Football: Tedford talks Arizona

Cal doesn’t hold its weekly press conference during bye weeks, but coach Jeff Tedford actually requested an informal media session this morning.  Because of the late nature of Saturday’s game, and the way it turned right at the end, some writers (including yours truly) weren’t able to get down to the locker room in time for Tedford’s post-game availability. Tedford knew there would be a lot of follow-up questions about the game this week, and he said he wanted to get them all out of the way immediately so he could move on.

So a small group of us asked Tedford questions for about 20 minutes as uniformed players walked by for Picture Day. Tedford acknowledged that Saturday’s 10-9 loss to Arizona was one of the hardest of his career to take.

“The way it unfolded. It was a very emotional, hard-fought game,” he said. “It was right there for the taking and we let it slip away. Those are always very difficult.”

Tedford didn’t elaborate too much on what he told the team in the locker room after the game, but it’s clear it was an emotional scene. But Tedford wasn’t mad at his players. Quite the contrary, he said he did some yelling because he knew they were as upset about the loss as he was.

“I wasn’t yelling at them. I was yelling for them,” Tedford said. “I knew how they felt.”

Tedford answered a couple questions about playcalling down the stretch, which could have been interpreted as too conservative. When asked if he considered passing on 3rd-and-3 from the Arizona 8 with the Bears leading 6-3 early in the third quarter, Tedford said: “I felt we had a really good play that we could run. We just didn’t block two guys in the open field. We had a hat on a hat. If we make those blocks, Shane (Vereen) doesn’t just make the first down, he probably scores.”

Vereen ended up gaining just two yards to set up 4th-and-1 from the 6. Tedford was asked if considered going for it instead of settling for a field goal. “I thought about it. It was a three-point game at that time. The way our defense was playing, I felt  like if we can make them score a touchdown, that was going to be key. They were moving the ball a little bit, getting in field goal range from time to time, but they weren’t converting.”

Tedford said he also was confident enough in kicker Giorgio Tavecchio not to throw on third-and-8 at the Arizona 25, leading 9-3 and under three minutes left. The ball was set up on the right hash, Tavecchio’s strongest area of the field. He nailed a 40-yarder earlier in the game from the right hash.

“He kicks the ball real well from the right hash mark, as he did on the first two,” Tedford said. “I felt really good about maybe popping one. It was third-and-8. You get a little bit closer, and maybe you pop one.  If you pop one and make a first down, now you can kill the clock down to about 25 seconds.”

Tavecchio ended up missing the 40-yarder, allowing Arizona to come back and win.

Tavecchio made field goals of 23, 25 and 40 yards but missed from 33 and 40. Tedford said there’s no question that Tavecchio is still Cal’s kicker.

“By far, he’s our kicker,” Tedford said. “It’s not even close. His kickoffs have been excellent, his field goals have been excellent. He’s hitting the ball very solid. I went over and put my hand on his head and told him to hang in there. He hit the ball solid. He gave it his best stroke. He just pulled  it. He hit it solid and it just didn’t go in.”

Other notes:

  • Tedford said the Bears will use the bye week to game plan more than usual. That’s partly because the next opponent is UCLA, which runs the pistol offense that Cal struggled so much with against Nevada. “Obviously, we need some work on the pistol,” Tedford said. “As much work as we can get on the pistol, the better. We proved that we didn’t play it very well against Reno. We have our work cut out for us to make sure we improve with that.”
  • Tedford said the interception at the end  of the game simply went through Marvin Jones’ hands, and it wasn’t contested. “How many times have you seen Marv drop a ball that’s right in his hands?” Tedford said. “Not very often. It wasn’t even a contested ball. It was pretty clean. Marv has great hands. It goes through his hands, and to make matters worse, right into their hands.”
  • Tedford acknowledged  that wide receiver Keenan Allen still wasn’t 100 percent healthy last week at practice, and that’s why his reps were limited against Arizona. Allen should be completely healthy with the bye allowing him to fully heal up.
  • Tedford also said linebacker Mike Mohamed wasn’t completely healed against Arizona, and that’s why he wasn’t on the field as much as usual, especially when the Bears were in the nickel. Like Allen, Mohamed should be fully healthy by the UCLA game.
  • Tedford said he’d like to get Isi  Sofele more involved with the offense, partly because Sofele did some good  things against Arizona and also because Vereen needs to lighten his workload. Vereen had 27 carries for 102 yards against the Wildcats. Sofele had 30 yards on three carries. “Isi did a nice job,” Tedford said. “Shane had about seven carries  too many. We need to get Isi more involved because he did some nice things in the game.”

