10-13-2011, 07:18 PM
59ers versus Spoiled Children. A startlingly amusing level of incompetence.
The Pac-12's version of the Iran-Iraq War
59ers versus Spoiled Children. A startlingly amusing level of incompetence.
10-13-2011, 07:30 PM
Can I register my supreme displeasure again about USC's band f*&970a0fing song? God I hate them.
Can I register my supreme displeasure again about USC's band f*&970a0fing song? God I hate them.
10-13-2011, 07:53 PM
Luckily I'm watching in a sports bar in LAX and am not subjected to the horrendous noise emitted by the band. It looks like a pretty physical game and players on both sides are getting a bit chippy.
At 20-0 at the half, I would try a change at QB. Maynard just isn't getting it done, despite that last drive. The Cal defense is pretty good. If the team had any semblance of offense, I wouldn't be surprised if they held USC to 10 or under in the half.
At 20-0 at the half, I would try a change at QB. Maynard just isn't getting it done, despite that last drive. The Cal defense is pretty good. If the team had any semblance of offense, I wouldn't be surprised if they held USC to 10 or under in the half.
Luckily I'm watching in a sports bar in LAX and am not subjected to the horrendous noise emitted by the band. It looks like a pretty physical game and players on both sides are getting a bit chippy.
At 20-0 at the half, I would try a change at QB. Maynard just isn't getting it done, despite that last drive. The Cal defense is pretty good. If the team had any semblance of offense, I wouldn't be surprised if they held USC to 10 or under in the half.
At 20-0 at the half, I would try a change at QB. Maynard just isn't getting it done, despite that last drive. The Cal defense is pretty good. If the team had any semblance of offense, I wouldn't be surprised if they held USC to 10 or under in the half.
10-13-2011, 07:57 PM
Wow! They are both terrible.
U..S..C is never going to hold up physically for the entire year. I wish Stanford could play them in late November.
Meanwhile, C.a.l clearly is not able to move the ball against Pac-12 defenses yet. I wish Stanford could play them next week.
I can't help but think that if Stanford can not dominate these two squads, then they don't deserve to win the Pac-12.
There seem to be a lot of S...C.. injuries tonight. Is this because the field is too hard for football? Or is this because SC no-hit practices have left them a bit too soft to play against physical teams?
U..S..C is never going to hold up physically for the entire year. I wish Stanford could play them in late November.
Meanwhile, C.a.l clearly is not able to move the ball against Pac-12 defenses yet. I wish Stanford could play them next week.
I can't help but think that if Stanford can not dominate these two squads, then they don't deserve to win the Pac-12.
There seem to be a lot of S...C.. injuries tonight. Is this because the field is too hard for football? Or is this because SC no-hit practices have left them a bit too soft to play against physical teams?
Wow! They are both terrible.
U..S..C is never going to hold up physically for the entire year. I wish Stanford could play them in late November.
Meanwhile, C.a.l clearly is not able to move the ball against Pac-12 defenses yet. I wish Stanford could play them next week.
I can't help but think that if Stanford can not dominate these two squads, then they don't deserve to win the Pac-12.
There seem to be a lot of S...C.. injuries tonight. Is this because the field is too hard for football? Or is this because SC no-hit practices have left them a bit too soft to play against physical teams?
U..S..C is never going to hold up physically for the entire year. I wish Stanford could play them in late November.
Meanwhile, C.a.l clearly is not able to move the ball against Pac-12 defenses yet. I wish Stanford could play them next week.
I can't help but think that if Stanford can not dominate these two squads, then they don't deserve to win the Pac-12.
There seem to be a lot of S...C.. injuries tonight. Is this because the field is too hard for football? Or is this because SC no-hit practices have left them a bit too soft to play against physical teams?
10-13-2011, 09:12 PM
Rece Davis shares an anecdote about Memorial Stadium: apparently a player visited Cal and went to Memorial Stadium. They take a tour, and the father says, "You know, this place could use a coat of paint." Apparently the player goes and commits to Stanford.
Any guesses about who this one is?
Any guesses about who this one is?
Rece Davis shares an anecdote about Memorial Stadium: apparently a player visited Cal and went to Memorial Stadium. They take a tour, and the father says, "You know, this place could use a coat of paint." Apparently the player goes and commits to Stanford.
Any guesses about who this one is?
