mbBear;842019331 said:

---

I have no reason doubt any of you. The timing doesn't question the credibility, but it certainly questions the motivation. Of course, they could respond to me that they would never have written what they did if Tedford was remaining as the coach, so as to not rock the boat. But now it just comes across as trying to make sure Tedford isn't remembered too fondly, unless I am missing the point.

---

Based on who I know the player to be, it doesn't appear to me that there would be much upside or motivation for the player or the parent to see Tedford's reputation soiled anymore than it was. The player doesn't have much to gain or lose by this information getting out. However, the parent clearly has some motivation to not out their kid on this board for fear of reprisal, which I can respect. I will also say that I received my PM prior to Tedford being showed the door.

okaydo;842019716 said:

---

Just to reiterate:

31 hours elapsed between the time I received this PM and the time I posted it. I was seriously considering ignoring it, but then I found out others had received it, and I consulted with them, including Cal_Fan2 and NYCGOBEARS and several others.

---

Hey, Big O, you were in your rights to post. I am in your camp. There's nothing new in the claims by the parent, and in fact. MoragaBear reiterated those claims in a message in this thread. Tedford played favorites, which created a fractious situation with the team. It was obvious to many that there were better QBs than ZM sitting on the bench, but he got to play because he was KA's brother. That's no secret. And its now clear in retrospect that a similar situation played havoc with our 2007 season, not the result of a bone-headed decision by Riley in the OSU game. That's why I am not a big fan of a certain receiver now in the NFL, his very high level of talent and ability notwithstanding.

Unit2Sucks;842019648 said:

---

I'm going the other way - I don't see how it's helpful. It may or may not be true, and the harm is in painting the program in a negative light that may be untrue.
...
Assuming the bearent is who he or she purports to be, I don't see how spreading one person's agenda on their behalf helps us win more games. Happy to listen to reason as to why that's the case. Certainly the reason it was posted had nothing to do with helping the program and everything to do with what SchadenBear said earlier.

---

I obviously agree. And thanks for reading my post.

Given that this PM was first shopped around to various BI's since at least before the morning Tedford was fired (Tuesday and nearly 60 hours, or 2 and a half days, before Okaydo recieved the PM) I feel free to assert that Okaydo took the bait, got hooked then got Punk'd.

Somewhere on the intertubes someone is laughing.

SchadenBear;842019971 said:

---

I obviously agree. And thanks for reading my post.

Given that this PM was first shopped around to various BI's since at least before the morning Tedford was fired (Tuesday and nearly 60 hours, or 2 and a half days, before Okaydo recieved the PM) I feel free to assert that Okaydo took the bait, got hooked then got Punk'd.

Somewhere on the intertubes someone is laughing.

---

I'll repeat it again, I have found [U]very strong[/U] evidence the parent is a parent of a current Cal Bear -- and that's aside from the photos of his name badge and backpack, which has his number on it.

In order for this to be a punking, it would require 2 things:

1) Years of planning.

2) Great psychic ability.

okaydo;842019994 said:

---

In order for this to be a punking, it would require 2 things:

1) Years of planning.

2) Great psychic ability.

---

What exactly does this mean?

The way I see it is that you recieved a PM from someone you don't know (have never met, nor spoken to) which maligns Jeff Tedford (a common meme on this board) and chose to make it public based upon a cursory examination (31 hours).

No amount of publicly available information given to you via the intertubes can possibly substantiate the validity of this PM.

I think releasing it was self-serving, reckless and served no point other than to titilate an already accepting audience.

SchadenBear;842020019 said:

---

What exactly does this mean?

The way I see it is that you recieved a PM from someone you don't know (have never met, nor spoken to) which maligns Jeff Tedford (a common meme on this board) and chose to make it public based upon a cursory examination (31 hours).

No amount of publicly available information given to you via the intertubes can possibly substantiate the validity of this PM.

I think releasing it was self-serving, reckless and served no point other than to titilate an already accepting audience.

---

This isn't a court of law dude, it's an internet message board. If you don't believe it's real, fantastic -- on to the next thread.

maxer;842020026 said:

---

This isn't a court of law dude, it's an internet message board. If you don't believe it's real, fantastic -- on to the next thread.

---

Well, we did not get to 16 pages just because the validity of this information wasn't important.

I call foul. Do you have an argument against that?

SchadenBear;842020031 said:

---

Well, we did not get to 16 pages just because the validity of this information wasn't important.

I call foul. Do you have an argument against that?

---

Only that we're approaching round 10 of the same points being made on both sides. People are either going to believe it or not at this point.

But by all means continue.

We're still arguing on the validity of this? If you don't believe it, then don't and move on.

ferCALgm2;842020040 said:

---

We're still arguing on the validity of this? If you don't believe it, then don't and move on.

---

By all means, believe what you want.

