BerkeleyBear;842595664 said:

---

Yes, that type of skid in the last year of a coach's tenure is not particularly uncommon.



Not if you're a long time student of college football.



Yes, that is correct, and OTB listed just some of the recent Cal examples. Players quitting on a doomed coached happens quite often in college football and there are plenty of examples beyond Cal.

---

I'm referring to the gravity of the skid, the point difference. It's much larger than other prefiring skids.

This is being largely ignored in your arguments.

BerkeleyBear;842595664 said:

---

Yes, that is correct, and OTB listed just some of the recent Cal examples. Players quitting on a doomed coached happens quite often in college football and there are plenty of examples beyond Cal.

---

It even happens in the pros. See: Harbaugh's last season with the 49ers.

OaktownBear;842595654 said:

---

First of all you've made an issue out of me being a lawyer a number of times and I find it an insulting play for sympathy when the real issue is that generally you want to make claims without backing them up with any facts and when somebody brings fact to the other side you don't want to go through the trouble of looking into any statistics or anything.

The one time you claimed I was stating opinion as fact, it was clearly a statement of opinion. And you ignored many other people on the same thread who used the exact construction I did. In fact, berk expressed pretty much the same opinion I did on the same thread in a much more comprehensive way (my offending statement was something like two lines) and he expressed the whole thing like they were factual statements. But you like him and you don't like what I have to say. And when you don't like what somebody has to say you move on to bullshyte claims about how they argue instead of taking on the argument. If you think you can find me being dishonest point it out and bring some evidence to back it up. You want to call someone dishonest, you better have something behind it . My opinion - I bring facts to the table you don't want to hear or believe so when you can't refute them you just claim I must be dishonest.

I also think it is pretty insulting to your fellow alums that you apparently think I can just dupe them.

Just to be clear, all of this is opinion. Wouldn't want to be accused.

---

What did Berk and many say that I ignored and then you said that I criticized?

sycasey;842595670 said:

---

It even happens in the pros. See: Harbaugh's last season with the 49ers.

---

The average point differential in the last 5 games was about -5, not -26.

BerkeleyBear;842595664 said:

---

...Players quitting on a doomed coached happens quite often in college football and there are plenty of examples beyond Cal.

---

Before players quit on a coach, or as part of that process, they tend to get lazy in S&C and go through the motions on the field (i.e. < 100%) which is the best way to get injured because the opposing players aren't letting up.
Whether this led to increased injuries in 2013 is debatable but Sonny had to bring in his S&C coach which was a step up.
New schemes, practices, S&C is tough on players as they have to hit the breaks and awkwardly learn the new stuff.
Tag was a victim, for one.
What this has to do with anything to do escapes me.

For instance

According to you, this was illegal stating the opinion that Sonny and Franklin taking over position groups was a mistake as fact:

Quote:

---

Honestly, it isn't that hard. The NCAA gives you enough assistant coaches to have a coach for every position group. Trying to split things up is out thinking yourself. You need a guy that is devoted to each position group in time, attention, and responsibility. Having Franklin take RB's and Sonny take WR's is basically their way of saying the defense needed the attention, not the offense. We've seen what the result is for the offense. Probably a mistake that will get rectified in the offseason and a mistake they won't make again, but it is the TYPE of mistake that Sonny and Franklin will make over and over. Franklin needs to stop thinking of himself as the mad scientist and realize that not every "innovation" is a good one.

---

This was completely fine:

Quote:

---

They asked about this [having a head coach coaching a position group] in a recent interview, and Sonny said stuff like "We've got this GA that works with the receivers, and Peeler works with them, and I work with them, so they're getting plenty of attention." This just sounds like a disaster. Too many cooks in the kitchen and whatnot. If you have several people teaching the same concepts, then it's hard to keep expectations and assessments consistent across all of those instructors, and it's easy for the "students" to get mixed signals, or to miss the most important points all together.