Any guesses about who this one is?
10-13-2011, 09:16 PM
Cal's defense is really tough. They've shut down Robert Woods. Something that we have not been able to do. They've shut down the run too. Not sure USC would have scored at all if it wasn't for Cal's offense turning the ball over again and again including when they were on the SC 5 yard line. Cal's turnovers were killers.
I'm sure it pissed the fans from each side because the TV guys kept talking about Stanford and Andrew Luck and watching us practice during the week.
I'm sure it pissed the fans from each side because the TV guys kept talking about Stanford and Andrew Luck and watching us practice during the week.
Cal's defense is really tough. They've shut down Robert Woods. Something that we have not been able to do. They've shut down the run too. Not sure USC would have scored at all if it wasn't for Cal's offense turning the ball over again and again including when they were on the SC 5 yard line. Cal's turnovers were killers.
I'm sure it pissed the fans from each side because the TV guys kept talking about Stanford and Andrew Luck and watching us practice during the week.
I'm sure it pissed the fans from each side because the TV guys kept talking about Stanford and Andrew Luck and watching us practice during the week.
10-13-2011, 09:27 PM
(10-13-2011, 09:16 PM)Griffin78 link Wrote:I'm sure it pissed the fans from each side because the TV guys kept talking about Stanford and Andrew Luck and watching us practice during the week.
Yeah...I feel terrible about that.
(10-13-2011, 09:16 PM)Griffin78 link Wrote:I'm sure it pissed the fans from each side because the TV guys kept talking about Stanford and Andrew Luck and watching us practice during the week.
Yeah...I feel terrible about that.
10-13-2011, 10:14 PM
This thread's subject line made me laugh out loud obnoxiously. I'm going to request that each year's c a l - u s c game be referred to as iran-iraq.
Re: The sc band's interminable trojan tune, I recall the LSJUMB doing a darn good broken-record version of it, getting stuck on dup-duppa-duppa-duppa dup dup dah again and again. Problem was, people probably didn't notice the difference.
This thread's subject line made me laugh out loud obnoxiously. I'm going to request that each year's c a l - u s c game be referred to as iran-iraq.
Re: The sc band's interminable trojan tune, I recall the LSJUMB doing a darn good broken-record version of it, getting stuck on dup-duppa-duppa-duppa dup dup dah again and again. Problem was, people probably didn't notice the difference.
10-13-2011, 10:25 PM
The commentators seemed fixated on the idea that Maynard is in the wrong system. Meanwhile Tedford seems incapable of changing anything to improve Maynard's chances for success. Odd, you'd think a coach with his tenure would not have this particular system-talent mismatch problem.
It really could get ugly for Tedford. Maynard's tendencies are EASY, EASY, EASY to identify, and he literally declares his pass intentions before he starts his motion. So I suspect it will only get worse as Pac-12 teams get more film to analyze. The SC players definitely seemed to jump some of the routes and 2 to 4 MORE interceptions were there for the taking. Remember USC has a terrible defense that gave up 41 points AT HOME to Arizona not too long ago. If C.a.l could only score 9 points at home against that D then...Wow! I would bet Utah, OSU and Washington State fans are a bit more eager to play C.a.l now.
It really could get ugly for Tedford. Maynard's tendencies are EASY, EASY, EASY to identify, and he literally declares his pass intentions before he starts his motion. So I suspect it will only get worse as Pac-12 teams get more film to analyze. The SC players definitely seemed to jump some of the routes and 2 to 4 MORE interceptions were there for the taking. Remember USC has a terrible defense that gave up 41 points AT HOME to Arizona not too long ago. If C.a.l could only score 9 points at home against that D then...Wow! I would bet Utah, OSU and Washington State fans are a bit more eager to play C.a.l now.
The commentators seemed fixated on the idea that Maynard is in the wrong system. Meanwhile Tedford seems incapable of changing anything to improve Maynard's chances for success. Odd, you'd think a coach with his tenure would not have this particular system-talent mismatch problem.
It really could get ugly for Tedford. Maynard's tendencies are EASY, EASY, EASY to identify, and he literally declares his pass intentions before he starts his motion. So I suspect it will only get worse as Pac-12 teams get more film to analyze. The SC players definitely seemed to jump some of the routes and 2 to 4 MORE interceptions were there for the taking. Remember USC has a terrible defense that gave up 41 points AT HOME to Arizona not too long ago. If C.a.l could only score 9 points at home against that D then...Wow! I would bet Utah, OSU and Washington State fans are a bit more eager to play C.a.l now.