Jonathan Okanes

Jonathan Okanes is in his fourth year covering Cal's football team. Previously, he covered Cal's men's basketball team for four years. He can also be followed on Twitter at twitter.com/OkanesonCal.

  • Johnny

    I’m behind you, JT. Just make sure the boys get their minds right, and we’ll improve a lot over the year. GO BEARS

  • Sean

    I support JT, however, history as shown a bad pattern in close games under his regime. Running on 3rd and 8 into an 8 or 9 man box against a fast team is not a legit attempt at a 1st down. It’s a concession play with a predetermined plan to kick the FG. With a 6 point lead a FG attempt is your last option once the other team stops your drive. The coaching staff stopped the drive with the play calling in the redzone.

    Look, we all see that the QB is a C+ or B- player at his best. However, with a six point lead you’ve got to give the offense a chance to make a play. A FG attempt under any circumstance is riskier than running your offense. Even the greatest kickers miss 40 yarders.

  • rollonubears

    totally agree. after tedford’s comments, i’d forgotten about those 3rd down plays. it’s really quite ridiculous. ludwig is a much better OC than cignetti. i can say that. but on the critical calls, tedford’s gotta have a hand in that.

    why doesn’t anybody stand up to him? especially the players? are they really that content with playing soft and hoping the other team doesn’t do well? it’s really disgusting. it’s such an easy switch. “all right boys, enough of this wussy stuff. we’re going out there and were stomping on them.” it’s so much easier to get a team to rally behind an aggressive strategy than a passive one. this is football for crissakes! i just don’t get it. we don’t suck. in the 90s, we sucked. we have a great team. great talent. great facilities. great fans. and a coach who’s scared to win.

  • Bobby

    Rollon: You obviously were not an offensive lineman (I don’t mean that in a disparaging way…) The hog mollies love nothing more than power running, especially in a situation where they’re not expected to (like 3rd and long). Telling your offensive line that you believe they can pin their ears back and get off the line of scrimmage to make a hole when they’re not expected to is about as far from “wussy” or “passive.”

  • Juancho

    Pretty happy to read that Tedford was doing a little yelling after the game. I’m a believer that for sports such as football you need a coach who can do something like that. And I like his approach of yelling for the kids instead of at them. I respect that. Good for him. As barbaric as it is, I honestly believe being more of a red ass when it comes to coaching kids who are put at a very high standard, helps.

  • Juancho

    Sean is that a reference to Janikowski? : )

  • Scott


    “Scared to win” says it all. So frustrating to be Bear fan, especially with USC finally down and the conference so wide open. Problem now is Tedford refuses to step up his game while the rest of the conference has picked up theirs.

  • Tedford’s history in close games & big games is awful, esp. on the road. Other than Stanford (which is a rivalry game, so all bets are off), how many wins do we have in big road games? Maybe 1 at Oregon a few years back. Other than that, nothing. I love Tedford for getting us out from being a pathetic program. But I’m afraid that he’s only going to get us to good, and never to great or elite.

  • House

    Really? Asu, Minn, Ucla and Stanford were all close road games we won last season.

    How is that awful?

  • Were any of those BIG games? UCLA was terrible last season, and Minnesota just lost at home to whom, South Dakota St.? The win @ UCLA was Tedford’s first win in L.A. in 8 tries. He was 0-7 before that vs. UCLA and U$C in L.A. I just don’t think any of those were BIG games. We went to Tennessee, and got crushed. We went to Oregon, and got crushed. We went to U$C, and lost (and frequently it wasn’t that close).

    I agree, his game plan late in the AZ game was way too conservative. He was outcoached yet again.

  • Oh, and we went to Reno and got crushed too. Granted, if it weren’t for U$C’s recent dominance, maybe we would’ve been to a Rose Bowl. But again, it sure seems to me that Tedford isn’t the one to lead us to the promised land. He is obviously 1000 times better than what we used to have, but we need more to get us over the hump. There’s no reason why we can’t be an elite program, why we couldn’t be the Duke of football. That school has a great academic reputation, and it always has a perennial contender. That’s what we should strive for. And we’re not close to there yet.

