Thursday, May 31, 2007

Cal football: Analyzing Jeff Tedford’s new contract

By Jon Wilner
Friday, May 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pm in Pac 10, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, UCLA.

OK, so “new” is a relative term. Tedford agreed to the deal last winter, then it got rammed through the UC bureaucracy and approved by the Regents in March.

But the Hotline didn’t get its hands on the new deal, through a public records request, until just recently. (Had to wait for all the Ts to be crossed.)

And there’s some interesting stuff in there.

For instance, the extension agreed to last winter runs through 2013, but one year gets added on for every season that Cal wins at least nine games (and that includes the bowl game).

Tedford also received a $1 million signing bonus for agreeing to the extension.

Now, here’s how the new deal compares with the old:

*** Under the old deal, which expired after the 2009 season, Tedford received a base salary of no less than $167,500 annually.

Under the new deal, the base jumps to no less than $225,000.

*** Under the old deal, Tedford received a $1.332 million annual “talent fee.” (This is common in big coaching contracts because it allows universities to keep the base salary in check while still paying market rate for total compensation.)

Under the new deal, Tedford’s talent fee is $1.575 million, with a 50k bump if Cal plays in a BCS game.

For those scoring at home: That makes his new salary about $1.8 million annually, or $300,000 more than he got under the old deal.

And yes, $1.8 million annually is market rate for Tedford-caliber coaches.

(If you want someone to blame for that, start with the university presidents and chancellors, then move to conference commissioners, athletics directors, mega-donors … everyone but the players and the coaches, really.)

*** Under the old deal, Tedford had multiple bonus clauses:

150k for winning the national title; 100k for being national coach of the year; 75k for winning/tying for the Pac-10; 50k for playing in a BCS game (as an at-large team); 50k for being named Pac-10 coach of the year.

Under the new deal, the bonuses are essentially the same.

*** Under the old deal, Teford received a $500,000 bonus if he was the head coach in a renovated Memorial Stadium. (Like that was gonna happen by 2009.)

Under the new deal, Tedford gets a $225,000 bonus if he’s the head coach when the high-performance training center opens and a $250,000 bonus if he’s the head coach when Cal plays its first game in a renovated stadium.

Now, to the important clauses for Cal fans — the buyout clauses….

*** Under the old deal, if Tedford left Cal before the end of the contract, he owed the university $300,000 for every year left on the deal. (The buyout amount was chopped to $150,000 annually until the Memorial Stadium renovation broke ground.)

Under the new deal, the same dollars apply (the buyout drops by half until Cal occupies the high-performance training center).

BUT:

*** Under the old deal, Tedford received a $2.5 million retention bonus if he stayed through the end of the contract (ie: if he coached in 2009).

Under the new deal, Tedford gets a $1 million retention bonus if he coaches through the 2008 season.

He gets an additional $1.5 million if he’s the head coach through the 2011 season, and he gets another $1 million if he’s the coach through the 2013 season.

In other words, the new deal is much, much more favorable to Tedford — it’s not nearly as back-loaded as the old one. All he has to do is stay two years and he gets an additional $1 million.

And yet, the buyout (the money he would owe the school if he left early) remains the same.

That’s what you call leverage ….

Now, Cal fans should not take the terms of the extension as a definite indication that Tedford’s is ready to bolt. (It wouldn’t surprise me if he stayed a few more years, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he left next winter.)

But clearly, he has far less (financial) incentive to stay through the duration of the new contract.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

74 Responses to “Cal football: Analyzing Jeff Tedford’s new contract”

  1. CardBill Says:

    Wow! Amazing contract! You would think he was God or something. He really ain’t that good. Go Cardinal!
    Big Game Prediction: The Cardinal 27 The Bears 20.

  2. TommyCoug Says:

    How much is $1.8 million a year anyway…I sure don’t know…I “BLAME” everybody!

    A broken leg here, a couple of flunk outs, a recruiting flop, a drive bye shooting, a Saturday upset on the scoreboard…and SUDDENLY…Tedford, or any collge coach, is just another person.