It really could get ugly for Tedford. Maynard's tendencies are EASY, EASY, EASY to identify, and he literally declares his pass intentions before he starts his motion. So I suspect it will only get worse as Pac-12 teams get more film to analyze. The SC players definitely seemed to jump some of the routes and 2 to 4 MORE interceptions were there for the taking. Remember USC has a terrible defense that gave up 41 points AT HOME to Arizona not too long ago. If C.a.l could only score 9 points at home against that D then...Wow! I would bet Utah, OSU and Washington State fans are a bit more eager to play C.a.l now.
10-13-2011, 10:32 PM
I recently glanced at bear insider and saw a theme arising, "give him one more year in the new stadium to prove himself" ... with others contesting that take.Â
I recently glanced at bear insider and saw a theme arising, "give him one more year in the new stadium to prove himself" ... with others contesting that take.Â
Naturally, the cries for the UC system's highest paid employee's head have increased on the BI. Could someone familiar with contract law explain how much the UC would be on the hook for if they fired the UC system's highest paid employee? Would it be for the salary or the salary + talent fee? Does not having to pay various bonuses mitigate the cost? Does the money from the new TV contract make this a moot point?
Here's a link to the contract:
http://bit.ly/nYCJvg
The contract above goes through 2013, but in December 2009, he signed an extension of that contract through 2015.
Here's a link to the contract:
http://bit.ly/nYCJvg
The contract above goes through 2013, but in December 2009, he signed an extension of that contract through 2015.
Naturally, the cries for the UC system's highest paid employee's head have increased on the BI. Could someone familiar with contract law explain how much the UC would be on the hook for if they fired the UC system's highest paid employee? Would it be for the salary or the salary + talent fee? Does not having to pay various bonuses mitigate the cost? Does the money from the new TV contract make this a moot point?
Here's a link to the contract:
http://bit.ly/nYCJvg
The contract above goes through 2013, but in December 2009, he signed an extension of that contract through 2015.
Here's a link to the contract:
http://bit.ly/nYCJvg
The contract above goes through 2013, but in December 2009, he signed an extension of that contract through 2015.
10-14-2011, 09:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2011, 09:16 AM by OutsiderFan.)
UC East Bay owes Jeff Tedsel four more years after 2011 at $2.8 mil per season.
Or, $2.8 x 4 = $11.2 mil. There is no buyout. It's all guaranteed. He will be reigning error in Berkeley through 2015 if someone or someones in the UC East Bay donor base doesn't stop the carnage sooner.Â
The consensus among UC East Bay fans I know is that he'll be given one year in the shiny new digs (2012) and then he will be out. The thinking being a double figure buyout is too much to eat, but about $7.5 million might not only be doable, but a financial imperative because of the impact Tedsel is having on attendance, ESP seat sales, and how that puts the entire UC East Bay financial ship in danger of sinking.
Or, $2.8 x 4 = $11.2 mil. There is no buyout. It's all guaranteed. He will be reigning error in Berkeley through 2015 if someone or someones in the UC East Bay donor base doesn't stop the carnage sooner.Â
The consensus among UC East Bay fans I know is that he'll be given one year in the shiny new digs (2012) and then he will be out. The thinking being a double figure buyout is too much to eat, but about $7.5 million might not only be doable, but a financial imperative because of the impact Tedsel is having on attendance, ESP seat sales, and how that puts the entire UC East Bay financial ship in danger of sinking.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2011, 09:16 AM by OutsiderFan.)
UC East Bay owes Jeff Tedsel four more years after 2011 at $2.8 mil per season.
Or, $2.8 x 4 = $11.2 mil. There is no buyout. It's all guaranteed. He will be reigning error in Berkeley through 2015 if someone or someones in the UC East Bay donor base doesn't stop the carnage sooner.Â
The consensus among UC East Bay fans I know is that he'll be given one year in the shiny new digs (2012) and then he will be out. The thinking being a double figure buyout is too much to eat, but about $7.5 million might not only be doable, but a financial imperative because of the impact Tedsel is having on attendance, ESP seat sales, and how that puts the entire UC East Bay financial ship in danger of sinking.