I'd also point out that both our RB's and QB's are turning the ball over more this year. Note that this year both of those positions are coached by someone who's also trying to be an OC. It's hard to keep up attention to detail for two position groups while also scouting, gameplanning, and calling plays

---

I'm not attached to this debate but something caught my eye:

Why did the players think JT was "doomed" in 2012?
There was a great deal of debate about whether or not Tedford would/should be fired.
It definitely was not a sure thing.
JT wanted to continue as HC at Cal so "why did the players give up on a coach that could very well have been their coach in 2013?"

I think the real reason that performance suffered was, like Jeff82 said, JT was burned out and really couldn't deal with the drama queens on the team at the time. You know who I'm talking about because they performed their soap operas on the sidelines and on the field.

I have much more sympathy for what JT was dealing with than I did at the time and not being retained might have saved his life. It says something about his dedication to Cal that he was willing to risk his life in order to coach at Cal, especially when his AD was Sandy.

What is the thread name?

oski003;842595669 said:

---

I'm referring to the gravity of the skid, the point difference. It's much larger than other prefiring skids.

This is being largely ignored in your arguments.

---

It's being ignored for a couple of reasons.

1. Your "last five games" criteria is completely arbitrary. They had quit on Holmoe long before that. losses of 44-17, 44-16, 51-20, 48-7, 56-17 that you are ignoring because they weren't in the last 5 games, which really only looks like you picked that because it was the point that Tedford's skid happened

2. MY OPINION: there were two issues that made the scores at the end not as bad as the scores in the beginning. 1. strength of schedule. For instance, 0-10 Cal was actually favored to beat 1-9 Rutgers on the road - that is how bad Rutgers was. 2. They quit early. Honestly, I think they went through the quitting came the grips with the situation, got sick of being humiliated, and sucked it up a little for themselves. Not enough to qualify as not quitting, but some.

3. Fact is that we lived through the Holmoe season and you aren't going to convince anybody that it wasn't a complete failure of epic proportions on par with anything else we have seen.

4. When teams quit, they quit. It really doesn't matter if they lose by 15 or 25 or 35.

OaktownBear;842595693 said:

---

It's being ignored for a couple of reasons.

1. Your "last five games" criteria is completely arbitrary. They had quit on Holmoe long before that. losses of 44-17, 44-16, 51-20, 48-7, 56-17 that you are ignoring because they weren't in the last 5 games, which really only looks like you picked that because it was the point that Tedford's skid happened

2. MY OPINION: there were two issues that made the scores at the end not as bad as the scores in the beginning. 1. strength of schedule. For instance, 0-10 Cal was actually favored to beat 1-9 Rutgers on the road - that is how bad Rutgers was. 2. They quit early. Honestly, I think they went through the quitting came the grips with the situation, got sick of being humiliated, and sucked it up a little for themselves. Not enough to qualify as not quitting, but some.

3. Fact is that we lived through the Holmoe season and you aren't going to convince anybody that it wasn't a complete failure of epic proportions on par with anything else we have seen.

4. When teams quit, they quit. It really doesn't matter if they lose by 15 or 25 or 35.

---

Yeah, that was an awful season. I'm glad that they turned it around themselves instead of quitting to have a respectable end of the season.

To get this back on to the main topic, I'd like to add that I believe that is easier to follow a bad game day coach who is a good recruiter than a good game day coach who is a bad recruiter. Holmoe was the former. Tedford became the latter, mainly because of external forces that he did not control.

Imagine if our football team was half as belligerent towards Furds as our alums are to each other on BI?

oski003;842595688 said:

---

What is the thread name?

---

Seriously? You asked for the posts. I just quoted two posts, one where I was dishonestly disguising opinion as fact and one where berk was making a perfectly reasonable point. Why don't you try explaining the difference if it means that much to you?

This is why you get so upset when somebody actually looks something up to make a point. You don't want to do the work yourself to make a counter point. Try the damned search function. Now you want me to actually do the work to find your arguments for you.

But fine. The thread was something like "We miss Chris Harper More than I thought We Would" Have fun with that.