  • Sean


    Yes, admittedly I’m a Raiders fan too. So there was a slight Seabass reference there. Hey, if the highest paid kicker in the NFL can miss a 33 yarder surely we can excuse Giorgio. As I’ve said in may blogs, games like this come down to coaching as much as anything. You simply can’t expect the same level of oonsistent execution from college players. The coaches have to find a way to give the players an edge when facing equally talented teams. Tedford’s passing game relies heavily on timing and execution. Since he hasn’t found a QB that he trusts like Rogers it seems that he’s grown way more conservative with his calls.

    Cal will have some good teams under Tedford, but they won’t compete for Pac-10 championships until they get an All-Pac-10 level QB that JT trusts with the offense. Even though Riley isn’t close to as good as Rogers he is capable of making more plays than Longshore could. I’m ok with a few missed throws here and there. So long as he doesn’t throw picks the team can overcome that. GIVE THE KID A CHANCE TO MAKE SOME PLAYS. For Christ’s sake teams are stacking the box and playin one on one against a talented receiving corp. When you’re on the other side of the 50 mix in some throws please.

  • Sean


    It’s awful because those were all teams Cal was supposed to beat handily. Those games shouldn’t have even been close. Maybe the question should be rephrased. How many upsets has Tedford had of his 67 wins? How many of those wins occured against equal competition when Cal didn’t have at least a 10 point lead going into the 4th quarter? How many comeback wins has Cal had under Tedford’s regime? Cal has had top 3 or 4 level talent in the Pac-10 probably 7 of Tedford’s 9 years. Two or three of those teams were good enough to win the Pac-10.

    JT is a great recruiter (see NFL draft). I don’t want to hear any excuses about the facilities. Those are on the way. But Cal has already had the talent to be a BCS Bowl team.

    Here’s Cal’s script under JT. They either execute well and dominate teams because of superior talent or get punched in the mouth, don’t respond well, get conservative, and lose. That is the definition of fragile.

  • House

    Sean, mike here’s some food for thought.

    09: Stanford (down 14 at one point), Arizona
    08: Oregon, Miami
    07: Tennessee, Oregon
    06: Oregon, Ucla, played Usc extremly close on the road.
    05: Down year, beat BYU in Vegas
    04: nuff said

    So 5 of the past 6 years this team has won at least two big games, and some of these are on the road. As for getting punched in the mouth and not responding, before 09 that has only happened twice; 06 Tennessee and 05 USC. Didn’t you just watch the Arizona game? Cal played a top 15 team to the final wistle on the road. It’s stupid to assume Cal will win even close to every big game it plays, simply put that’s why they are big games.

    What exactly do you guys want?? It’s like Cal will never impress it’s own fans because of ridiculous standards or over the top complaining.

  • Bobby

    Bam, House. Love seeing the facts refute uninformed opinion.

    If it makes anyone feel better, two weeks from now our Bears will likely have the same record as their Furds.

    Go bears! Root for our team!

  • Easy Ed

    I managed to get over it, Arizona is over and done so let’s move on. With Mike Mo back and Keenan at 100% bring on the Bruins. Perspective is the key, I’d love to have a Rose Bowl or other BCS Bowl on our resume but things haven’t worked out for us. Still, I believe in JT and as I looked at Aaron Rogers tonight I realize we are one QB away from greatness. Unfortunately between Riley, Sweeney and Mansion I don’t see that guy on our current roster.

  • Juancho

    Seeing Rodgers tonight really makes me wish more of the current alumni in the NFL were more visible participants in the program. It’d really help us with recruits, and would make alumni like me feel better about the program.

    Desean, Rogers, Jahvid, Forsett, Bishop, Mebane, Asomugha, Alualu, Andre Carter, O’Callaghan, DeCoud, Tony G….it seems like every game I see on RedZone on sundays has a Cal guy.

  • 66Bear

    One loss will not keep a team out of the Rose Bowl this year. Go Bears! Beat the Bruins!

    P.S. I’m with Bobby, Bam, and House. Coach Tedford is a great coach, and the team is playing their hearts out and adding to the great Bear football tradition. I love college and Bear football, and I wish all the whiners would chill out and have another canape or Twinky or whatever it is that they do when they are not whining.

  • eric

    2006 – Tennessee, Arizona, and U$C. All road games, all critical and statement games, all losses.

    2007 – Oregon (by the way, the last significant non-rivalry road win) versus UCLA, ASU, Washington, and Furd. I’m not going to count Oregon State, since I give Riley huge credit for that game. Not a great resume for the coaching staff.