Or, $2.8 x 4 = $11.2 mil. There is no buyout. It's all guaranteed. He will be reigning error in Berkeley through 2015 if someone or someones in the UC East Bay donor base doesn't stop the carnage sooner.Â
The consensus among UC East Bay fans I know is that he'll be given one year in the shiny new digs (2012) and then he will be out. The thinking being a double figure buyout is too much to eat, but about $7.5 million might not only be doable, but a financial imperative because of the impact Tedsel is having on attendance, ESP seat sales, and how that puts the entire UC East Bay financial ship in danger of sinking.
10-14-2011, 09:25 AM
Given the cost of the buyout and the facilities upgrades, wouldn't they have to take a flier on a perceived up and comer as their new coach? How would that do for recruiting? How is Tedford's likely departure going to fare with recruits?
10-14-2011, 10:22 AM
It always seemed to me that trumpeting Maynard as the next great QB at UC East Bay was always a bit delusional. Why did anyone ever think that a player who was not even all that great at a lesser level of ball would suddenly be transformed into a great QB when moving up to stiffer competition? So only NOW do they start talking about the speed of the game, etc?
It always seemed to me that trumpeting Maynard as the next great QB at UC East Bay was always a bit delusional. Why did anyone ever think that a player who was not even all that great at a lesser level of ball would suddenly be transformed into a great QB when moving up to stiffer competition? So only NOW do they start talking about the speed of the game, etc?
10-14-2011, 10:38 AM
Buffalo, wasn't it? Buffalo. To kal. Definitely an upgrade for Maynard, definitely not what kal boosters would dream about for their ideal starting QB.
10-14-2011, 11:11 AM
As it relates to Maynard, who thought he was going to be any good? The evidence suggests Tedford took Maynard as a transfer so he could get Keenan Allen. No other school was willing to take Maynard as a starting QB to get Allen. Alabama said no way.
As far as buying Tedsel out, the problem Cal has is that its current donors are happy with going to a bowl game and Cal not getting into any NCAA/off field trouble. Cal donors don't understand that when you aim so low, everyone else trying to win will bury you. It's only a matter of time until so many more better coaches prevent you from even reaching a bowl game. This is precisely where Cal is at. The conference has better coaches than Tedsel almost universally. His conference record since 2006 is 17-22, and he's lost his last six conference games.
It's been said many times, Cal (and its donors) is Cal's worst enemy.Â
There might be "younger old blues" that don't want to put up with losing, but who wants to give their money to UC's athletic department? The program hasn't been to a Rose Bowl or gone to a BCS bowl in over 50 years and sets new standards for mismanaging money and giving horrible contracts to coaches who aren't performing at an elite level.
As far as buying Tedsel out, the problem Cal has is that its current donors are happy with going to a bowl game and Cal not getting into any NCAA/off field trouble. Cal donors don't understand that when you aim so low, everyone else trying to win will bury you. It's only a matter of time until so many more better coaches prevent you from even reaching a bowl game. This is precisely where Cal is at. The conference has better coaches than Tedsel almost universally. His conference record since 2006 is 17-22, and he's lost his last six conference games.
It's been said many times, Cal (and its donors) is Cal's worst enemy.Â
There might be "younger old blues" that don't want to put up with losing, but who wants to give their money to UC's athletic department? The program hasn't been to a Rose Bowl or gone to a BCS bowl in over 50 years and sets new standards for mismanaging money and giving horrible contracts to coaches who aren't performing at an elite level.
As it relates to Maynard, who thought he was going to be any good? The evidence suggests Tedford took Maynard as a transfer so he could get Keenan Allen. No other school was willing to take Maynard as a starting QB to get Allen. Alabama said no way.
As far as buying Tedsel out, the problem Cal has is that its current donors are happy with going to a bowl game and Cal not getting into any NCAA/off field trouble. Cal donors don't understand that when you aim so low, everyone else trying to win will bury you. It's only a matter of time until so many more better coaches prevent you from even reaching a bowl game. This is precisely where Cal is at. The conference has better coaches than Tedsel almost universally. His conference record since 2006 is 17-22, and he's lost his last six conference games.