We've already both spent more time on this than reasonable and I doubt anyone else wants to see any more of a personal argument on the public board. My suggestion would be that we both stick to discussing the substance of the other person's arguments rather than attacking the person or their methodology. If that isn't something you can agree with, I'd suggest you take the argument up with me offline as we both should have done a few posts ago.

Goddammit, I just made popcorn!

oski003;842595701 said:

---

Yeah, that was an awful season. I'm glad that they turned it around themselves instead of quitting to have a respectable end of the season.

To get this back on to the main topic, I'd like to add that I believe that is easier to follow a bad game day coach who is a good recruiter than a good game day coach who is a bad recruiter. Holmoe was the former. Tedford became the latter, mainly because of external forces that he did not control.

---

I'm (surprise) going to have to disagree with you. Holmoe was not a good recruiter. I don't know why that myth has been created. He would get three or four guys like Boller and then suckitude. Cal89 has already shown that our recruiting classes were ranked last the last few years. Also, unlike now, Tedford had replaced many Holmoe recruits in the starting lineup by year 2 and most by year 3. Ed White was good at spotting unsung talent on the OLine and Lyman an GMac were good, but beyond that, the main contributors in year 3 were Tedford guys.

OaktownBear;842595709 said:

---

Seriously? You asked for the posts. I just quoted two posts, one where I was dishonestly disguising opinion as fact and one where berk was making a perfectly reasonable point. Why don't you try explaining the difference if it means that much to you?

This is why you get so upset when somebody actually looks something up to make a point. You don't want to do the work yourself to make a counter point. Try the damned search function. Now you want me to actually do the work to find your arguments for you.

But fine. The thread was something like "We miss Chris Harper More than I thought We Would" Have fun with that.

We've already both spent more time on this than reasonable and I doubt anyone else wants to see any more of a personal argument on the public board. My suggestion would be that we both stick to discussing the substance of the other person's arguments rather than attacking the person or their methodology. If that isn't something you can agree with, I'd suggest you take the argument up with me offline as we both should have done a few posts ago.

---

Your point came first, and I responded to it. His came a page later. His argument supported yours. I rarely put up a fight longer than a few posts, mainly because I have a busy life and I don't always get the last word. You are overreacting to my comment in that thread, and it is pouring over into this one.

Heart,
I think Tedford lost the team at Ohio St. when late in the 4th quarter on 4th and less than yard at the Ohio State goal line Tedford called for a field goal. If we get the touch down we win the game. Just my opinion but it sure seemed like Tedford showed he had no confidence in the team.

oski003;842595673 said:

---

The average point differential in the last 5 games was about -5, not -26.

---

Point differentials tend to be less pronounced in the NFL.

sycasey;842595738 said:

---

Point differentials tend to be less pronounced in the NFL.

---

Agreed. An example in NCAAF would be better.

OaktownBear;842595693 said:

---

4. When teams quit, they quit. It really doesn't matter if they lose by 15 or 25 or 35.

---

Yes, when teams quit the actual point differential of the blow out losses is not material.

Getting back to the earlier discussion, the comparison of Holmoe's and Tedford's final seasons is really a distraction from (and not particularly relevant to) the discussion of how the first few years of a coach's tenure often are a harbinger of things to come.

pjlbear;842595737 said:

---

Heart,
I think Tedford lost the team at Ohio St. when late in the 4th quarter on 4th and less than yard at the Ohio State goal line Tedford called for a field goal. If we get the touch down we win the game. Just my opinion but it sure seemed like Tedford showed he had no confidence in the team.

---

I like your thoughts on this. I was in Oregon that day with two other bears. When Tedford went for the field goal, he lost us. The odds of our kicker succeeding were almost nil. The chance of Ohio St scoring again were great. GO FOR IT!! That does not even consider why Bigelow was not given the ball more. It was like when Tedford punted on fourth and a foot at midfield just before halftime down 28-0 to SC. The Ohio St FG decision was terrible. But they did beat UCLA, which is still inexplicable to me.

I thought the fourth quarter FG attempt was from about 40 yards out.