    2008 – Arizona, U$C, Oregon State. Losses in statement games. Oh, and Maryland. Maryland??? Let’s not forget that one. Our only road win that year was WSU.

    2009 – Oregon, USC (at home), Washington, Oregon State (at home) versus Arizona (good Vereen win) and Furd (good Vereen win, with Harbaugh forgetting he had a phenomenal running back). If Minnesota counts as a significant road win, let’s go to I-AA. Oh yeah, I forgot, the guy who wrote that thinks the team has been improving every year under Tedford. Every year.

    Undisputed facts do help.

  • eric

    And I forget ASU in 2009. Great win against the second worst Pac-10 team, which we almost lost when Tedford ordered Vereen to try a Tebow. That’s a statement win. Huge. Program making. As big as UCLA’s win over Texas.

  • H8sRed

    Thanks for setting the record straight House.

    The same posters are whining about supposed conservative play-calling against Arizona; yet last week, they droned on that the Bears should have just run against Nevada. Make up your minds.

    No one likes losing, but you don’t burn down the house after losing a close game on the road against the #14 team in the country.

  • Larry

    “No one likes losing, but you don’t burn down the house after losing a close game on the road against the #14 team in the country.”

    Yeah, but you also don’t stand around frightened and watch the other team pour lighter fluid and throw a match on the house and burn it down in the forth quarter either.

  • Larry

    Arizona will not be ranked at the end of this season.

  • rollonubears

    H8sRed, an aggressive offensive approach doesn’t mean abandoning the run. It means going for it on 4th and 1, late in the game, with a tiny lead, deep in enemy territory. Running on 3rd and 8, when your opponent is stacking the box, just to try to get a couple yards to set up a field goal…yeah, that is conservative.

    Nevada was all about our defense’s lack of preparation. Abandoning the run may have had a little to do with it, and might have led to that riley miscue, but overall, it was because we couldn’t stop their offense. We had no trouble with the AZ offense, until we gave them hope, by handing them a 6pt lead and a chance to win it with one score instead of putting the game away. This is sill to debate this.

    I’m not ready to call for Tedford’s head. Not at all. He’s done so much for this university. He’s an incredible program manager. All I’m asking is that when he has the opportunity, he goes for the kill. Is that so much to ask? Give it a try. See if it works. If it backfires a bunch of times, fine. I’ll buy into the conservative.

    Actually, I think I just figured it out. We peaked in 2007. Tedford went for the throat against Or State, instead of the field goal to tie, and Riley blew it. That’s the last time we went balls to the wall (although it was only 3rd down). As much as I’m pissed about that game, and tedford for not telling riley to just go through his looks and then throw it away, at least he had the balls to go for it on one more play.

    Ever since that day, we’ve been conservative.

  • eric

    H8sred – Rollon is exactly right. I have long beena dvocate for running. Nevada runs 80% of the time, yet I wouldn’t call that a conservative offense. UCLA ran 22 straight times against Texas. That isn’t conservative either. Not going for it on 4th and 1 – that’s conservative. Throwing on 2 and long, or 3 and 4-5, when your running game is gaining 4-5 yards per carry is not only conservative, it is stupid. Last year against AZ and Furd, guess what? We ran like crazy and won (even though conservative playcalling almost cost us against Furd). Running, of course, has to be smart. Running shotgun draws (a Longshore speciality) never worked because our passing game has been sufficiently threatening and you need a QB who is otherwise a threat to run. Running out of the ace set with no blocking is likewise silly.

    What do I know? I’m not the second highest paid coach in the Pac-10. I’m just some schmoe who happened to mention before the game that we should run more than we pass (we didn’t) and that Riley, if he saw 5-7 yards of open space, should scramble (he didn’t, leading to the short punt that gave AZ 3 points). I also recommended quick hitters to FB (we did it once, for a first down) and use the i and ver sets to set up play-actions and roll-outs – really didn’t happen.

    Even Wilner noted that Cal oddly went away from the running game in the first half against AZ. When he is calling you out, that says something.

  • a Perko

    Why would Cal go for it on 4th and 1 late in the game down by 6? a field goal puts you up by 9, and that’s a two score game. JT made the right call. He can’t help it that Tavechio missed the FG. That happens sometimes. You play with that risk. People that are saying that they should have gone for it: Are you honestly saying that if they went for it on 4th and did not make it, and then AZ scored a TD, you’d be here saying JT made the right call??? Hindsight is perfect. Stop BSing.