It's been said many times, Cal (and its donors) is Cal's worst enemy.Â
There might be "younger old blues" that don't want to put up with losing, but who wants to give their money to UC's athletic department? The program hasn't been to a Rose Bowl or gone to a BCS bowl in over 50 years and sets new standards for mismanaging money and giving horrible contracts to coaches who aren't performing at an elite level.
As far as buying Tedsel out, the problem Cal has is that its current donors are happy with going to a bowl game and Cal not getting into any NCAA/off field trouble. Cal donors don't understand that when you aim so low, everyone else trying to win will bury you. It's only a matter of time until so many more better coaches prevent you from even reaching a bowl game. This is precisely where Cal is at. The conference has better coaches than Tedsel almost universally. His conference record since 2006 is 17-22, and he's lost his last six conference games.
It's been said many times, Cal (and its donors) is Cal's worst enemy.Â
There might be "younger old blues" that don't want to put up with losing, but who wants to give their money to UC's athletic department? The program hasn't been to a Rose Bowl or gone to a BCS bowl in over 50 years and sets new standards for mismanaging money and giving horrible contracts to coaches who aren't performing at an elite level.
I disagree. I think at the beginning of the UC system's highest paid employee's tenure, UC East Bay fans expected to contend for the conference championship, and around 2004, fans expected to contend for the national championship. In fact, I remember people posting on UC East Bay boards that Stanford was no longer their rival, that they could expect to win the Big Game in perpetuity, with only an occasional break every 10 years because Stanford would be at best a bowl team every four years and Cal would become a national power. UC East Bay fans were so confident in the UC system's highest paid employee that they celebrated when he turned down overtures from Washington. The question is not expectations.
The question is how much donors are willing to pay to meet those expectations. UC East Bay is having trouble selling the seats necessary to pay for the stadium refurbishment and athletic center. I don't think they're going to find someone to foot the bill for a good coach.
The question is how much donors are willing to pay to meet those expectations. UC East Bay is having trouble selling the seats necessary to pay for the stadium refurbishment and athletic center. I don't think they're going to find someone to foot the bill for a good coach.
I disagree. I think at the beginning of the UC system's highest paid employee's tenure, UC East Bay fans expected to contend for the conference championship, and around 2004, fans expected to contend for the national championship. In fact, I remember people posting on UC East Bay boards that Stanford was no longer their rival, that they could expect to win the Big Game in perpetuity, with only an occasional break every 10 years because Stanford would be at best a bowl team every four years and Cal would become a national power. UC East Bay fans were so confident in the UC system's highest paid employee that they celebrated when he turned down overtures from Washington. The question is not expectations.
The question is how much donors are willing to pay to meet those expectations. UC East Bay is having trouble selling the seats necessary to pay for the stadium refurbishment and athletic center. I don't think they're going to find someone to foot the bill for a good coach.
The question is how much donors are willing to pay to meet those expectations. UC East Bay is having trouble selling the seats necessary to pay for the stadium refurbishment and athletic center. I don't think they're going to find someone to foot the bill for a good coach.
10-14-2011, 11:58 AM
The U...C.. problems run a bit deeper than Te.df.ord. The State has serious financial challenges, and every entity in the State has been asked to cut deep. It just sends a horrible message to fire on guy getting top dollar, pay out his contract, and then sign up another guy for even more money in an ATTEMPT to win a few more games.
Then U....C.. has other challenges unique to that campus and our area that will always make getting kids from LA and Texas difficult.
This is not to say that Stanford's fortunes are that much better, but I am pretty certain that Texas, Florida and Michigan will win more games and play in more BCS bowls than C.a.l over the next 20 years with or without Te.df.ord
Then U....C.. has other challenges unique to that campus and our area that will always make getting kids from LA and Texas difficult.
This is not to say that Stanford's fortunes are that much better, but I am pretty certain that Texas, Florida and Michigan will win more games and play in more BCS bowls than C.a.l over the next 20 years with or without Te.df.ord
The U...C.. problems run a bit deeper than Te.df.ord. The State has serious financial challenges, and every entity in the State has been asked to cut deep. It just sends a horrible message to fire on guy getting top dollar, pay out his contract, and then sign up another guy for even more money in an ATTEMPT to win a few more games.
Then U....C.. has other challenges unique to that campus and our area that will always make getting kids from LA and Texas difficult.
