Football: Fans invited to Cal Spring Football Experience on Saturday at Edwards Stadium


Cal fans get a sneak peek at the football team Saturday at Edwards Stadium (the track stadium on Bancroft Ave., west of Haas Pavilion) when the Bears host what they are calling their Spring Football Experience. The event marks the end of spring practice.

Coach Jeff Tedford announced after practice Tuesday that the team will stage essentially a spring game, after all. As recently as Monday, that wasn’t decided. But the coaches held a “draft” to divide the roster into two squads.

“It will be pretty much like a game,” Tedford said. “Unless something really bad happens Thursday (in practice), which we’ll cross our fingers on that, we’ll break up into blue and gold teams and play pretty much a game.”

“I hope there’s a great turnout,” Tedford said. “It’s going to be a great day. We’re going to have some of the NFL guys back, we’re going to have a lot of fan interactive things going on throughout the game, so it should be a fun festive day.”

After the game, players and coaches will be available to sign autographs and take photos with fans.

There will be drawings to win a pair of season tickets, autographed memorabilia and a free trip to Columbus, Ohio, for Cal’s game against Ohio State on Sept. 15. One fan will get the chance to call a play with Tedford during the spring game.

The first 1,500 fans will get free food from the San Francisco Soup Company.

The event is free. Gates open at 10 a.m. and the team begins practice at 11 a.m.

Here’s more.

Jeff Faraudo

  • Juancho

    Their final spring peek? When was the first and subsequent peeks? My kind-hearted and merit-based calls for more open practices so community kids could attend like always – went on deaf ears.

    But if we win, it’ll all be forgiven. Any idea if Zach Kline will be available for the autographs? I’m guessing not. He’s too valuable to the program to run the risk of him being kidnapped. I hope they leave him at home.

  • covinared

    man crush on Zach?

  • 707 Bear

    Negativity Alert:

    Why not play a real game, instead of the incredibly boring “controlled scrimmage?”

    The fans and–I would think–the players would prefer to play a real game.

    A controlled scrimmage is so Tedfordesque.

    Still, I’ll be there. Go Bears!

  • MoreNCsarecoming

    A friend told daddy the seat licenses are only 65% sold. The AD is considering selling the remainder to visiting teams. Can you imagine 35% of the fans in those seats being from USC, Oregon, pucla, UW and Stanford. HAHAHAHA you guys are pathetic.


    Enjoy competing with Colorado and WSU for the bottom losers. Teddy’s farewell year will be a sad day for all of the other Pac 12 teams.

  • MoreNCsarecoming

    “To outsiders, what’s surprising is that this expansive project is happening at Cal, a school that hasn’t had a powerhouse football program in years. Cal hasn’t won its own conference outright since 1975, hasn’t played in the Rose Bowl since 1959 and doesn’t routinely sell out its stadium. (The school is reducing capacity in the renovation to roughly 63,000 from about 72,000.)”

    From an article in the WSJ today. HAHAHAHAHA losers.

  • Juancho

    Covina, you better believe it.

    Kline is the real deal. No QB Tedford has brought in from High School projects this easily to being a top Pac 12 QB. And he’ll do it.

  • Bill D

    Great event – nice to get excited about this years team.

    BTW, where in the food chain would you place someone obsessed with what they call losers? Not to feed the troll but holy smokes

  • Juancho

    Did you guys see the Wall Street Journal article on our stadium renovation today ? Doesn’t make us look very good.

  • covinared

    read the rebuttal in goldenblogs.

  • Juancho

    Thanks Covina. I just took a look at it. I’m not a fan of their work in general, so I don’t tend to read that blog too much. I find Jeff’s blog (here) much better.

    Two things jump out. Why aren’t there any quotes from the WSJ writer? To be frank – I trust anything published on the WSJ website or paper FAR MORE than something from the Golden Bears Blog. I’m sure they do fine work and have passion for their work and love our school, but good grief, it’s the WSJ we’re talking about. They’re probably the second best paper in the world after the Bay Area News Group – did you catch that Jeff?

    The other and most important to me is the reality on the projected and achieved ESP revenue commitments. What is meant by “expected 270 million”.

    There has to be certain financial projections and forecasts that define the goal and show how we look against that goal.