Just don't try and squelch critical anaysis.

SchadenBear;842020045 said:

---

By all means, believe what you want.

Just don't try and squelch critical anaysis.

---

:tedford

Not surprisingly, those claiming this information is not relevant are in large part the defenders of Tedford. In fact, that is precisely why the information shard by the bearant is relevant. Those who continue to defend the continuation of the Tedford regime - and claim he should not have been fired - need to be made aware of how rancid the program had become.

And for those of you questioning the veracity of the information, in general I think that is a good thing to question what you hear and sources. However, for many of you, no amount of proof - either direct or circumstantial - would be enough. The undisputed facts are that the pm was sent, Moraga corroborated some of it, all of which corroberates information we have heard for the past several years. More recently, other Cal-centric websites have reported on the dissension.

The bottom line is, I have no reason to disbelieve the information presented in the pm and MANY MANY REASONS to believe it is mostly (if not all) true. At this point, those who refuse to believe what is plain to see are one step away from being in the same category as other conspiracy theorists (e.g., 9/11 deniers).

SchadenBear;842019971 said:

---

I obviously agree. And thanks for reading my post.

Given that this PM was first shopped around to various BI's since at least before the morning Tedford was fired (Tuesday and nearly 60 hours, or 2 and a half days, before Okaydo recieved the PM) I feel free to assert that Okaydo took the bait, got hooked then got Punk'd.

Somewhere on the intertubes someone is laughing.

---

SchadenBear;842020019 said:

---

What exactly does this mean?

The way I see it is that you recieved a PM from someone you don't know (have never met, nor spoken to) which maligns Jeff Tedford (a common meme on this board) and chose to make it public based upon a cursory examination (31 hours).

No amount of publicly available information given to you via the intertubes can possibly substantiate the validity of this PM.

I think releasing it was self-serving, reckless and served no point other than to titilate an already accepting audience.

---

Says the guy who when he first started posting, sought out to insult and ridicule most of the posters here.....you can stop with the holier then thou sh*t. I remember you when you started.....the biggest horses patoot on here. Guess you decided to calm down after a suspension or two. Okaydo did what he and many of us thought that was right. I'll take his integrity over your pseudo-science, legalese malarky any day....

Cal_Fan2;842020086 said:

---

Says the guy who when he first started posting, sought out to insult and ridicule most of the posters here.....you can stop with the holier then thou sh*t. I remember you when you started.....the biggest horses patoot on here. Guess you decided to calm down after a suspension or two. Okaydo did what he and many of us thought that was right. I'll take his integrity over your pseudo-science, legalese malarky any day....

---

Oh please, spare me the rightousness indignation and personal attacks.

The fact is that the OP has provided no facts upon which to base his assertions.

Years of planning and psychic ability don't float in my world.

If you have some facts upon which you can base your arguments other than a PM I am open to hearing it.

freshfunk;842019522 said:

---

you show me a team that goes 3-9 and i'll show you a team that has internal controversy (with lots of finger pointing) and angry parents asking why little timmy isn't playing.

---

this

egbear82;842019118 said:

---

I spent this evening sitting with a Cal player and his parents watching a high school playoff game and heard things that are consistent with what is said in this thread.. In addition, I asked how Klein looks and was told no-one knows as only the first and second string QB gets any reps. Klein asked if he could be on the scout team so he could get some playing in but was told "no" because they needed him to signal in plays. The sentiment of the players was that Maynard shouldn't have been a starter at any PAC-12 school and everyone was disgusted by it.. Many players didn't want tedford to get fired due to them losing their position coaches, but it makes you wonder how much they actually liked his coaching..

---

I heard Kline said Kliein sucked, and that's why he gets no reps.

BearGoggles;842020063 said:

---

At this point, those who refuse to believe what is plain to see are one step away from being in the same category as other conspiracy theorists (e.g., 9/11 deniers).

---

I don't support Tedford, but at this point, those who believe everything they hear are one step close to believing they are drinking koolaid at Jonestown.

This is obviously not a parent.

Maynard was the best QB on the team this year who was available to play...he actually did have the best statistical season since Aaron Rogers. Better, for example, than Nate. Not saying that he was great - he wasn't. But the idea that JT would play the worst QB just to get Keenan is ridiculous. That he would lose his job just to keep Keenan is ridiculous. Get over it. He is gone, this is just stupid.

Did you all see Bridgeford play?

Oski87;842020134 said:

---

This is obviously not a parent.

Maynard was the best QB on the team this year who was available to play...he actually did have the best statistical season since Aaron Rogers. Better, for example, than Nate. Not saying that he was great - he wasn't. But the idea that JT would play the worst QB just to get Keenan is ridiculous. That he would lose his job just to keep Keenan is ridiculous. Get over it. He is gone, this is just stupid.

Did you all see Bridgeford play?