This is not to say that Stanford's fortunes are that much better, but I am pretty certain that Texas, Florida and Michigan will win more games and play in more BCS bowls than C.a.l over the next 20 years with or without Te.df.ord
Then U....C.. has other challenges unique to that campus and our area that will always make getting kids from LA and Texas difficult.
This is not to say that Stanford's fortunes are that much better, but I am pretty certain that Texas, Florida and Michigan will win more games and play in more BCS bowls than C.a.l over the next 20 years with or without Te.df.ord
10-14-2011, 12:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2011, 12:04 PM by OutsiderFan.)
(10-14-2011, 11:39 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:I disagree. I think at the beginning of the UC system's highest paid employee's tenure, UC East Bay fans expected to contend for the conference championship, and around 2004, fans expected to contend for the national championship. .
Yvonne, you can believe what you want, but keep in mind, there is a major disconnect between fan expectations and desires and those of the donors. So yes, I agree, the fans expected to compete for a National Championship, but the donors are happy with just going to bowl games and staying out of the papers for a lawless program.
Proof: UC East Bay gave the UC system's highest paid employee a of extremely large proportions contract extension funded by donors, after finishing 6-6 (after starting 5-0) in 2007, and then going 8-4 in 2008. No donor base that values winning championships would ever give the contract extension the UC system's highest paid employee got to a coach coming off going 14-10 the previous two seasons. No buyout, and five more years fully guaranteed at nearly $3 mil per year?
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2011, 12:04 PM by OutsiderFan.)
(10-14-2011, 11:39 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:I disagree. I think at the beginning of the UC system's highest paid employee's tenure, UC East Bay fans expected to contend for the conference championship, and around 2004, fans expected to contend for the national championship. .
Yvonne, you can believe what you want, but keep in mind, there is a major disconnect between fan expectations and desires and those of the donors. So yes, I agree, the fans expected to compete for a National Championship, but the donors are happy with just going to bowl games and staying out of the papers for a lawless program.
Proof: UC East Bay gave the UC system's highest paid employee a of extremely large proportions contract extension funded by donors, after finishing 6-6 (after starting 5-0) in 2007, and then going 8-4 in 2008. No donor base that values winning championships would ever give the contract extension the UC system's highest paid employee got to a coach coming off going 14-10 the previous two seasons. No buyout, and five more years fully guaranteed at nearly $3 mil per year?
To put the JeffTedford issue in perspective, here's his record at UCBerkeley:
.    Total  Conf. Non-conf. (includes bowls)
2002Â Â 7-5Â Â Â 4-4Â Â Â 3-1Â Â Â Â Â ineligible for bowl.
2003  8-6   5-3   3-3     Insight Bowl   (W)
2004 10-2   7-1   3-1     Holiday Bowl   (L)
2005Â Â 8-4Â Â Â 4-4Â Â Â 4-0Â Â Â Â Â Las Vegas Bowl (W)
2006 10-3   7-2   3-1     Holiday Bowl   (W)
2007Â Â 7-6Â Â Â 3-6Â Â Â 4-0Â Â Â Â Â Armed Forces Bowl (W)
2008  9-4   6-3   3-1     Emerald Bowl  (W)
2009  8-5   5-4   3-1     Poinsettia Bowl (L)
2010Â Â 5-7Â Â Â 3-6Â Â Â 2-1Â
2011Â Â 3-3Â Â Â 0-3Â Â Â 3-0
Total 75-45  44-36  31-9 (includes 5-2 in bowl games)
UCBerkeley's non-conference scheduling generally has not been particularly challenging, with a few exceptions. That has allowed JeffTedford to run up an impressive record outside the conference. His record against non-conference opponents is 31-9 (26-7 in the regular season and 5-2 in bowl games).
I think the dissatisfaction among some UCBerkeley fans comes mostly from JeffTedford's conference record, especially in recent years. His overall conference record is 44-36, which is good but not outstanding (.550 winning pct.). But if you look at his record over the last 4+ seasons (2007-2011), he actually has a losing conference record. His conference record in the second half of his tenure is much worse than it was in the first half:
2002-2006:
27-14Â Conference
16-6Â Â Non-conference (includes 3-1 in bowl games)
43-20Â Total
2007-present:
17-22Â Conference
15-3Â Â Non-conference (includes 2-1 in bowl games)
32-25Â Total
I think some UCBerkeley fans may look at the conference record over the last 4+ years and conclude that their program is going backwards. The feeling that UCBerkeley is losing ground may be reinforced by the fact that Stanford's conference record during that same period of time has been 24-15, compared to UCBerkeley's 17-22.