    I don’t care about the program asking professors to not have midterms on one evening. Big deal. When I was a student I don’t think I would have felt outraged by it. So it’s hypocritical for me to think it’s that big a deal as an alumni.

    I’m not even too bothered by the projection that tuition will keep increasing over 10% every year, its worth it, and prices have shot through the roof for everything, and the economy sucks. That’s one of the issues we deal with as public university folks. Hopefully if the economy gets better one day (say 2040 or around there), tuition will go back down.

    What I care about is whether or not the football program will end up being a cost-burden to the academic university. Flat out, will dollars shift from academics to cover construction debt, etc. That is what would be hard to take, and that would hurt.

    Somewhere there is a business plan that says how much they expected to make on ESP commitments, by lifetime, or 5 year spans or whatever, and how close are we to meeting that. So where is it?

    I’m sure there is a figure that projects how many new ESP commitments we need each year, how do we look against that? Where is that?

  • Meep.

    @707Bears – Yes, it would be more entertaining…but with higher risk of injury. Who wants our starting guards or tackles injured in a game that doesn’t even matter?

  • Juancho

    This link from last year, if nothing else, is interesting and informative:


    Bummer that Cal sports is being cast in a bad light by the WSJ. But even they can’t kill the Zach Kline revival of our program.

  • covinared

    We need new facilities. Might as well invest in good ones. They will pay off in the long run.

  • 707 Bear

    Sadly, more negativity.

    I’ve been asking for a while: Who pays for the new Memorial if the ESP doesn’t sell?

    In one high-rent district at Memorial, University Club, Section 5, there are 58 seats available at $15,421….thats $894,418 in lost cash for just one season.

    Folks, this is serious. The Athletic Department vastly overestimated ticket demand for the SF Season in 2011, and now the ESP seats aren’t selling.

    The House that Tedford built may become……

    Go Bears!

  • Steve W.

    If you want to go high rent with your stadium and your ticket prices, you need to have a high rent head coach producing high rent results. The quality of the product has been slipping for years. I have been saying for a few years now that ticket prices are way over priced relative to the return on investment on the field.

    I attended a few games at ATT Park last season, but only after paying half price from the scalpers. The Bears were a value at $40 a seat, but no more. If you want to call me a traitor to program, so be it. Other fans must feel the same way.

  • eric

    I’m not sure I saw any discussion on this, but back on March 20, Athlon Sports ranked the Pac-12 coaches, which Ted Miller then picked up on. Below is the Miller blog. Interesting where Tedford is and why.

    Folks like lists. Folks like rankings. They’re easy to understand. And they inspire debate.

    Athlon Sports decided to rank the Pac-12 coaches, and you can see their list — and explanations — here.

    Here’s their take in advance of providing their list.

    Ranking the coaches in any college football conference is a difficult task. Many factors play into just how successful a coach is at any school. How well are the assistants paid? Are the facilities up to par with the rest of the conference? Can the coach recruit or is he more of an x’s and o’s manager? Are there off-the-field or age issues to take into consideration? Has a coach built a program or continued the success from a previous coach? How is the resume outside of their current position? These questions and more were posed to the editors at Athlon Sports, as they were asked to rank the coaches of each of the six BCS conferences. One thing to keep in mind — the record is not always indicative of where a coach should rank in a conference.

    Here’s their order:

    1. Chip Kelly, Oregon
    2. Lane Kiffin, USC
    3. Mike Leach, Washington State
    4. Kyle Whittingham, Utah
    5. Rich Rodriguez, Arizona
    6. Steve Sarkisian, Washington
    7. Mike Riley, Oregon State
    8. Jeff Tedford, California
    9. David Shaw, Stanford
    10. Todd Graham, Arizona State
    11. Jim Mora, UCLA
    12. Jon Embree, Colorado

    Some of this makes perfect sense. Kelly has to be No. 1: He’s won three consecutive Pac-12 titles. End of argument. And Graham, Mora and Embree are justifiable as the bottom three. Graham in large part because of the public relations nightmare surrounding his departure from Pittsburgh (yeah, stuff like that counts), Mora because he’s never coached at the college level before, and Embree because he went 3-10 his first season as a head coach.

    Changes I’d make?

    I’d rank Whittingham No. 2. He’s got a track record of success and a BCS bowl win. I’d rank Rich Rodriguez No. 3 for the same reason (his failure at Michigan was more about Michigan than Rich Rodriguez).

