By Jonathan Okanes
Sunday, October 30th, 2011 at 2:07 pm in Football, Gameday.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
What about Kendricks?
Opening odds are Cal favored by 9 over WSU
OK, I’m still a JT supporter but I sure hope he gives Bridgford first team reps this week and starts him. The post on the previous thread that pointed out C Kelly had no problems about yanking last year’s bca bowl qb is so on point. Start Bridgford!
IF we beat wsu – who looked good against pku – osu and split the asu and furd games – I know, it’s the Kool Aid talking – I’m still a supporter.
Of the many troubling negative trends of late, the inability to win on the road is at the top of the list. When the line went from -6 to – 3 1/2 it was because the hard core bettors knew Cal sucks on the road even against a team as troubled as ucla. I thought they were wrong. Big time. F me.
Both links point to the same story – the one about call offense being bad.
here’s the address to Kendricks story (not sure if this will post a link or not)
Our offense is at a all time low for Cal football fans and it all stems from bad quarterbacking and a coach that refuses to pull a bad quarterback. All in all the offense is real bad with a real bad quarterback and bad play calling. You don’t have a bad quarterback throw the ball you just have to run. JT please change quarterbacks this week or you might find yourself looking for a job or a mob. STOP THE BLEEDING
To all you who still think it’s all about a bad QB, the real stinker in all of this is Tedford. Even if he found a good QB, he would not know what to do.
Check this out: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576621010225742674.html
CAL is the #2 most overrated football program in the last decade. We are second only to Florida State. And what did they have? And old coach who the game passed by . He was simply a figurehead.
Tedford has NEVER developed a QB. You can point to Aaron Rodgers, but Tedford did not develop him. He was a gamer when he came to CAL, got us to beat USC (our only win against them in the Tedford era), and nearly led us to a Rose Bowl (which we would have been in by the way if Tedford was more like Harbaugh and allowed us to run up the score).
Tedford does not deserve to coach in the new stadium. He got us to this point simply by recruiting Aaron Rodgers and has been riding that train since. Unless Zach Kline is the next ARod, Tedford will not accomplish anything for the remainder of his tenure.
Dear Sandy Barbour……Please cut our losses now. It’s time for a new coach, motivated to win (because he’s not sitting on a $2.9 million salary) to come in and show what he can do.
I can understand fans’ outcry but Cal is not a traditional football powerhouse, and like what UCLA has gone through, changing of HC change since fans are frustrated is quite shortsighted. Who is the winningest HC in the Cal football history? We do not have a kind of money U$C or Oregon has. Give JT some room to improve this team after having the new stadium! JT is the best HC for the few decades I have seen!
Go Bears! Beat WSU!
Were not a powerhouse so why does tedford get paid a powerhouse salary?
The play of the Bears, which is the reason for the stadium, a place for people to watch the games, is atrocious. Tedford as coach is failing badly.
As to the stadium upgrades, the means for paying depends in large part on people voting with the wallets to attend games. And the failure of the first part, Tedford as coach, the Bears as a team, can lead to failure on the second part, paying for the stadium.
If people don’t buy tickets or reserve hugely expensive seats, from where will the money come to pay for the upgrades. The success of the team filled the stadium in numbers never before seen. The failure of the team – of Tedford – will lead to empty seats: no fans, no money.
All on TEDFORD, the mega-millionaire, the highest paid employee of the State of Calfornia.
But, have no fear, his existence as coach is based upon a contract, not a vote of the fans.
Jake, great story from the WSJ.
Hmmm … wondering … omg …
Wouldn’t it be great if coaches started with a base salary, then had that salary adjusted based upon the poll numbers, the team ranking at the start compared to the ranking numbers at the end of the season?
Coaches’ salaries would be directly tied to an objective measure, and they could get hit in the wallet if they failed, or even get a bonus if they succeeded.
Their base salary would be based on the previous year and that could be used even if there was a coaching change.
Tedford in the past would have gotten bonuses; Tedford now should get huge compensation cuts for failing.
Pay for Performance: what a concept.
“Pay for Performance” would do nothing but encourage more cheating and further corruption and USC-SEC-like conditions around the country. Many truly academically oriented universities would likely opt clear out of the system and take an Ivy league approach.
We WERE a powerhouse when he signed a long term contract. And if he goes to the Rose Bowl, he gets 4mm. That’s incentive.
Jake — interesting article, but it was Churchill who said, “There are lies; there are g**damn lies; and then there are statistics,” or words to that effect. While the numbers suggest the team has under-performed, maybe the methodologies for ranking teams before the season are flawed, causing some teams to be over-rated. (My guess is that it’s a little of both in Cal’s case.) Remember, the polling methodologies are the same ones that allowed Cal to lose standing after beating a team on the road; thus allowing the wh@ring Mack Brown to displace Cal for the 2005 Rose Bowl.