I think a lot of UCBerkeley fans don't realize how good they've got it with JeffTedford. He rescued that program from the trash heap. He hasn't lived up to the early expectations he created, but he has done well. I think it would be a mistake for Barbour to fire JeffTedford at this point for performance reasons. He does have some talent, he probably can continue to win enough games to go to bowls, and it would be very expensive to buy him out. If he has lost the team for good, that would be a problem. But unless there's a mutiny brewing in the locker room, I think Barbour keeps him.
.    Total  Conf. Non-conf. (includes bowls)
2002Â Â 7-5Â Â Â 4-4Â Â Â 3-1Â Â Â Â Â ineligible for bowl.
2003  8-6   5-3   3-3     Insight Bowl   (W)
2004 10-2   7-1   3-1     Holiday Bowl   (L)
2005Â Â 8-4Â Â Â 4-4Â Â Â 4-0Â Â Â Â Â Las Vegas Bowl (W)
2006 10-3   7-2   3-1     Holiday Bowl   (W)
2007Â Â 7-6Â Â Â 3-6Â Â Â 4-0Â Â Â Â Â Armed Forces Bowl (W)
2008  9-4   6-3   3-1     Emerald Bowl  (W)
2009  8-5   5-4   3-1     Poinsettia Bowl (L)
2010Â Â 5-7Â Â Â 3-6Â Â Â 2-1Â
2011Â Â 3-3Â Â Â 0-3Â Â Â 3-0
Total 75-45  44-36  31-9 (includes 5-2 in bowl games)
UCBerkeley's non-conference scheduling generally has not been particularly challenging, with a few exceptions. That has allowed JeffTedford to run up an impressive record outside the conference. His record against non-conference opponents is 31-9 (26-7 in the regular season and 5-2 in bowl games).
I think the dissatisfaction among some UCBerkeley fans comes mostly from JeffTedford's conference record, especially in recent years. His overall conference record is 44-36, which is good but not outstanding (.550 winning pct.). But if you look at his record over the last 4+ seasons (2007-2011), he actually has a losing conference record. His conference record in the second half of his tenure is much worse than it was in the first half:
2002-2006:
27-14Â Conference
16-6Â Â Non-conference (includes 3-1 in bowl games)
43-20Â Total
2007-present:
17-22Â Conference
15-3Â Â Non-conference (includes 2-1 in bowl games)
32-25Â Total
I think some UCBerkeley fans may look at the conference record over the last 4+ years and conclude that their program is going backwards. The feeling that UCBerkeley is losing ground may be reinforced by the fact that Stanford's conference record during that same period of time has been 24-15, compared to UCBerkeley's 17-22.
I think a lot of UCBerkeley fans don't realize how good they've got it with JeffTedford. He rescued that program from the trash heap. He hasn't lived up to the early expectations he created, but he has done well. I think it would be a mistake for Barbour to fire JeffTedford at this point for performance reasons. He does have some talent, he probably can continue to win enough games to go to bowls, and it would be very expensive to buy him out. If he has lost the team for good, that would be a problem. But unless there's a mutiny brewing in the locker room, I think Barbour keeps him.
To put the JeffTedford issue in perspective, here's his record at UCBerkeley:
.    Total  Conf. Non-conf. (includes bowls)
2002Â Â 7-5Â Â Â 4-4Â Â Â 3-1Â Â Â Â Â ineligible for bowl.
2003  8-6   5-3   3-3     Insight Bowl   (W)
2004 10-2   7-1   3-1     Holiday Bowl   (L)
2005Â Â 8-4Â Â Â 4-4Â Â Â 4-0Â Â Â Â Â Las Vegas Bowl (W)
2006 10-3   7-2   3-1     Holiday Bowl   (W)
2007Â Â 7-6Â Â Â 3-6Â Â Â 4-0Â Â Â Â Â Armed Forces Bowl (W)
2008  9-4   6-3   3-1     Emerald Bowl  (W)
2009  8-5   5-4   3-1     Poinsettia Bowl (L)
2010Â Â 5-7Â Â Â 3-6Â Â Â 2-1Â
2011Â Â 3-3Â Â Â 0-3Â Â Â 3-0
Total 75-45  44-36  31-9 (includes 5-2 in bowl games)
UCBerkeley's non-conference scheduling generally has not been particularly challenging, with a few exceptions. That has allowed JeffTedford to run up an impressive record outside the conference. His record against non-conference opponents is 31-9 (26-7 in the regular season and 5-2 in bowl games).