---

are you really comparing Maynard over 2 seasons with Bridgford over 2 games?

the argument/problem isn't just with Maynard, it's that JT played Maynard exclusively w/o even TRYING to develop any other QBs. do you really think Bridgford/Boehm/Hinder would have been this bad with 2 years of experience? nobody will know b/c we never gave them a shot.

ayetee11;842020128 said:

---

I don't support Tedford, but at this point, those who believe everything they hear are one step close to believing they are drinking koolaid at Jonestown.

---

That's not what I said. In fact, I specifically said is is worthwhile to quesiton information and sources.

However, there is a big difference between believing what is supported from multiple sources vs. believing "everything" you hear. In this case, there are many reports - corroborated by many sources over not less than 5 years - that show that Tedford had a history of playing favorites, enforcing a double standard, and generally failing to lead. The best evidence is that his teams tanked on him for most of the last half-decade, culminating in this season which is one step away from the Holmoecaust.

BearGoggles;842020140 said:

---

That's not what I said. In fact, I specifically said is is worthwhile to quesiton information and sources.

However, there is a big difference between believing what is supported from multiple sources vs. believing "everything" you hear. In this case, there are many reports - corroborated by many sources over not less than 5 years - that show that Tedford had a history of playing favorites, enforcing a double standard, and generally failing to lead.

---

True, there are many reports, but nothing to this level.

SchadenBear;842020045 said:

---

By all means, believe what you want.

Just don't try and squelch critical anaysis.

---

Yes, mentioning that the same doubts have been brought up 12 times = squelching critical analysis.

Incisive insight as always.

Serious question - what's the purpose of beating this to death at this point? Tedford is gone, the program will be going forward, what purpose does it serve to keep dragging this through the mud, other than looking like a bunch of middle-school drama kings and queens? It's over, done, let's look forward to a new beginning - and no, I wasn't a big Tedford supporter/fan the past 3 years before I'm quickly accused of that. I fail to see how this is productive in any way.

MoragaBear;842019382 said:

---

There are A LOT of bearents on these boards. Many post and many don't.

I've heard from a lot of bearents over the years and know many pretty well and I can tell you from personal experience that you need to take everything with a grain of salt, especially from disgruntled parents. Sometimes there's a lot of truth in what they say and sometimes there's very little. You'd be surprised how little they actually know sometimes because many players don't let their parents into their world and a lot of what parents say and believe is their own conjecture.

I can tell you that most players on the team love and respect Tedford even if they don't agree with all his decisions and that this was not a team swirling with dissention. I can tell you, though, that a very sizeable percentage were extremely frustrated with Tedford's insistence on playing Maynard at all costs and not playing and developing any of the other qb's and that the rumors about Maynard not going to class, cutting out on workouts and nearly being on academic probation were all true. I don't buy at all that 15-20 starters weren't going to class.

I also don't believe that Allen made it clear to the whole team that he wouldn't play if Maynard didn't play. I believe that keeping Keenan happy factored into Tedford's decision-making process but I don't believe it was quid pro quo.

It's also clear that Tedford started to lose a handle on the team in '07. In that year, factions and dissention were very real. Once the cat was out of the bag, I think he began to struggle in ways that weren't much of a factor in previous years, though it was never as bad in the following years as it was in late '07.

To me, it reached the point of no return. There was no way they could bring Tedford back in 2013.

---

MB is probably the closest first hand source that we have on this board. Okaydo has also never posted anything that was deliberately false.

Basically, it doesn't matter what the details were, but all signs point to a lost locker room. Maynard/Allen situation has also been a huge source of controversy, and it definitely is not as simple as Tedford just being stubborn. I see it akin to a fund manager screwing up something and then digging his own grave to cover it. It's hard to tell what exactly was screw up and when the hole started, but it's painfully obvious to see that something was very very very wrong.

People that are saying this is pure hearsay has their own agenda and beliefs. The fact that they keep attacking the exact words or identity of the source means that they have no interest in contemplating about a Tedford who is less than perfect in their world. The exact facts may be exaggerated or the whole thing might even be a hoax, but there's been too many separate incidents, posts, and a look at the product on the field, to deny that there was nothing lacking in Tedford's leadership. Nearly all of the problems can be pointed to management, and people like freshfunk, beezle, and shaden just refuse to even consider it.

goldenokiebear;842020155 said:

---

Serious question - what's the purpose of beating this to death at this point? Tedford is gone, the program will be going forward, what purpose does it serve to keep dragging this through the mud, other than looking like a bunch of middle-school drama kings and queens? It's over, done, let's look forward to a new beginning - and no, I wasn't a big Tedford supporter/fan the past 3 years before I'm quickly accused of that. I fail to see how this is productive in any way.

