[Unit2Sucks]

Originally Posted by drunkoski

so when would you agree? how many 4th or worse pac-10 finishes do we need? or is simply not sucking your goal?

If you're asking me what my hope/goal is, the goal is championship-CALiber football. But I think you should try to have more realistic expectations, and differentiate between expectations and hope. I hope for and want Cal to be the best football team in the country, year after year. Would love to have the kind of program that Texas and Florida currently have. That's not a realistic expectation, however.

To put a question to you, how is it that on a year-to-year basis you argue that people should have lower expectations and you see yourself as a voice of reason, but when it comes to the big picture you seem to think that the program should be expected to be an elite power?

[drunkoski]

who said anything about an elite power? we're looking at 4 straight years and 5 out of 6 where we haven't even finished in the top 3 in the pac-10. all i ask is that we are competitive in the pac-10 (regurally top-3) and occasionally (every 4 or 5 years) go to a bcs and occasionally WIN the pac-10 outright. and if that is unrealistic than we need to cut JT's pay considerably.

[Unit2Sucks]

Originally Posted by drunkoski

who said anything about an elite power? we're looking at 4 straight years and 5 out of 6 where we haven't even finished in the top 3 in the pac-10. all i ask is that we are competitive in the pac-10 (regurally top-3) and occasionally (every 4 or 5 years) go to a bcs and occasionally WIN the pac-10 outright. and if that is unrealistic than we need to cut JT's pay considerably.

Got it, so all you ask is that the program perform better than it ever has. That seems reasonably prudent to me.

To claim that we haven't been regularly competitive in the Pac-10 is ridiculous. We have been within a couple of wins of the conference title just about every year. Obviously we've fallen short and it's been disappointing, but that doesn't mean that we haven't been in the hunt.

I don't get the salary concern - do you want to tell Nike to pay less unless we win more?

[drunkoski]

jesus. how many teams have been within a couple of wins of the conference title? 7? and I suggest you learn your cal history.

[Unit2Sucks]

Originally Posted by drunkoski

jesus. how many teams have been within a couple of wins of the conference title? 7? and I suggest you learn your cal history.

Ha ha, fair enough on point one.

On point two, unless you're talking about pre-1950 Cal football, which is pretty irrelevant to the program at this point, I think you're going to need to be more specific.

I'll give you some facts: (i) since 1950, the most wins Cal has had in 2 consecutive seasons was 17 (pre-Tedford), and that only happened once (1990-91), (ii) since 1950, Cal has finished the season ranked in one or both polls a total of 9 times, 4 of which were under Tedford, and (iii) since 1950, Cal has finished 3rd or higher a total of 10 times, 3 of which were under Tedford.

Also, 1951 was one of our good years, so our trailing 50 year stats will only look worse once 1951 drops off the chart next year.

So top 3 in the conference has happened 10 times in 50 years, and 3 of those have been in the Tedford era, or regime since you seem to think he's a tyrant. Pre Tedford, we finished in the top 3 in the conference only once in 27 years. Ranked 4 times in Tedford's 8 years, after being ranked only 3 times in 27 years and 4 times in 42 years pre-Tedford.

If you have some more relevant history that I should be aware of, happy to listen.

[2bear]

89Bear,

I applaud your effort. You are obviously swimming upstream here. I'm kind of amazed that after an interview with Mikey Mo where he sounded upbeat and positive that this thread travelled so far south. Gregory has been replaced, MM is upbeat and claims everybody else is upbeat so I'm willing to enjoy a little sunshine while I can.

As to this thread...these guys have stamina...I wouldn't waste my time.

[drunkoski]

i have no problem with tedford's performance from 2002-2006. this is the core of the problem. many of you haven't woken up to what has changed since that time. and yes i am including pre-1950 football. there are multiple reasons why we werent' successful till the early 90s in football (which have been talked about ad nausium) and none of those have anything to do with jeff tedford being some sort of miracle genius. 3 coaches since that time have been successful or semi successful (you can debate mooch). two were horrible hires (one torpedoed washington too). there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that dozens of current coaches could have done what tedford did in 2002.

[89Bear]

Originally Posted by drunkoski

who said anything about an elite power? we're looking at 4 straight years and 5 out of 6 where we haven't even finished in the top 3 in the pac-10. all i ask is that we are competitive in the pac-10 (regurally top-3) and occasionally (every 4 or 5 years) go to a bcs and occasionally WIN the pac-10 outright. and if that is unrealistic than we need to cut JT's pay considerably.

But Drunk, you're the kind of person who immediately would complain about your goals if they were/are accomplished. "Why can't we have an undefeated season every two years?" On and on and on....

Have a great day!

[drunkoski]

yeah because you are right. 8-4 and 7-5 seasons are just like winning national championships. why can't i be happy! i seemed pretty happy with our bball season and that is hardly a national championship.

[89Bear]

Originally Posted by drunkoski

yeah because you are right. 8-4 and 7-5 seasons are just like winning national championships. why can't i be happy! i seemed pretty happy with our bball season and that is hardly a national championship.

That basketball season must have been quite a struggle for you, being conflicted with hoping for losses so you could hammer the program and slightly hoping for Bear success.

Glad you made it out ok.

[drunkoski]

you need to wake up and realize being anti-tedford is not the same thing as being anti-cal.

[89Bear]

Originally Posted by drunkoski

you need to wake up and realize being anti-tedford is not the same thing as being anti-cal.

It has nothing to do with anti-cal or anti-tedford. Keep trying, drunk...

[drunkoski]

Originally Posted by 89Bear

It has nothing to do with anti-cal or anti-tedford. Keep trying, drunk...

i see. so you think i root against cal why exactly?

Originally Posted by drunkoski

you need to wake up and realize being anti-tedford is not the same thing as being anti-cal.

Well said.

Also, criticizing Tedford is not the same thing as being anti-Tedford. There's many things he does that I like.

[Hail2Calif]

Originally Posted by drunkoski

there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that dozens of current coaches could have done what tedford did in 2002.

I probably fall into the "sunshine pumper" category most of the time - and am still optimistic that JT can take us from a winning program to a program that can challenge for conference championships.

I also acknowledge some will not be as impressed with JT's achievements as I am and thus will tend to be more (critical / realistic) assessment - depending on point of view.

However, to say that there are dozens of current coaches that could inherit a 1-10 team and turn that into 7-4 in one season (regardless of what happened after that season) seems too dismissive of a tremendous single season accomplishment.

If we take the BCS conference teams as our sample - how many HC changes in the past 10 years resulted in a 6 game turn around in year 1? How many HC changes in the past 20 years resulted in a 6 game turn around in year 1?

Maybe it is more common than I think - but I would like to know who are these dozens (plural assumes at least 2 dozen - right?) of current coaches that undoubtably could have done the same thing in one year?