  • rollonubears

    A perko, we were only up 3 at the time, not 6. Going for it would have given us a chance to put the game away right there, and worst case scenario, still be up 3 with AZ pinned inside the 10, and needing at least two FG to win, or a TD. Going for the FG there still allowed AZ to win with just one TD. Which is exactly what happened.

  • Meep.

    You know, guys. I’m over it. I’m with the relative minority that it’s not JT’s fault. It’s a simple case of a highly touted recruit not panning out. No matter what he says now, he just can’t put his faith in Kevin Riley. Look at how we got here. Longshore has a great year and looks like he’s going to lead us to the promised lands… and then gets injured. The best thing to do from this point forth is to just start Riley and let Longshore heal. But what does Tedford do? He brings back Longshore, injured, and has him play after getting cortisone injections before the game. He can’t seem to make up his mind and Longshore never really gets 100% and Riley never has confidence in himself (and for good reason). If Tedford could trust Riley, he would’ve just kept Longshore out and left Riley in, but that wasn’t the case. After Longshore graduates, Riley can’t even separate from Sweeney and Mansion, two quarterbacks who have zero meaningful snaps. We have a new batch of quarterbacks coming in (Hinder, Boehm, and Maynard), so I’m just going to watch this season out and hope we salvage it. Tedford used to be an aggressive coach, but that’s also when he had complete faith in the guy throwing the rock. He’s just looking for that guy and has missed the last two times, and I don’t blame him. It’s not easy looking at a 17-18 year old and trying to figure out what he’s going to be when he’s 21-22.

  • rollonubears

    Meep, I totally agree with you about the overall Riley situation, but I don’t think it takes a lot of confidence in your quarterback to hand the ball off on 4th and 1 and try to eke out a yard behind your best linemen. And what’s also concerning is that going into the season, Tedford said Riley was the clear #1. It wasn’t even close. That doesn’t bode well for next year. Maynard was not very effective at Buffalo. Maybe he’ll be great, but even if he is, he’s only here for 2 years. It’ll be at least a year before he’s up to speed, and then he’ll have one year and be done. I really hope Hinder or Boehm can step in and play as freshmen, so we can get at least 2 solid years out of one of them, starting in 2012. Next year, we’ll be running the ball a lot, I’m sure.

  • Calduke


    Is Bridgford a QB consideration??

  • BerkeleyBear07

    It’s the coach’s job to recruit the best available talent and then mold that talent in his vision. If Tedford is struggling to do that then we must agree that he’s not doing his job well enough. It’s not like Riley was a holdover from a previous coach. Riley is Tedford’s guy and his lack of performance over the last few years has only proved further to me that Tedford is losing his golden touch with QBs.

    I simply can’t get the bad memories of how last season ended out of my head and Cal is doing the exact same thing all over again this year. Sure, we’ll go to a bowl game (because 70 of the 120 teams that participate are eligible) but we’ll see how everyone feels after Cal loses to Dixon State at the eatmyshorts.com Bowl in Sandusky, Ohio.

  • Eric

    Just saw the news that Cal is cutting baseball, gymnastics, women’s lacrosse, and rugby (which gets relegated to a varsity club sport). I can’t help but again complain about the football team, and Tedford’s contract. Could we have saved one of these sports had Cal employed a coach who was a fraction of the cost and could still produce 7-5 and 8-4 seasons?

    One of the wonderful things about Cal athletics was the commitment to sports other than Football and Basketball. If Cal were a country, its Summer Olympic medal count would be in the top 20. The baseball team cut? There are six currently in the Major Leagues. If Cal is going to put all of its eggs into the football and basketball baskets, they better produce. It took 4 years too long to rid ourselves of Braun…

  • Rick

    It’s amazing to me that people forget where Cal football was 10 years ago before Tedford arrived. 7-5 and 8-4 seasons were a pipe dream. If you look at the revenue the Cal football program generates now as opposed to the final days of the Tom Holmore years (and Gilbertson before that), I am fairly certain that Tedford has paid for his salary and then some.

    None of this means Tedford should be immune from criticism, and there is certainly plenty of ammo after the play-calling last Saturday, but those sports are getting cut for reasons that go well beyond the head football coach’s salary.

  • runrunpasspunt

    Ben Braun made Cal basketball! … the money loser it has become. Nobody cares anymore. What is it with these contracts offered by the various A.D.s.