    Then I’d go Leach, Kiffin, Sarkisian, Shaw, Riley and Tedford.

    For me, sometimes a lack of experience hurts in a ranking (Kiffin, Shaw), despite recent success, and sometimes a recent downturn after sustained success hurts (Riley and Tedford).

    And, of course, this list is fluid on an annual (weekly?) basis. Two years ago, Riley would have been in the top-three or four, and in as late as 2008, Tedford would have been, too.

  • eric

    And here is the Athlon explanation – something for both sides of the coaching Tedford.

    8. Jeff Tedford, Cal (10 years)
    Alma Mater: Fresno State
    Record: 79-48 (2002-present)

    The luster has worn off Coach Tedford in recent years, but Cal fans need to be careful what they wish for. Over the last five seasons, Cal certainly has been stagnant – losing 28 games over that span — and the offensive guru needs to win to stay employed. However, the track record of Golden Bear football proves that Tedford is easily the most successful coach in school history. Cal was 4-29 in the three seasons prior to Tedford taking over in Berkeley and he proceeded to start his head coaching career with eight straight winning seasons. Since 1950, this program has three 10-win seasons on its resume. Tedford has two of them. The Bears claim 21 postseason appearances and Tedford is responsible for nearly half (8) of them. Finally, no head coach has won as many games at Cal as Tedford has (79). He is undoubtedly on the hot seat in 2012, but the Cal administration needs to think long and hard about what Tedford has meant to the program before acting too quickly.

    What Coaches By the Numbers Has to Say:

    · In the five years before he arrived, the Cal Bears had won just 25% of their games. In his 10 years as head coach, Cal has won 62% of their games.

    · Coach Tedford has won 8+ games seven of his 10 years as head coach at Cal

    · From 1970-2001, Cal had just 10 seasons when they won more games than they lost. In Coach Tedford’s 10 years, he has nine winning seasons

    · From 2009-2011, Coach Tedford won just 52% of his overall games and just 44% of conference games

    · From 2009-2011, Coach Tedford is just 5-15 against teams with winning records

  • Juancho

    Great posts above.

    Hopefully Tedford turns it around this year. The correlation is that when we have a first round draft pick quarterback, Tedford has been a good coach.

    When we haven’t, we have lost and Tedford has been the one receiving the most blame. As he should – he is the CEO of the program.

    I echo your sentiment Steve W. And just because someone doesn’t go to a lot of home games doesn’t make them a traitor. My love for Cal for instance, really has nothing to do with sports. I love the University and have deep feelings for my alma mater. And the economy stinks and it’s hard to justify an $80 ticket too often. I’d rather use those $80 to buy some kids I coach Cal t shirts or something.

  • BlueNGold

    I do not think that the problem is, as Steve W. says, that the ‘product has been slipping for years’. I think, as the Athlon stats posted by Eric suggest, that Cal reached a plateau a few years ago that it has, thus far, been unable to surpass or rise above. I would like to believe that the new facilities will make a difference in improving that situation, but only time will tell. If they do not have a measurable impact fairly soon, then I think the debate needs to center around whether JTed is the guy to move the program forward and above the plateau.

  • Will

    Man, those Anal Lesions just don’t go away!LOL

  • eric

    @BlueNGold – my friend, that debate has been going on since 2009.

    One thing I think that Athlon missed (and probably missed for other coaches) is that it is questionable to compare won-loss records in the “modern” era of the BCS (think of how the SEC now schedules and one wonders about their won-loss records), no ties and 12/13 games plus dozens of bowls to the pre-BCS, pre-OT, 10 or 11-game schedule with half as many Bowl games. Prior to Tedford in 2002, Cal never played 12 regular season games. Tedford’s era has included 12 or 13 regular season games every year. That is 10 extra games. Think about who we typically schedule for those 10 extra games, and you have pretty much guaranteed at least 5 extra wins.

    As for Bowls, for example, last year, there were 35 Bowl Games.

    In 1990, there were 19.

    In 1970, there were 11. Given Tedford’s record, applying 1970 standards, Cal would likely have only made Bowl games in 2004, 2006, and maybe 2003 and 2008. Ray Wilsey’s teams from 1967-1971 had .500 or better records every year, and twice he finished in the top three of the Pac-8, and never made a Bowl game.