intelligence.

freshfunk;841986911 said:

---

...In general, I think taking the negative position (on Cal football, in life) is the easy way out....In my mind someone who was calling for JT to be fired years ago wasn't showing foresight but instead just showing pessimism. Based on his history it's silly to say that this could've been predicted... I think most people who've followed the decline and saw the seat getting warmer and warmer are in the right.

---

No, the easy way out is to pretend there isn't problem and to make ignorant comments under the guise of virtue. It is to attempt to claim moral high ground at every turn and to cry victim when large numbers of people disagree with you. The easy way out is to hit rock bottom and *still* claim that you are "in the right" rather than acknowledging your mistakes or even remaining silent on the matter.

Your comments are so off base. Not only was our situation predictable it was as near a certainty as you get in this sport. Tedford's stubbornness and the frequency and breadth of his mistakes was never going to end well for us. The fact that you didn't see the extent of the problems or want to hear the truth isn't the virtue that you think it is.

GoldenYears;841986970 said:

---

I'm tired of people talking about Tedford as if he's a saint. What exactly has he done that's been so great? The illusion that he's holding up the academic end has been shown to be a completely false narrative. He's gone through a bevy of assistant coaches, most of whom don't seem too sorry to be leaving. He passed the buck for injurygate on Tosh instead of taking responsibility as the leader of the team. He played Nate Longshore on a broken ankle. He publically blamed Desean Jackson for an interception that was just as much Longshore's fault as anyone else's.

I'm sure he has his good points, but let's stop elevating him into some great man of integrity that he isn't.

---

golden years, your impressive ability to type relentlessly without knowledge is duly noted

uchighlander's son played lb for jt

GoOoOoOoOoBears!;841987298 said:

---

Scant and insufficient evidence? That is a thoroughly inaccurate comment. The hallmarks of Tedford's poor coaching have been on display for a long time. If you can't spot the multi-year trend it's because you haven't been following the team or simply don't understand football.

---

So how long ago did a person need to start calling for Tedford's firing without being someone who doesn't understand football? Which date?

sycasey;841986896 said:

---

Bingo. Some people thought he should be fired for the 2007 season alone, despite the record of success he'd amassed up to that point. Some people called for his firing after a 2008 season in which we wen't 9-4 and were probably among the Top 25 teams in the country. Even if it's now clear that JT needs to go, I will not apologize for still supporting the man at that time -- back then it was absolutely NOT obvious that we would have sunk to this level by now. I always said that IF he started posting numerous bad seasons I would stop supporting him as head coach, and that day has come.

---

This thread has bounced in so many different directions, but I think this one post sums it up well for the majority of us who went from believing to hoping (optimistically) to frustration to our current state of despondency.

I believe Tedford was the right coach for Cal . . . 11 years ago. Sometime in the past 3-6 years (perhaps during that fateful game against OSU where we were a thrown clipboard and failure to throw the ball out of the endzone away from being #1 in the country) something happened; he lost it, burned out, was eclipsed, who knows? At some point it becomes time to say, as Tedford himself once said, "enough is enough."

freshfunk;841987260 said:

---

I called someone a fake fan after they posted a thread saying they were rooting for the bears to lose. It's one thing to want to replace the HC. It's another to want us to lose. In my book that IS a fake fan. I don't see that so much an insult as a better description of what this person is. What sort of "fan" wants the team to lose? Look up the definition of "fan." It will NOT say one who wishes for their team to lose.

---

No one cares what's in freshfunk's "book" on appropriate college football fan behavior. Maybe you can join CJ Anderson's fan club and cry about "fake fans" together. And crying about "McCarthyism" when you're the one labeling others as being "fake fans" was really just the epitome of lack of self awareness (i.e. being clueless).

I suppose now I'll wait for the inevitable retort exhorting me to take English 1A to improve my reading comprehension ability. :rollinglaugh:

sycasey;841987367 said:

---

So how long ago did a person need to start calling for Tedford's firing without being someone who doesn't understand football? Which date?

---

LOL. No need to be so defensive, sycasey. Either own up to the fact that you were wrong or don't. Your call.

GoOoOoOoOoBears!;841987632 said:

---

LOL. No need to be so defensive, sycasey. Either own up to the fact that you were wrong or don't. Your call.

---

First you own up to exactly who you are saying is stupid. Be specific.

sycasey;841988556 said:

---

First you own up to exactly who you are saying is stupid. Be specific.

---

I think GoooBeearsss (Amy?) non-answer speaks for itself.

sycasey;841988556 said:

---

First you own up to exactly who you are saying is stupid. Be specific.

---

I'm not aware that I called anyone stupid in this thread. But who knows? Perhaps my memory is as short as yours.

freshfunk;841988624 said:

---

I think GoooBeearsss (Amy?) non-answer speaks for itself.

---

Are you calling me a fake fan, freshfunk? That's not very positive!

Try to stay on topic, lads. And I hope you enjoyed the Utah game.

CalBear1998;841987639 said:

---

I'd like to know the date, too
While you're at it, also remind me of the date we decided 3-5 is unacceptable

---

Tell me the 3-5 comment is just taking the ****. Where's the dripping sarcasm emoticon when I need it?

+1 on this post. Nothing stays constant - people change and Tedford is no longer the same person he was when he started this program on the way up. Time to move on. How anyone can defend him today is beyond comprehension. Pumpers just keep spinning, but seriously, take a step back and recognize the forest for the trees. This is depressing!

tommie317;841986909 said:

---

Sure an investment bank which went bankrupt leveraging 50 to 1 or one of those investment banks who stole tax payer money or the one that ripped off whole nation''s invesment accounts? Does stealing cars make me an automotive engineer? So your an expert in taking people's money whether you make money for them or not.

Or you could just be talking out of your azz

---

Great, ...a stalker.

RJABear;841988749 said:

---

Great, ...a stalker.

---

Should have thought about that when started to bash me when my comments weren't directed at you. Kind of like how credit default swaps blew up in insurer's faces