Comments on: Football: Tedford quotables

By: H8sRed

H8sRed — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:36:37 +0000

Very well put, Bobsac.

By: bobsac

bobsac — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 03:19:38 +0000

Jeff Tedford has passed Waldorf in wins at Cal. With three more wins, he will be #1 all time in wins, passing Andy Smith. I hope he has a long career & spends it all at Cal. Looking at the past history of losing seasons for decades at Cal, the critics need to relax and enjoy the Tedford era. During the past 90 years, only Andy Smith in the 1920′s & Waldorf from 1947-1952–before his teams started losing–have put together better seasons than Tedford. We are lucky to have him.

And it is an honor to have a clean program.

By: B

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:21:24 +0000

To highlight why I discount all the pressure talk and think it’s just people trying to explain what is mostly random variation, look at Cal over the last two years. In close games this year, they were 1-3. Last year, they were 3-0 (I don’t consider the Utah game close, Cal scored at the very end to make it look closer than it was). Was there some huge fundamental shift in the team? Probably not. It’s not entirely random variation, but it does support the notion that it’s largely random variation.

By: B

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:06:47 +0000

“you can’t pull random variation into the equation, because you can’t quantify the pressure that goes along with being in a tight game, nor their ability to handle it. it’s not just about talent. some teams deal better with situations where the game is on the line, even if they’re less talented. last year, we, like every other team that blew a chance to take down a major opponent late, choked. that is more on the coach than tedford wants to admit, and it’s why i’m tired of hearing how a few games could have gone either way. it’s taking way too much for granted—ability and heart last year’s team just didn’t have.”

Eh, on the one hand, random variation is always present, and absolutely needs to be considered. To say otherwise is just silly. On the other hand, we have a tiny sample size where we’re drawing subjective conclusions to fit a narrative (and, of course, we’re biased by selective perception)…I’ll go with the former.

“Cal was bad in ’10 as the record 5-7 shows…but they weren’t stinko bad.”

Well, the evidence doesn’t really suggest that. Check out Sagarin’s ratings. Cal played one of the most difficult schedules in the country, and also got unlucky by point differential. Sagarin’s points predictor (which is based on solid research/evidence) thought they were the 27th best team in the country. And yes, the points predictor heavily punishes blowout losses. The team was better than the record suggests – both because they played a hard schedule, and because they got unlucky. Close games are still largely a product of luck.

Agree completely that winning fixes things, though.

(By the way, don’t feed the troll)

By: BlueNGold

BlueNGold — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:47:11 +0000

Mom and daddy must be so proud that their offspring has devoted his/her/its life to searching the internet for material to talk trash about Cal football with. They must sigh and roll their eyes every time you bring up the subject. That must make you feel really special.

As for Tracy Slocum, if he wanted to spend his life pimping, he should have enrolled at u$c.

By: milo

milo — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:56:39 +0000

Cal was bad in ’10 as the record 5-7 shows…but they weren’t stinko bad. The Bears got blown out in a few games but played Oregon straight up. A few breaks, better play, different personnel and I think 7-5 was possible. To me it just shows things were crappy but can be addressed, wasn’t a complete collapse. Otherwise I agree, winning fixes things.

By: rollonubears

rollonubears — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:45:08 +0000

i’m thinking there’s a chance he turns things around this year, we dominate next year, and then he ends up leaving on his own, either to another team, or to the nfl. seems ridiculous today, but just a few years ago, that was the fear. if he leaves after next season (2012), it’s going to be because someone buys out his contract. i’m pretty sure if he’s going to be fired, he has at least this, next and the following seasons, unless he puts up holmoe-type numbers. the contract is pretty big for anyone but the angriest and wealthiest alumni to buy out, and most of their portfolios have been decimated since tedford took over, so buying out a contract is a pretty tall order.

By: ET

ET — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:53:10 +0000

Like John Madden has always said “Winning is the best deodorant”. The Bears start winning and all will be good. Little or no improvement, Tedford will be gone at the end of next season. The rest is just talk, or typing (including what I’m typing now)

By: rollonubears

rollonubears — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:45:14 +0000

you can’t pull random variation into the equation, because you can’t quantify the pressure that goes along with being in a tight game, nor their ability to handle it. it’s not just about talent. some teams deal better with situations where the game is on the line, even if they’re less talented. last year, we, like every other team that blew a chance to take down a major opponent late, choked. that is more on the coach than tedford wants to admit, and it’s why i’m tired of hearing how a few games could have gone either way. it’s taking way too much for granted—ability and heart last year’s team just didn’t have.

By: B

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:11:31 +0000

“only thing that’s getting a little long in the tooth is the whole “6 points away from a winning season.” we were also 6 points away from being 12 points away from a winning season. good teams win close games.”

Well, not really – think of it from a statistical standpoint. We know random variation happens. Sometimes FG’s go in, sometimes they don’t, penalties, a missed assignment leading to a big play, shanked punt, etc. Any of the many “luck” factors can easily change the outcome of a close game. So, the closer the game, the closer to random the outcome will be. Good teams are more likely to win than lose, but random variation becomes a significant factor. Of the 4 close games Cal played last year, they went 1-3. Take random variation out, and they probably should have been 2-2 and bowl eligible. So at least to some degree, Tedford has a point. On the other hand, taking out the bad outcomes and then looking at the results and saying you should have been 8-4…that’s bad statistics. Of course things look better when you take out the bad things that happen, but it doesn’t make it an accurate way of looking at things.