    I guess I will concentrate on the X’s and O’s along with the weekly head to head college football scores.

    The “behind the scenes” crap is just that…CRAP!!

  3. Tbear Says:

    Tedford should be paid a high salary with several financial incentives, but his new contract is a little out of whack of what he is really worth. It demonstrates just how afraid Cal is of losing a coach who has actually won some games. The problem is if he couldn’t lead the Bears to a PAC 10 championship last season he probably never will. Cal had the talent. They had to work hard not to win the PAC 10 & go to the Rose Bowl last season. Here’s hoping that Tedford’s new contract will reap benefits for Cal in the future & reward the University with a league championship. Maybe Tedford will coach better with the new-bigger contract…..

  4. Ernie Kent Says:

    Oregon and Mike Bellotti were absurd when they let Tedford walk to Cal, a direct competitor for top athletes and a conference rival. It’s going to haunt them for a long time.

    Cal’s program was at rock bottom before Tedford, and wholly irrelevant. Under Tedford they are a top ten program in the nation! So they haven’t gotten over the hump yet, they will. Remember it takes some of the great coaches some luck and preserverance some times (JoePa, Bowden, Jimmy Johnson, Holtz etc…)

    Cal fans and donors are correct, and should willingly pony up the bucks to keep Tedford in town for as long as possible. Tedford is so competitive I see him bolting to the NFL as soon as he gets over on USC one of these years and wins a BCS game.

    Most Oregon fans dream of a Tedford return to Eugene but in all honesty, why would he go to Eugene with so many NFL jobs open every year sans recruiting demands and battles every year.

  5. sdv30 Says:

    I totally agree with ernie Kent. Before Tedford, the Cal program endured many years of futility. With him, it has achieved unprecedented success (talking about the modern era). Cal should offer him a very competitive package and do everything possible to keep him in Berkeley. And that also goes for the DC Bob Gregory.
    One question though: If with the old contract, he had to coach through 2009 to get 2.5 mil retention bonus, but now in order to get that amount he has to coach through 2011 (1 mil in 2008 and 1.5 mil in 2011), how is that better for Tedford, and how does this not give him incentive to stay through 2011. I must be missing something here.

  6. Bixby23 Says:

    Well, it just sounds like UCB is bowing to market realities. The offers from other schools are going to be too good for Cal’s back-ended bonus clauses to have much clout. Cal had to offer more cash up front in the hopes Tedford will hang around for another year or two. The only alternative would be to kick off a frantic hunt for a new coach; there will always be someone willing to pay more sooner for a coach of Tedford’s caliber.

  7. Mike D Says:

    Now, Now CardBill…Sounds like a few sour grapes have slipped into that wine you’ve been sipping….

  8. Go Bears Says:

    Yeah, Cardbill, our “ain’t that good” coach is slappin you around the bay area like a rag doll. And Harbaugh’s hot air ain’t winnin you nothing but enemies. Why don’t you do something about that? A rivalry ain’t no fun if there ain’t even a chance of losing.

  9. BearsLair72 Says:

    It is all wishful thinking from the Oregon and Furd folks that JT is going to bolt for the NFL. How many times does he have to tell people that he is not really a NFL type coach and that he loves college ball before you yahoos believe him? Plus, if you think ke is going to replace Belotti or follow Carroll (who does have some unfinished NFL business) you are also dreaming. Why would he do that, when he can leave a legacy at Berkeley for the ages, including the new stadium. Obviously, you have never met or listened to him or you would know how he feels about all this.

  10. CalFan33 Says:

    At $1.8M per year, Tedford new contract is still well below market for the top 10 coaches in the NCAA. Given that he has helped generate a bottom-line turnaround of more than $10m/year in the football program, he is still a bargain for Cal.

  11. Cardbill Says:

    To Go Bears,
    If Cal had the academic & character standards that Stanford has they wouldn’t be able to play all those JC transfers & other thugs that allows the Bears to be competitive. The Cards refuse to compromise their standards & values just to be able to recruit Cal type players.