---

This is a necessary closure to the Tedford era. He was fired not without some controversy from the media and supporters. This is necessary to give the fan base some explanations and closures so that they can give the next coach, and Cal football, a new start come next season.

Some people have wanted him gone since 2007, but it didn't happen until now, so you're going to have a lot of long time grudges held. I think people, and myself included, should get to hear some of the truths and validate and move towards closure.

In the end, Tedford was a flawed coach who did some great things at Cal, until those flaws finally overcame him. We will give him a statue, or name a field after him soon enough, but he was definitely not without fault. No one is purely black and white. Nixon is still remembered fondly by some. Heck I bet even Hitler himself can still gather quite a following to this day. I believe Tedford did much more good than bad, but he still has his faults.

Unit2Sucks;842019648 said:

---

I'm going the other way - I don't see how it's helpful. It may or may not be true, and the harm is in painting the program in a negative light that may be untrue. It could lead to infighting among current teammates or finger pointing - which is not helpful. There are probably lots of other reasons that it could be harmful.

Assuming the bearent is who he or she purports to be, I don't see how spreading one person's agenda on their behalf helps us win more games. Happy to listen to reason as to why that's the case. Certainly the reason it was posted had nothing to do with helping the program and everything to do with what SchadenBear said earlier.

---

It's helpful because it lets everyone get things out in the open and out of their systems. There are still plenty of players who will be here next year who were subject to that toxic situation.

GoldenYears;842019578 said:

---

The big issue is that Tosh pulled in big talent that Tedford could not manage.

---

Tosh gave away the house in doing it.

Rushinbear;842020184 said:

---

It's helpful because it lets everyone get things out in the open and out of their systems. There are still plenty of players who will be here next year who were subject to that toxic situation.

---

I agree. In many ways, Tedford's program was like the ostrich that buries its head in the sand. Tedford's mantra seemed to be 'If I can't see the problem, or refuse to acknowledge it, then it isn't there.'

Most disconcerting about the blowout losses or Toshgate in the past 4 years was the lack of any legitimate answers from the coaching staff. Just saying "I want to move on and talk about the game this week" or "we just need to work harder and execute" and "I don't want to talk about Tosh anymore, I want to talk about the athletes who did choose us" didn't solve any of the problems. If anything, ignoring them made them worse.

Allowing the rumors and rumblings to come to the surface and finally be out in the open can have a positive cathartic effect on the entire team and Cal community. I'm all for it.

MiltyBear;842020179 said:

---

Heck I bet even Hitler himself can still gather quite a following to this day. I believe Tedford did much more good than bad, but he still has his faults.

---

.. of course, that's not by people who find Hitler's good points, but by those who like his bad ones.

MiltyBear;842020179 said:

---

This is a necessary closure to the Tedford era. He was fired not without some controversy from the media and supporters. This is necessary to give the fan base some explanations and closures so that they can give the next coach, and Cal football, a new start come next season.

---

No offense but I find a need for closure to be kind of pathetic, at least equally so as those who continue to defend JT. This was an employment decision, not a death. "Closure" starts to come pretty darn close to meaning "just want to prove I was right all along".

My answer to the question: I find this interesting because it potentially provides some insight into how a well respected and talented coach could lose it. No matter how this ended JT is not some Holmoe-esque coach, he does have talent. I also find it valuable because it gives us hope that our turnaround may not be too long in the coming, as potential discipline and morale problems should be relatively easy to fix (as opposed to say, hypothetically, have terrible facilities and an untalented roster).

Etchebeary;842020196 said:

---

surface and finally be

---

longest thread ... , maybe some francis bacon, w/ the francis bacon













:tedford:cheer:Monty

tequila4kapp;842020249 said:

---

No offense but I find a need for closure to be kind of pathetic, at least equally so as those who continue to defend JT.

---

Yes, get a grip people.

The "prior to" is a significant point, if the person was worried that some of the "keep Tedford" feelings were gaining momentum.

tequila4kapp;842020249 said:

---

No offense but I find a need for closure to be kind of pathetic, at least equally so as those who continue to defend JT. This was an employment decision, not a death. "Closure" starts to come pretty darn close to meaning "just want to prove I was right all along".

My answer to the question: I find this interesting because it potentially provides some insight into how a well respected and talented coach could lose it. No matter how this ended JT is not some Holmoe-esque coach, he does have talent. I also find it valuable because it gives us hope that our turnaround may not be too long in the coming, as potential discipline and morale problems should be relatively easy to fix (as opposed to say, hypothetically, have terrible facilities and an untalented roster).

---

Thanks, I agree about "closure" and I also thank you for your answer.

I guess it's just me - Tedford didn't perform well the last few years, definitely had issues, and it was time to let him go. That's been done, I'm happy about it and I don't care about what happened in the past - its not important to me what has happened, but very important what happens going forward. That said, I do understand that most who participate on a Board such as this would disagree with me.