  • House

    Eric, Tedfords salary is paid mostly by donations to the football team. It has little to no effect on the rest of the academic program. Or so i’ve read.

  • Eric

    That I did not know, but that seems odd from a contract perspective, since presumably the University is on the hook for breach if he is terminated early.

  • Hail2Calif


    Could we have saved a sport by hiring a coach at a fraction of the cost to produce 7-5 and 8-4 seasons?

    Wulff is the lowest paid at $601K, Riley (and this is a shame) is next a little below 1MM.

    Stoops, Neuheisal, Kelly, Harbaugh and Erickson are in the 1.25-1.5MM range.

    Sarkisian 1.8MM

    Except for Riley and Kelly, NONE of the others above have the same winning percentage as JT. Stanford could turn that around with a big winning season – say 12-1, but frankly – almost all of them STILL are below .500 for their Pac-10 career.

    As for ‘saving’ another sport – every other sport besides football and basketball (both men and women) loses money. Are we really going to blame JT for the fact these sports lose money and thus are the ones that NEED the subsidy?

    Difficult decisions to cut sports were made because of ongoing deficits exacerbated by tough economic times – maybe that is JT’s fault too?

    Not 100% sure JT can take us to the next level of consistent BCS Bowl contender – but its definitely not easy just going out there and finding someone to win 2 out of 3 and take teams to bowl games every season we’ve been eligible.

  • Eric

    Interesting take. You are correct that football and basketball subsidize other sports, but that is the function of television revenue (see new Pac-12 and other conference alignments), the relative popularity of football and basketball to drawn in fans, and the understanding that a world-class university is supposed to offer both the popular and the less popular. If you are of the view that it is too bad for those “lesser” sports since they can’t produce revenue, than let’s apply that same model to academics. Better cut music, philosophy, and nearly 90% of the degrees at Cal, since Engineering, Chemistry and a few other hard sciences bring in 90% of the donations and grants. Tough economic times, you know.

    Your post misses the point of whether to blame Tedford for other sports being cut. Of course not – that is a strawman argument. But the university has decided to cut several sports (including a sport a 100+ years old from which the Axe originated) while continuing to pay its football coach nearly $3 million a year. Is he worth it? If yes, fine. If not, then it is the University’s fault for being economically stupid. If Tedford got a penny more than he is worth, more power to him for negotiating with a sucker. Doesn’t mean it is right for Cal.

    As for stats on the coaches, at one point do you acknowledge that Tedford is overpaid if you don’t think he is overpaid now (since the article you linked clearly establishes that he is overpaid as of 2009)? How about checking out Pac-10 records over the last 5 years (2005-2009) since that is the period where Cal has (in my view) at best plateaued and more likely has declined. If that 5-year trend were to continue, but he continues to be the second highest paid coach in the Pac-10, is he overpaid? If Cal finishes only 6-6 this year, and in the bottom half of the Pac-10, is Tedford overpaid?

  • BlueNGold

    I seem to recall that Tedford’s current contract was put in place a few years ago. At the time, it was perceived that there were other schools and pro teams that wanted to hire him away from Cal. I do not recall any people, or at least a significant number, complaining about his new salary and contract at the time. Of course, a lot has changed since then. The national and state economies is are the tank, Cal as a whole has had to deal with substantial cuts in state funding, and the football team, and Tedford by extension, are perceived by many as underachieving and not living up to abilities and expectations.

    Clearly, what is now being viewed by some as an extravagant and perhaps unnecessary expenditure on a coach’s salary was looked upon as necessary and justified at the time the decision was made. It just goes to show that issues of this nature have to be evaluated in a broader context than simply the here and now. Cal could probably have hired a football coach at a much smaller salary, but with the horrid memories of the Holmoe/ Gilbertson era fresh in people’s minds, I am sure the people involved in the decision at the time thought it was the right thing and best for moving the program forward.

    Hindsight is a lot easier than having a clear vision of the future.

  • Dan

    House – are you related to Tedford? Seriously, you have to be. It’s kind of comical.

    Eric- ignore the few haters on here. Very few make intelligent, fact based arguments. Your posts are solid, intelligent, fact based- and you’re always classy when responding to those questioning your point of view. Don’t let the haters, most of always have to bring up Holmoe and how great 7-5 for Cal is, get you down. Keep up the good, passionate posts.