  12. EvansHall Says:

    CardBill, I imagine that you and Harbaugh get along very nicely. Win a few games this year, it’s annoying having Trojans as rivals.

  13. JB Says:

    >> All he has to do is stay two years and he gets an additional $1 million.

    Seems pretty simple. Tedford agreed to make the opening of the training center almost as important as the complete renovation, which is consistent with his public view that those facilities are needed to compete in recruiting. The University raised his compentation and accelerated his retention in exchange.

    >> clearly, he has far less (financial) incentive to stay through the duration of the new contract.

    If I recall correctly, the old argument was that the back-end loaded deal did not alter your assessment that Tedford was unlikely to stay for five years. So, the financial incentive is now relevant?

    Now, Cal fans should not take the terms of the extension as a definite indication that Tedford’s is ready to bolt. (It wouldn’t surprise me if he stayed a few more years, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he left next winter.)

    Would it surprise you if he stayed more than a few more years? You make it sound like the new contract leads you to believe Tedford is not likely to stay–why not just state that it reinforces something you already believed. If the next contract is more heavily backloaded, are you suddendly going to believe Tedford will be the next Paterno?

    Short of sitting in the stands 5 years from now watching Tedford lead the team on the field, what would it take for you to believe it is more likely than not that he will stay for 5 more years?

  14. 206 Hoops Says:

    Cardbill - yes, our (I went to Stanford) admissions standards dip less for athletes than any other D-I school in the country, and I’m proud of that too. But they do dip some, so let’s be careful with the “refuse to compromise” rhetoric. Especially in a discussion with Cal fans, where the quality of kid they bring in actually compares pretty favorably to certain other Pac-10 programs. If you want thugs, wait til you see what happens at ASU under Dennis Erickson. Them some thugs.

  15. CalFan33 Says:

    People are reading too much into the contract terms. Bottom line: Tedford will get offers that will greatly exceed even this upgraded package, the going rate for a top coach is in the $3 to $4 mill range.

    However, the financial incentive isn’t really that strong for someone who’s been making 7 figs for years now and who will be guaranteed to make an additional $15-$20 at Cal in the next seven years. At this level, other factors for a family man take precedence: stability, comfort level with the administration and within the work environment.

    It’s going to boil down to one main factor: Cal’s ability to break ground on the HPC within the next couple of years. If so, Tedford is much more likely to stay through next decade than not.

    Cardbill: do you realize that Cal Football’s APR last year was higher than Stanford’s? Cal was one of the few football programs to score a perfect 1,000.

    Jon, Tedford’s success on the academic front has been as solid as his athletic success, and that’s a fact that needs to be acknowledged in the press.

  16. rojo Says:

    Contrary to popular belief, Stanford dips and/or compromises THIER academic standards as much or more than the other Pac 10 schools. SC, UCLA and Cal dip the most, but Stanford will admit, especially when recruiting a 5 star athlete, someone who is anywhere from 200 to 300 points below the average SAT of a regular student at Stanford.

    Keep in mind that most Pac 10 schools (not SC, UCLA and Cal - which all accept athletes some 400 points below their average student) recruit athletes who, on average, come in with an SAT score about 100 to 150 points below the average SAT score of the student body.

    Granted, the academic requirements for athletes to be admitted to Stanford are quite a bit higher than the rest of the Pac 10 schools; nevertheless, if a school wants to promote its academic superiority and protect its academic integrity, it must be judged by how much it is willing to compromise its own standards. If Stanford didn’t compromise its admission standards for athletes it couldn’t compete in the Pac 10. So in the interest of competing at the highest level, Stanford is willing to compromise its academic standards for athletes as much as most schools in the Pac 10, minus SC, UCLA and Cal.

  17. Cardbill Says:

    EvanHall,
    Stanford has been to the Rose Bowl 3 times since Cal last appeared in the game. So maybe Cal should try to win some more games. (especially important ones) I don’t think USC looks at Cal as a rival. When you beat up on a team all the time (except one time about 3-4 years ago) it’s hard to take that team very seriously & consider the team a rival.