I think the dissatisfaction among some UCBerkeley fans comes mostly from JeffTedford's conference record, especially in recent years. His overall conference record is 44-36, which is good but not outstanding (.550 winning pct.). But if you look at his record over the last 4+ seasons (2007-2011), he actually has a losing conference record. His conference record in the second half of his tenure is much worse than it was in the first half:
2002-2006:
27-14Â Conference
16-6Â Â Non-conference (includes 3-1 in bowl games)
43-20Â Total
2007-present:
17-22Â Conference
15-3Â Â Non-conference (includes 2-1 in bowl games)
32-25Â Total
I think some UCBerkeley fans may look at the conference record over the last 4+ years and conclude that their program is going backwards. The feeling that UCBerkeley is losing ground may be reinforced by the fact that Stanford's conference record during that same period of time has been 24-15, compared to UCBerkeley's 17-22.
I think a lot of UCBerkeley fans don't realize how good they've got it with JeffTedford. He rescued that program from the trash heap. He hasn't lived up to the early expectations he created, but he has done well. I think it would be a mistake for Barbour to fire JeffTedford at this point for performance reasons. He does have some talent, he probably can continue to win enough games to go to bowls, and it would be very expensive to buy him out. If he has lost the team for good, that would be a problem. But unless there's a mutiny brewing in the locker room, I think Barbour keeps him.
.    Total  Conf. Non-conf. (includes bowls)
2002Â Â 7-5Â Â Â 4-4Â Â Â 3-1Â Â Â Â Â ineligible for bowl.
2003  8-6   5-3   3-3     Insight Bowl   (W)
2004 10-2   7-1   3-1     Holiday Bowl   (L)
2005Â Â 8-4Â Â Â 4-4Â Â Â 4-0Â Â Â Â Â Las Vegas Bowl (W)
2006 10-3   7-2   3-1     Holiday Bowl   (W)
2007Â Â 7-6Â Â Â 3-6Â Â Â 4-0Â Â Â Â Â Armed Forces Bowl (W)
2008  9-4   6-3   3-1     Emerald Bowl  (W)
2009  8-5   5-4   3-1     Poinsettia Bowl (L)
2010Â Â 5-7Â Â Â 3-6Â Â Â 2-1Â
2011Â Â 3-3Â Â Â 0-3Â Â Â 3-0
Total 75-45  44-36  31-9 (includes 5-2 in bowl games)
UCBerkeley's non-conference scheduling generally has not been particularly challenging, with a few exceptions. That has allowed JeffTedford to run up an impressive record outside the conference. His record against non-conference opponents is 31-9 (26-7 in the regular season and 5-2 in bowl games).
I think the dissatisfaction among some UCBerkeley fans comes mostly from JeffTedford's conference record, especially in recent years. His overall conference record is 44-36, which is good but not outstanding (.550 winning pct.). But if you look at his record over the last 4+ seasons (2007-2011), he actually has a losing conference record. His conference record in the second half of his tenure is much worse than it was in the first half:
2002-2006:
27-14Â Conference
16-6Â Â Non-conference (includes 3-1 in bowl games)
43-20Â Total
2007-present:
17-22Â Conference
15-3Â Â Non-conference (includes 2-1 in bowl games)
32-25Â Total
I think some UCBerkeley fans may look at the conference record over the last 4+ years and conclude that their program is going backwards. The feeling that UCBerkeley is losing ground may be reinforced by the fact that Stanford's conference record during that same period of time has been 24-15, compared to UCBerkeley's 17-22.
I think a lot of UCBerkeley fans don't realize how good they've got it with JeffTedford. He rescued that program from the trash heap. He hasn't lived up to the early expectations he created, but he has done well. I think it would be a mistake for Barbour to fire JeffTedford at this point for performance reasons. He does have some talent, he probably can continue to win enough games to go to bowls, and it would be very expensive to buy him out. If he has lost the team for good, that would be a problem. But unless there's a mutiny brewing in the locker room, I think Barbour keeps him.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »