[Redrum]

Ought to be pretty pleasant up there,  as the B.ares are playing across the Bay,  but despite Lurck's reasoned assurances a while ago,  another article on the Money Pit.  Either $225,000 per seat is just too much for 50 years' right to watch the B.ares,  or just the thought of watching  50 years of Kal football is putting supporters into a coma.  They're opting out for now or opting for the low-price option .

"the athletic department reported 49 percent of the 3,000 Endowment Seating Program seats were sold. But the total projected revenue of $113.5 million is just 41 percent of the goal, and only $27.8 million has been collected; buyers can pay up front or over time, but there is no contract, so people can opt out at any time. (emphasis supplied)

Things will probably pick up with a whole year to go before purchasers can actually see a game in the new-ish stadium, but the deal has some economists and administrators either skeptical or speaking in guarded phrases.

http://www.baycitizen.org/sports/story/UC East Bay-has-trouble-selling-225000-football/1/

[Redrum]

Ought to be pretty pleasant up there,  as the B.ares are playing across the Bay,  but despite Lurck's reasoned assurances a while ago,  another article on the Money Pit.  Either $225,000 per seat is just too much for 50 years' right to watch the B.ares,  or just the thought of watching  50 years of Kal football is putting supporters into a coma.  They're opting out for now or opting for the low-price option .

"the athletic department reported 49 percent of the 3,000 Endowment Seating Program seats were sold. But the total projected revenue of $113.5 million is just 41 percent of the goal, and only $27.8 million has been collected; buyers can pay up front or over time, but there is no contract, so people can opt out at any time. (emphasis supplied)

Things will probably pick up with a whole year to go before purchasers can actually see a game in the new-ish stadium, but the deal has some economists and administrators either skeptical or speaking in guarded phrases.

http://www.baycitizen.org/sports/story/UC East Bay-has-trouble-selling-225000-football/1/

[washingtonismoney]

Increasingly, the ability of sports teams to sell these ultra premium tickets has been lessened, and that's at all levels of desirability. I'm pretty sure the new york NFL teams have had these problems also. The money and fans are going towards TV. And with HDTV, takeout and your friends, why not? It's really hard to spot the ball and predict down and distance on the field; not so on TV. in many ways, TV is just better.

[washingtonismoney]

Increasingly, the ability of sports teams to sell these ultra premium tickets has been lessened, and that's at all levels of desirability. I'm pretty sure the new york NFL teams have had these problems also. The money and fans are going towards TV. And with HDTV, takeout and your friends, why not? It's really hard to spot the ball and predict down and distance on the field; not so on TV. in many ways, TV is just better.

[Farm93]

I find it hard to believe they really expected to sell this kind of a deal. I just don't think the 59ers have those sorts of fans in meaningful numbers. And I will fully admit that we don't, either. It may be that in Alabama and Georgia, college football tickets are a sort of multi-generational heirloom, handed down through families for many decades. I don't believe there's any school in California with that kind of following.

Oh, I believe, they BELIEVED.  At the time of the stadium announcement it seemed as though B.e.ar football was on the cusp of becoming Boise State.  With all of the reasonably wealthy alums in the area, it probably seemed viable to get six figures from a handful of alums.

But a few things have changed.
C.a.l Football is not at the Boise State level now.
All semi-wealthy people in the USA feel a lot less wealthy in this economy
Since the seats are clearly not going to be scarce, the need to pony up funds to get into the building.

It is all so sad from a budget perspective.  With our State's budget problems the UC system does not have a slush fund to cover any "unanticipated" construction costs.  These construction costs are going to find their way into tuition increases or the slowing of the UC Merced campus.

At least Te.d.fo.rd got his stadium.  I can't help but wonder how many years he will coach there.

[Farm93]

I find it hard to believe they really expected to sell this kind of a deal. I just don't think the 59ers have those sorts of fans in meaningful numbers. And I will fully admit that we don't, either. It may be that in Alabama and Georgia, college football tickets are a sort of multi-generational heirloom, handed down through families for many decades. I don't believe there's any school in California with that kind of following.

Oh, I believe, they BELIEVED.  At the time of the stadium announcement it seemed as though B.e.ar football was on the cusp of becoming Boise State.  With all of the reasonably wealthy alums in the area, it probably seemed viable to get six figures from a handful of alums.

But a few things have changed.
C.a.l Football is not at the Boise State level now.
All semi-wealthy people in the USA feel a lot less wealthy in this economy
Since the seats are clearly not going to be scarce, the need to pony up funds to get into the building.

It is all so sad from a budget perspective.  With our State's budget problems the UC system does not have a slush fund to cover any "unanticipated" construction costs.  These construction costs are going to find their way into tuition increases or the slowing of the UC Merced campus.

At least Te.d.fo.rd got his stadium.  I can't help but wonder how many years he will coach there.

[yvonne]

At least the UC system's highest paid employee got his stadium.  I can't help but wonder how many years he will coach there.

What are you talking about? He's UC East Bay's "winningest" coach.*

*My spell checker does not think winningest is a word. Dictionary.com disagrees.

[yvonne]

At least the UC system's highest paid employee got his stadium.  I can't help but wonder how many years he will coach there.

What are you talking about? He's UC East Bay's "winningest" coach.*

*My spell checker does not think winningest is a word. Dictionary.com disagrees.

[pefloresjr]

Teddy even got a Gatorade bath for beating the Blue Hose.  Weak.

[pefloresjr]

Teddy even got a Gatorade bath for beating the Blue Hose.  Weak.

[washingtonismoney]

Kind of funny to read on Bear Insider how many threads are complimenting Stanford.

[washingtonismoney]

Kind of funny to read on Bear Insider how many threads are complimenting Stanford.

[Farm93]

Teddy even got a Gatorade bath for beating the Blue Hose.  Weak.

I was shocked to see that Presby got 12 points in the second quarter.  How does that happen?  I can see one bad play, but 12 points means that Presby had a few lucky plays.

C.a.l is soon going to start its little focus game run.  UW in Seattle, a bye, and then 2 Thursday prime time games.  I was shocked to see that Presby scored 12 points, but I will be more shocked if C.a.l wins any of its next 4 games.  UW, Oregon, USC & Utah.  That's pretty tough.

[Farm93]

Teddy even got a Gatorade bath for beating the Blue Hose.  Weak.

I was shocked to see that Presby got 12 points in the second quarter.  How does that happen?  I can see one bad play, but 12 points means that Presby had a few lucky plays.

C.a.l is soon going to start its little focus game run.  UW in Seattle, a bye, and then 2 Thursday prime time games.  I was shocked to see that Presby scored 12 points, but I will be more shocked if C.a.l wins any of its next 4 games.  UW, Oregon, USC & Utah.  That's pretty tough.

[fullmetal]

Teddy even got a Gatorade bath for beating the Blue Hose.  Weak.

Supposedly that was for becoming the winningest coach in kal history.  You know, if that's the definition of winningest at kal, I might take it.
http://sbn.to/n0OSnO

[fullmetal]

Teddy even got a Gatorade bath for beating the Blue Hose.  Weak.

Supposedly that was for becoming the winningest coach in kal history.  You know, if that's the definition of winningest at kal, I might take it.
http://sbn.to/n0OSnO

[OutsiderFan]

Cal gave up a blocked punt TD and a pick 6 to Presby.  Only Cal could hold a team to 8 yards total offense in one half and find a way to give up 12 points.  It would have been 14 had Presby made their XPs.  I've never heard of a team having more points than yards.

As for the Gatorade bath, it just shows how much Cal and its soft fan base embraces, even celebrates mediocrity.  No winning program would ever give a coach until year 10 of his tenure to win 75 games.  Cal fans hope to eventually get to the Rose Bowl, but they have no concept of the culture and performance standards needed to get there.  Not only does the fan base and administration not demand more, but Tedford doesn't have any coach on his staff that has been on a team that has won anything.  He has one coach that coached in the NFL, his OL coach that was with the Raiders for one season. 

Dumping Gatorade on a coach who wins his 75th game in his 10th year, against a horrible FCS school, is just one more in a long and sad list of reasons Cal will never win at a high level in sports that matter.

The ESP seating disaster was predictable.  Who in their right mind would give money to Cal? It's right up there with the Pentagon in terms of government bureaucracies that piss money away.  Cal should have bulldozed Memorial stadium and started new, like Stanford did with its stadium, but people at Cal are more interested in holding on to a symbol of an irrelevant past, than they are saving money by starting over.  Cal has to spend probably well north of $100 million more to keep the old Memorial Stadium facade intact and earthquake retrofitted than it would have if it just made the tough choice to raze Memorial and start over.  And if Cal did start over, the SAHPC wouldn't have had to been built underground, and that too would have been a lot cheaper.  If Cal had done the practical thing, the cost of new facilities might have been $200-300 million, rather than the $500 million price tag they have.

Hell, if they did opt for the cheaper, less nostalgic option, they might have had money to buy out the coach last year and also avoided the embarrassment of giving him a Gatorade bath for getting win #75 against Presbyterian.

[OutsiderFan]

Cal gave up a blocked punt TD and a pick 6 to Presby.  Only Cal could hold a team to 8 yards total offense in one half and find a way to give up 12 points.  It would have been 14 had Presby made their XPs.  I've never heard of a team having more points than yards.

As for the Gatorade bath, it just shows how much Cal and its soft fan base embraces, even celebrates mediocrity.  No winning program would ever give a coach until year 10 of his tenure to win 75 games.  Cal fans hope to eventually get to the Rose Bowl, but they have no concept of the culture and performance standards needed to get there.  Not only does the fan base and administration not demand more, but Tedford doesn't have any coach on his staff that has been on a team that has won anything.  He has one coach that coached in the NFL, his OL coach that was with the Raiders for one season. 

Dumping Gatorade on a coach who wins his 75th game in his 10th year, against a horrible FCS school, is just one more in a long and sad list of reasons Cal will never win at a high level in sports that matter.

The ESP seating disaster was predictable.  Who in their right mind would give money to Cal? It's right up there with the Pentagon in terms of government bureaucracies that piss money away.  Cal should have bulldozed Memorial stadium and started new, like Stanford did with its stadium, but people at Cal are more interested in holding on to a symbol of an irrelevant past, than they are saving money by starting over.  Cal has to spend probably well north of $100 million more to keep the old Memorial Stadium facade intact and earthquake retrofitted than it would have if it just made the tough choice to raze Memorial and start over.  And if Cal did start over, the SAHPC wouldn't have had to been built underground, and that too would have been a lot cheaper.  If Cal had done the practical thing, the cost of new facilities might have been $200-300 million, rather than the $500 million price tag they have.

Hell, if they did opt for the cheaper, less nostalgic option, they might have had money to buy out the coach last year and also avoided the embarrassment of giving him a Gatorade bath for getting win #75 against Presbyterian.

[Redrum]

Talking about a team that, under Tedford,  averaged 7.5 wins per year.  Not too long ago we would have considered that a miracle come true if the coach with that kind of record wore red instead.  For perspective,  you have to go back,  waaay back,  to the brief tenure of Bill Walsh I  in the 1970s to find a Stanford coach with a better avg. yearly wins.  His Royal Ungratefulness only averaged 6.2 wins per year.    The only problem with Tedford is his inability to break out of the "good" ranks into the "great" ranks.  Well, that...and the fact he's a weenie.

Above average is a good assessment of Tedford so far.

[Redrum]

Talking about a team that, under Tedford,  averaged 7.5 wins per year.  Not too long ago we would have considered that a miracle come true if the coach with that kind of record wore red instead.  For perspective,  you have to go back,  waaay back,  to the brief tenure of Bill Walsh I  in the 1970s to find a Stanford coach with a better avg. yearly wins.  His Royal Ungratefulness only averaged 6.2 wins per year.    The only problem with Tedford is his inability to break out of the "good" ranks into the "great" ranks.  Well, that...and the fact he's a weenie.

Above average is a good assessment of Tedford so far.

[yvonne]

I think the Gatorade bath following a victory over an FCS team was more than extreme, as is the attention UC East Bay is receiving from the Bay Area press and from the Pac-12. In addition, the Cal coach is certainly not performing on a level to be the highest paid employee in the state. Nevertheless, we need to give credit where credit is due, and not become like some of UCB's thuggish fans who scoff at anything "f.urd." the UC system's highest paid employee is a decent to good coach. Having a winning season for nine of 10 years is an accomplishment. It shouldn't be derided.

[yvonne]

I think the Gatorade bath following a victory over an FCS team was more than extreme, as is the attention UC East Bay is receiving from the Bay Area press and from the Pac-12. In addition, the Cal coach is certainly not performing on a level to be the highest paid employee in the state. Nevertheless, we need to give credit where credit is due, and not become like some of UCB's thuggish fans who scoff at anything "f.urd." the UC system's highest paid employee is a decent to good coach. Having a winning season for nine of 10 years is an accomplishment. It shouldn't be derided.

[Leftcoast]

Yeah .... we're a victim of standard creep if we're sneering at an 8 win season average. 

For most of Stanford's recent history win totals of 7.5-8 were the very top end of our expectations.  Peaks above that we're seasons to be treasured.  Since 1940 Stanford has had exactly 7 seasons with over 8 wins.

1951  9 Wins  Rose Bowl
1970  9 Wins  Rose Bowl
1971  9 Wins  Rose Bowl
1977  9 Wins  Sun Bowl
1992  10 Wins Blockbuster Bowl
2001  9 Wins  Seattle Bowl  ***  Deserves an asterisk as it didn't feel like a peak at the time!
2010  12 Wins Orange Bowl

Heck, 1999's Rose Bowl year was only an 8 win season.   

How many Stanford seasons does it take to average a 1 win season (or 4 win as in JH's year 1) to an 8 win average?  Our last coach was cherry picked by the NFL before he could find out.  Jim Harbaugh, 4 years, 29 wins for a 7.25 wins/season average.

Keep in mind that success, like failure, is never final.  Stanford will need to work hard to keep fans in the happy place they are living now.

[Leftcoast]

Yeah .... we're a victim of standard creep if we're sneering at an 8 win season average. 

For most of Stanford's recent history win totals of 7.5-8 were the very top end of our expectations.  Peaks above that we're seasons to be treasured.  Since 1940 Stanford has had exactly 7 seasons with over 8 wins.

1951  9 Wins  Rose Bowl
1970  9 Wins  Rose Bowl
1971  9 Wins  Rose Bowl
1977  9 Wins  Sun Bowl
1992  10 Wins Blockbuster Bowl
2001  9 Wins  Seattle Bowl  ***  Deserves an asterisk as it didn't feel like a peak at the time!
2010  12 Wins Orange Bowl

Heck, 1999's Rose Bowl year was only an 8 win season.   

How many Stanford seasons does it take to average a 1 win season (or 4 win as in JH's year 1) to an 8 win average?  Our last coach was cherry picked by the NFL before he could find out.  Jim Harbaugh, 4 years, 29 wins for a 7.25 wins/season average.

Keep in mind that success, like failure, is never final.  Stanford will need to work hard to keep fans in the happy place they are living now.

[OutsiderFan]

I think the Gatorade bath following a victory over an FCS team was more than extreme, as is the attention UC East Bay is receiving from the Bay Area press and from the Pac-12. In addition, the UC East Bay coach is certainly not performing on a level to be the highest paid employee in the state. Nevertheless, we need to give credit where credit is due, and not become like some of UCB's thuggish fans who scoff at anything "f.urd." the UC system's highest paid employee is a decent to good coach. Having a winning season for nine of 10 years is an accomplishment. It shouldn't be derided.

Well, there is some merit, depending on your aspirations.  If you look inside the numbers, you'll see Tedford delivered much better results in his first five seasons than his last four.  Sure the team is 3-0 now, but it is a deeply flawed, poorly coached team.  I don't believe Cal will have more than seven wins in 2011.

The reality is Tedford had his most success when the Pac-10 had weak coaches.  He made hay on coaches like Willingham at UW, Koetter at ASU, to a degree, Bellotti at Oregon, Macovic at Arizona, the Teevens/Harris duo on the Farm, and he's feasted on the downtrodden Cougs (like everyone else). Now that the coaches are much better, he is struggling mightily.

Tedford is 17-19 in the conference over the last four seasons. 

[OutsiderFan]

I think the Gatorade bath following a victory over an FCS team was more than extreme, as is the attention UC East Bay is receiving from the Bay Area press and from the Pac-12. In addition, the UC East Bay coach is certainly not performing on a level to be the highest paid employee in the state. Nevertheless, we need to give credit where credit is due, and not become like some of UCB's thuggish fans who scoff at anything "f.urd." the UC system's highest paid employee is a decent to good coach. Having a winning season for nine of 10 years is an accomplishment. It shouldn't be derided.

Well, there is some merit, depending on your aspirations.  If you look inside the numbers, you'll see Tedford delivered much better results in his first five seasons than his last four.  Sure the team is 3-0 now, but it is a deeply flawed, poorly coached team.  I don't believe Cal will have more than seven wins in 2011.

The reality is Tedford had his most success when the Pac-10 had weak coaches.  He made hay on coaches like Willingham at UW, Koetter at ASU, to a degree, Bellotti at Oregon, Macovic at Arizona, the Teevens/Harris duo on the Farm, and he's feasted on the downtrodden Cougs (like everyone else). Now that the coaches are much better, he is struggling mightily.

Tedford is 17-19 in the conference over the last four seasons. 

[Robbie]

But for most of that time Stanford (and every other football team) was only playing 10 or 11 regular-season games.

8-2 is a lot more impressive than 8-4.

[Robbie]

But for most of that time Stanford (and every other football team) was only playing 10 or 11 regular-season games.

8-2 is a lot more impressive than 8-4.

[terry]

UCBerkeley's winningest coaches . . .

75-42-0  .641  JeffTedford
74-16-7  .799  Andy Smith
73-16-8  .794  James Schaeffer
67-32-4  .670  Pappy Waldorf

[terry]

UCBerkeley's winningest coaches . . .

75-42-0  .641  JeffTedford
74-16-7  .799  Andy Smith
73-16-8  .794  James Schaeffer
67-32-4  .670  Pappy Waldorf

[washingtonismoney]

I've never heard a really good argument as to why T.edford's results have fallen off recently. The "weak coaches" one is plausible. The quarterback issue is slightly less so: LSU and a few teams in the Big 10 succeed without much in the way of quarterbacking savvy. Why not T.edford? Especially since the team has recruited so well in recent years.

It's not as if they can't develop a player (unlike South Bend and Florida State) over there either--there are many 59ers in the NFL currently and they continue to produce high draft picks. It's very odd.

[washingtonismoney]

I've never heard a really good argument as to why T.edford's results have fallen off recently. The "weak coaches" one is plausible. The quarterback issue is slightly less so: LSU and a few teams in the Big 10 succeed without much in the way of quarterbacking savvy. Why not T.edford? Especially since the team has recruited so well in recent years.

It's not as if they can't develop a player (unlike South Bend and Florida State) over there either--there are many 59ers in the NFL currently and they continue to produce high draft picks. It's very odd.

[TreeFitty]

Could his decline be tied to a marked decline in the quality of his quarterbacks? His great season 2004 (10-2) was with Aaron Rodgers. 2006 (10-4) was good too with a not a great Nate Longshore, but they had Lynch to rely on for a running game.

Since Rodgers, Cal hasnt had any breakout QBs, and while they have had stars at other positions (RB most notably), seems that losing the classes from his first 4 years to graduation or the NFL overcomes those great individual athletes.

Seems to me that he caught lightning in a bottle with Rodgers, and he hasnt been able to reproduce the combo of a good-to-great QB plus great RB that got him earlier success.

I could be wrong though, I don't know off the top of my head about the c.a.l defense.

[TreeFitty]

Could his decline be tied to a marked decline in the quality of his quarterbacks? His great season 2004 (10-2) was with Aaron Rodgers. 2006 (10-4) was good too with a not a great Nate Longshore, but they had Lynch to rely on for a running game.

Since Rodgers, Cal hasnt had any breakout QBs, and while they have had stars at other positions (RB most notably), seems that losing the classes from his first 4 years to graduation or the NFL overcomes those great individual athletes.

Seems to me that he caught lightning in a bottle with Rodgers, and he hasnt been able to reproduce the combo of a good-to-great QB plus great RB that got him earlier success.

I could be wrong though, I don't know off the top of my head about the c.a.l defense.

[Redrum]

applies to Mike Riley at OSU  also.  Granted, last season could have been an anomaly,  and Ore St. traditionally starts out slow,  but this season makes me wonder.  Hope so.  We have to play them up there this year.

[Redrum]

applies to Mike Riley at OSU  also.  Granted, last season could have been an anomaly,  and Ore St. traditionally starts out slow,  but this season makes me wonder.  Hope so.  We have to play them up there this year.

[washingtonismoney]

I mean, saying something is different answers the question, I suppose, but I'm interested in what precisely that something is. T.edford is still producing NFL players--more and higher picks than ours, actually. It's hard to imagine T.edford is that behind-the-times if he is developing and turning out very good players.

As to the quarterbacking: yeah, sure, T.edford quarterbacks are mediocre. That's a problem! But look at the list of Wisconsin quarterbacks or LSU quarterbacks or Ohio State quarterbacks--not a particularly distinguished bunch there either. Or look at some of the quarterbacks that have won a Super Bowl. It's not exactly impossible to win and even win big with mediocre quarterbacking.

It seems like T.edford's recent teams are underprepared or underconfident when they run up against adversity. I remember the Nevada game where, in the middle of the first quarter, I was absolutely certain they'd lose. They had the look in the eye. I don't remember this being a feature of previous T.edford teams. Has something changed about his attitude toward the game? Did the frustrations just pile up and turn him from a coach who thought he could reach the bowl down in Pasadena to a coach who just wants to get by? That's all speculation--I want something a bit more, well, solid and convincing.

So: what is the something?

[washingtonismoney]

I mean, saying something is different answers the question, I suppose, but I'm interested in what precisely that something is. T.edford is still producing NFL players--more and higher picks than ours, actually. It's hard to imagine T.edford is that behind-the-times if he is developing and turning out very good players.

As to the quarterbacking: yeah, sure, T.edford quarterbacks are mediocre. That's a problem! But look at the list of Wisconsin quarterbacks or LSU quarterbacks or Ohio State quarterbacks--not a particularly distinguished bunch there either. Or look at some of the quarterbacks that have won a Super Bowl. It's not exactly impossible to win and even win big with mediocre quarterbacking.

It seems like T.edford's recent teams are underprepared or underconfident when they run up against adversity. I remember the Nevada game where, in the middle of the first quarter, I was absolutely certain they'd lose. They had the look in the eye. I don't remember this being a feature of previous T.edford teams. Has something changed about his attitude toward the game? Did the frustrations just pile up and turn him from a coach who thought he could reach the bowl down in Pasadena to a coach who just wants to get by? That's all speculation--I want something a bit more, well, solid and convincing.

So: what is the something?

[Embo]

Coaches change, lose energy and drive, or don't keep up with innovations in the game.

My two cents regarding this - this is anecdotal, but worth a comment.  In December 2009, I was channel surfing and remembered that C.al was playing its bowl game, the San Diego Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.  I had to check the score, and there was about two minutes to go in the fourth.  C.al was down 16 and Riley led them to a quick touchdown.  Okay, your team is down 16, it's near the end of the game, and you've just scored a TD.  The next calls you make in your sleep - go for two and then try an onside kick, right?  All of a sudden, the camera shows Riley jumping up and down animatedly and calling a timeout.  Was it a personnel issue?  No.  T.edford sent in the kicking team.  He said in the papers the next day that he "blamed it on his card", the coaches' algorithm on when to go for one or two.  That's nonsense.  He'd checked out of that game and was thinking about what he was going to have for dinner after.  I'm surprised C.al fans didn't raise a bigger stink.

[Embo]

Coaches change, lose energy and drive, or don't keep up with innovations in the game.

My two cents regarding this - this is anecdotal, but worth a comment.  In December 2009, I was channel surfing and remembered that C.al was playing its bowl game, the San Diego Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl.  I had to check the score, and there was about two minutes to go in the fourth.  C.al was down 16 and Riley led them to a quick touchdown.  Okay, your team is down 16, it's near the end of the game, and you've just scored a TD.  The next calls you make in your sleep - go for two and then try an onside kick, right?  All of a sudden, the camera shows Riley jumping up and down animatedly and calling a timeout.  Was it a personnel issue?  No.  T.edford sent in the kicking team.  He said in the papers the next day that he "blamed it on his card", the coaches' algorithm on when to go for one or two.  That's nonsense.  He'd checked out of that game and was thinking about what he was going to have for dinner after.  I'm surprised C.al fans didn't raise a bigger stink.