  18. Cardbill Says:

    Rojo
    Like you really know! Nice BS job!

  19. oski Says:

    I know one thing. The Cal players clearly don’t see stanfurd as a rival.

  20. StanfordWho Says:

    Stanford still has a football team?

  21. LaughingBear Says:

    Cal Fans –
    Now that the bears are established, just watch the profile of the recruiting classe to see if Tedford is leaving. The Bears are still loading up with offensive skill position prep talent — The quality of QBs, RBs, WRs waiting in the wings is unlike any Bear roster ever seen. These players will make the Bears great in ‘09/’10, so Cal should have JT on the sidelines until at least through 2010.

    The point of concern will be if we ever see the Bears transferring in a lot of JC players, then we’ll know that Tedford is loading up for a short 1 or 2-year run to hit all the incentives.

    CardBill -
    “When you beat up on a team all the time it’s hard to take that team very seriously & consider the team a rival” YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Who says Cal and Stanford grads don’t get along? :)

  22. rojo Says:

    I see that cardbill can’t handle the truth.. Please enlighten us and tell us what is the standard for Stanford athletes. According to the Princeton Review, the average SAT score for Stanford students for 2006 was 1450 (old test). I know of several athletes, from where I live, who were offered athletic scholarships to Standord and had SAT scores below 1250. Can you provide us with any information that is contray to what I have been told directly by these athletes. Do you know what the cutoff is for Stanford athletes?

    Let’s look around the Pac 10 among schools that furnished average SAT scores for their student body. The average ASU student is 1090, Arizona is 1115, Oregon is 1096, WSU is 1082. Even if those schools admitted only NCAA minimum qualifiers (which they don’t) then they would still not have to compromise their standards by more than 300 points. I believe that most of those schools have football players who, on average have SAT scores in the 950-1000 range.

    The fact is all schools that compete in div 1 college football compromise their adademic standards so that they can recruit athletes to be competitive. The elite academic school have to lower their standards moreso than the non-elite schools. SC, UCLA and Cal lower their standards the most. Stanford, to its credit, does not compromise as much as the other elite schools, but they do, nevertheless, compromise THEIR standards and ends up being as much as the non-elite schools in the conference.

    If Stanford was unwilling to compromise, then they couldn’t compete. It’s that simple.

    There is no reason or written law that forces Stanford, with its lofty academic status,to compete in Pac 10 and div 1 sports across the board. If they want to be the Harvard of the west, then they should not compromise their standards any more than the Ivy League schools that they are compared to academically. If the Ivy leagues protect their academic integrity, then so should Stanford, if it wants the same respect.
    The truth is Stanford compromises as much as the non-elite schools in the Pac 10.

  23. Dannyboy Says:

    Cal’s bringing in kids that don’t belong there–check out their football grad rate (source: SI.com, 9/27/06): at 44%, only Texas (40%) and Georgia (41%) were worse amongst top 25 teams. That’s right, Bear fans, Cal graduates under 50% of their football players. Worse than Ohio State (55%), USC (55%), Oklahoma (52%), even Florida State (52%).

    What an embarrassment!

  24. Tbear Says:

    If we lose Tedford to the pros, or to some other big time football program we have a great coach waiting in the wings that would take Cal’s football program to the pinnacle of success. His name is Chris Petersen. I’ll let you figure out where he currently coaches. Petersen’success would command a large contract, but not as large as Tedford’s. Petersen would be worth every dollar it took to get him to Berkeley. We Cal fans need not fret over the possibility of losing Tedford. The program will continue to thrive & grow under a new outstanding coach like Chris Petersen. He knows how to motivate a team and get the full potential from his players. No Choke from a Petersen led football team.

  25. LaughingBear Says:

    Dannyboy -
    As far as the SI numbers, I’m sure they have some merit, but I’ll defer to the NCAA on matters of sports and academic rankings.

    According to the Official NCAA measure of Academic Performance (the APR) this is how the Pac10 Football Programs shake out:

    NCAA Academic Progress Rate Score

    No Team Conf. APR

    Stanford 994
    California 924
    Washington State 922
    USC 910
    Oregon State 892
    Arizona State 887
    Washington 885
    Arizona 862
    UCLA 862
    Oregon 849

    So the WORST TEAM Pac10 has the Top APR.

    Cal has the 2nd APR and are the #2 Pac10 team. I’d love to be ranked #1 in both, but sounds like a good balance for now.

  26. TommyCoug Says:

    Let’s see…I think it goes something like this…”There are lies, then damn lies and then statistics.” I have seen recent overall athlete graduation rates for the last few years that put WSU at 92% second only to Stanford at 97% in the Pac-10. Maybe they all take basket weaving…however, we have had our share of MD’s, Engineers, Lawyers, etc., that have played football at Wazzu too.

    My overall guess is that the Pac-10 is as good or better in scholastics than at least 80% or more of the conferences.

    Now, 206 Hoops, does have a point…watch Arizona State over the next 5+ years under Dennis Erickson…”Thems some thugs!”…I know he coached at WSU for 2 years!!

  27. youngblue Says:

    Ah, Dannyboy…too bad you leave out an important piece of those grad rates. Those are for students entering for the years 1996 to 1999. In case you’re unaware, Tedford became the coach in 2002. I’m sure you’ll be disappointed to know that the rates for Tedford’s players is much better…oh well, at least you have that highly coveted Gauntlet trophy…

  28. Dannyboy Says:

    Youngblue–help me out: were the grad statistics taken before or after the Cal basketball team was put on 3 year probation for funneling some $30k in money to parents of recruits? And, perhaps about the same time a Cal professor got caught passing two football players in a class they never once attended and did no work in? Please help with the timeline. Just Google “berkeley football scandal” or “berkeley basketball scandal” and you’re off to the races.

  29. The California Golden Blogs :: Athletic Success Over-Valued? Academic Success Under-Valued? :: May :: 2007 Says:

    […] Curtesy of John Wilner at the Mercury, click here to view details about Tedford’s latest contract. […]

  30. Mikey Says:

    LaughingBear and TommyCoug - true to your words from a few weeks back, you didn’t fall for the flame-bait. those were great responses.

  31. youngblue Says:

    Oh Dannyboy, you disappoint me. You went right for the classic move of those that have no facts to back up their claim. Tell me again how the basketball scandal of 1996 or the football grades issue of 1999 is relevant to the grad rates of 2007 for Tedford’s football team? Oh, that’s right, they aren’t. Heck, if you want to play the past problems card we could bring up Eric Abrams which would be as logical as yours.

  32. CalBearister99 Says:

    To Dannyboy and Cardbill:

    If by “Tedford ain’t that good” you mean that it’s unimpressive to win five straight against Stanfurd, I agree. But the 9 wins a year he posts aren’t too shabby. Better than anything Stanfurd has put up for 5 consecutive years.

    As for “JC transfers and thugs,” who would you be referring to? Desmond Bishop? Joe Ayoob? Lavelle Hawkins? All three are much better character-athletes than Leigh Torrance (you’ll recall his disgusting antics in the ‘04 Big Game slaughter?). And as for your “standards,” any idiot can graduate from Stanfurd if they get enrolled - it’s virtually impossible to fail (and for years, was ACTUALLY impossible). You mean to tell me that Casey Jacobsen was bright? Please. Gentleman’s Cs earn degrees.

    As for Cal’s academics and graduation rates, I think the APR numbers and the Pac-10 All Academic teams of late pretty much show your arguments to be wholly without merit.

    And as for “scandals,” at least the academic fraud at Cal was one isolated professor. At Stanfurd, the whole Junior University is an academic fraud. Like I said - once you’re admitted, maintaining a heartbeat for 4 years is enough to graduate. Not so at Cal.

    Go Bears. Try winning more than one game this year.

  33. Dannyboy Says:

    CB99,

    How much did it hurt when you were denied admission to Stanford, exactly? Looks like your’e still smarting something fierce. Move on.

    Tedford is a fantastic coach, no doubt, and my two posts never mentioned his name. His record speaks for itself. But at what cost? With Cal’s recent record of academic fraud for football players, funneling money to basketall prospects, and sub-50% grad rates for football players, I have to wonder what (if anything) is out of bounds in Berkeley.

    And mix in a Rose Bowl every half-century.

  34. Harold Says:

    Well, youngblue, if you’re going to bring up crimes committed by football players after their college careers were over, I guess we’ll have to mention Cal’s distinguished convicted wife- and child-murderer Mariet Ford. Or, we could all agree to quit trying to score cheap rhetorical points by trouting out stories of how sadly wrong some particular player’s life turned after his football days ended.

  35. TommyCoug Says:

    I believe, that NCAA athlete “Graduation Rates” and “Progress Reports” are certainly two different items. Therefore, we all need to understand each one and the differences along with which “statistics” we want to hang our opinion and veracity on!?

    The “Progress Reports” are just how an athlete, school is doing concerning the credit level over a period of years and the athlete’s, so called class standing, like Sophomore or Junior. It shows that if he/she has been at the university for 3 years that they have earned at least 30-40 credits, courses, classes, quarters or semesters or whatever it is that the NCAA measures (the acutal measurement and time frame I don’t have accurate recall of right now).

    The “Graduation Rates” are tallied every year, but are a “rolling” continuous sequence of years. I also believe that they give an athlete 5-6 years to graduate and be counted as a good mark. Athlete’s flunking out, transferring, returning to JC’s to get grades up, etc., count against the university. Therefore, athletes entering any Pac-10 school in 1999 would have had their graduation situation count until 2005. Then, it goes from 2000 to 2006 and so on. Again, I may be off on the exact timeframe, but I believe this is close to how it works.

    If this is “old news” to you all…I apologize. If I misunderstand the way the NCAA does it I would like to be corrected and updated. Thanks.

  36. TommyCoug Says:

    Fine point Harold! Every Pac-10 university has their skeletons. And so do many, “as big or bigger,” college athletic teams…like Oklahoma, Nebraska, U. of Miami. Just throw a dart of pick a name. Do I hear…O. J. Simpson and U.S.C.??

    However, though we didn’t have him long…the short time “joke” at Wazzu under Dennis Erickson was…”No one recruits the jails better!!” Do I also “hear” U. of Miami, Oregon State, U. of Idaho and now Arizona State?

  37. LaughingBear Says:

    Stanford football is at the lowest point in its history because of decisions made by THEIR administration. This attack on the Bears is just an expression of frustration/envy.

    Stanford players/students are able to avoid failing up to the last class meeting*, but out in the real world, tantrums and finger-pointing won’t hide the fact that the Cardinal have ceased to be relevant in 1A football.

    *from registrar.stanford.edu/students
    “The ‘I’ grade is restricted to cases in which the student has satisfactorily completed a substantial part of the course work. No credit will be given until the course is completed and a passing grade received. When a final grade is received, all reference to the initial ‘I’ is removed.

    Students must request an incomplete grade by the last class meeting”

  38. Spartan Wonder Says:

    Tedford is a miracle worker right! He got Cal to lower the academic standards so he could fiel a competitive team. This is why he can recruit in the bay area now. He is getting all the top athletes and making them all psychology majors. Last year a Cal player stated his favorite class was one which you receive a pass or fail grade. Come on how do you track progress with no letter grades. Tedford is like any other coach he doesn’t care if the players graduate he just wants to win the pac-10 crown.

  39. Tbear Says:

    Yes,Tedford has an excellent win-loss record over the past few years, but now it is time to win important games. Am I the only Cal fan who is still upset about Cal’s pathetic 2nd half performance at Arizona last season. They could not hold a 17-3 lead. A talented team with a top-notch coach shouldn’t have allowed that to happen. From the opening drive of the 2nd half until they fell behind Cal tried to run out the clock. They primarily threw only on obvious 3rd down plays. The 2nd half game plan was a joke! Longshore’s performance & Tedfords play calling were horrible. That game cost the Bears the PAC 10 championship and a trip to the Rose Bowl. I’m not quite ready to attach “Sainthood” to Tedford’s coaching abilities.

  40. LaughingBear Says:

    Spartan Wonder -
    While you’re at it, please comment on the Dick Tomey’s “Miracle”.

    Last month, SJSU lost seven scholarship slots due to sub-standard academic progress. And by “sub-standard”, I mean the WORST IN ALL OF 1A FOOTBALL. This isn’t my opinion, its the findings of a group called the N.C.A.A.

    SJSU also picked up a former cal “player” last fall — even with Tedford’s “lowering of academic standards”, he couldn’t make it past Cal’s summer school, but was welcomed with open arms into the Tomey-led Spartans:

    Per Jon Wilmer: “Tackle Isaac Leatoita was a three-star recruit at Santa Clara Wilcox High when he signed with Cal last year. He attended summer school in Berkeley, then left Cal and spent the fall at Mission College.”

    so as the saying goes, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones.” You might cut yourself in that giant pile of glass you’re standing in now.

  41. bearras Says:

    Regarding Stanford’s alleged history of refusing to compromise its academic standards in order to admit a prize recruit: Has anybody ever seen John Elway’s SATs?

  42. TommyCoug Says:

    No, I haven’t seen John Elway’s SATs. However, I have observed his speedboat actions and antics on Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, where he spends much of the summer and fall this days (as your’s truly does), along with his beer and barroom moves!

  43. Leftcoast Says:

    All this worry about Stanford’s admittance policies is touching! But you fans/alums of other universities need not spend so much time worrying your troubled heads over our standards - we spend more than enough time doing that ourselves. Go back to your grape juice even if it does taste a bit sour.

    And consider these facts even if they don’t jibe with the jihad’s agenda - Stanford still has the highest inbound SAT scores and the highest graduation rate of any atheletic department.

    If our standard are different than yours it doesn’t really matter as long as you can be proud of the athletes that represent your own schools. After all if all schools had the same standards there would be very few teams playing NCAA football.

    So the real question is - are you proud of the athletes that represent your schools? I might add a couple more - Are they representative of your student body? Are they really YOURS in a way pro athletes aren’t? If not than why not go support the 49ers?

    At Stanford we like the answer to those questions - for the most part. But we still worry about where the bar is set more than some of you do - and for better reasons.

  44. Harold Says:

    At the height of the Cold War, Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote an essay called “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” which argued that America’s left had two sets of standards on human rights, a high one for right-wing dictatorships and a low one for left-wing dictatorships. I always thought somebody should write a companion piece, “Admissions and Double Standards,” about how Cal fans were alwasy screaming that Stanford is elitist, only to turn around and brag about how much better a school Cal is than Fresno State or San Jose State.

    But now I’m afraid Stanford has developed its own double-standard problem. You can see it in Leftcoast’s post, which is well-written, amusing — and tries to have it both ways about admissions standards.

    Too many Stanford fans rant against the university’s admissions office, demanding that standards be lowered for star athletes — at precisely the same time they’re making fun of other schools for having low admissions standards for star athletes. It’s one or the other, guys: Do you want Stanford to be a university with a football team (the traditional Stanford model), or a football team with a university(the traditional USC/Nebraska model)? You can’t have it both ways, any more than Cal fans can.

  45. Leftcoast Says:

    See guys - Now Harold and I get to the internal worrying part. I TOLD you we had that part covered.

    Stanford admissions has never been formulaic. Unlike the UC system you can’t just add the SAT scores to a mulitple of your GPA and come up with an admissions bar for entrance. Stanford haw always looked for academic top performers who have a “resume” of accomplishments that show they are well rounded and have achieved excellence in some field. In my class they turned down 20 some students with 1600 SAT’s and >4.0 GPA’s. Yet my dorm had one student with a SAT slightly above 1000 who had founded a soup kitchen for homeless folks in his hometown.

    The argument is around how does ATHLETIC excellence score in the above formula - and how much of a break do you give the kids that are academically gifted but spent 20+ hours a week in training versus in study hall?

    That bar has always shifted at Stanford and was at a relative apex over the last four years.

    So should it be lowered slightly? I’d say yes but never to the level where we have some athletic under-class scouring the campus for their own version of Cal’s Saragoza.

    Unlike others I trust the admissions office to swing the pendulum back (slightly) and give us a football team that is both competitive and representative of the university. I bet once they’ve done so our football team is still north of Northwestern when Grad rate and SAT are calculated - even if those aren’t our only measures.

    But Harold, don’t you think it’s nice to see all those kind hearts above sharing our concern over academic standards? Concern like that restores my faith in the resurgent human spirit in the North Bay - and just when they said all the bleeding hearts at Berkeley had been traded in for pre-professional yuppies!

  46. LaughingBear Says:

    LeftCoast -
    This chain was started by stanford fans (CardBill and especially DannyBoy) attacking Cal standards. You then label the responses/rebuttals as an “interest” in stanford policy? That’s a cop-out in my opinion.

    Your response is yet another attempt to frame this as a Stanford discussion when — at this moment — the Cardinal are truly irrelevant to Golden Bear football and almost irrelevant in the 1A football.

    If you truly think this statement is false, I would consider you deluded, but would respect that you’re a true fan. And until the Cardinal imporve on the field, any criticism of the Bears is easily brushed off as merely “sour grape” rants by frustrated stanfordites.

    I do give the Cardinal credit for dominating Cal during the Willingham years, but this is the decade of the Bears. Maybe the tide may turn, but the actions of Sandy Barbour and the U.C. Regents relative to the decisions of Stanford administration are very comforting for Cal Fans, yet apparently agitate Stanford fans to no end.

  47. LaughingBear Says:

    p.s.
    Note how each program positions themselves in the market.

    Cal Tickets:
    1-800-GO-BEARS

    Stanford Tickets:
    1-800-BEAT-CAL (or is it 1-800-BE-AT-CAL ?)

    I’ve always found this fixation on Cal very endearing and explains why Stanford fans spend so much time looking north.

  48. Leftcoast Says:

    Laughing bear perhaps you, like some of your Bear brethren, are living in the past. They may still be living in the 60’s but you are living in the 80’s.

    For the rest of you who may be wanting to buy Stanford tix to see coach Harbaugh and the new stadium (maybe he was right about the deluded part!) the Stanford number changed to 1-800-Stanford some 10 years ago.

    Rivalry jibes aside, I LIKED the old number and wish they’d bring it back. 1-800-STANFORD is as bland and unintersting as 1-800-GO-BEARS and who likes bland?

    And Laughing Bear take a good long breath and enjoy Cal’s time at the top of the BG rivalry because history teaches us the cycle DOES turn.

    One concern I’d have if I wore Blue and Gold would be whether your turn at the cycle’s apex will include a Rose Bowl. That’s a pretty special experience and it’s still to be seen whether Tedford can bring one home for your fans.

    I suspect Tedford will as unlike Card Bill I think Tedford is the real deal. I followed him at Fresno and Oregon and did a big “uh oh” when Cal hired him. The drought may be over for the north bay soon - but one can always hope otherwise and maybe take some precautions. I’m down in the south bay sticking hat pins in my Oski doll right now!

  49. CalBearister99 Says:

    Dear Danny “Eric Abrams Loves Young” boy…

    I wouldn’t know how much it hurt when I was “denied admission to Stanfurd.” I never bothered applying, as I had zero interest in attending. I grew up a Cal fan and paid less money for a degree that is just as valuable. But I do enjoy it so when Stanfurd snobs think that everyone at Cal was rejected by Stanfurd. Just like not everyone at UCLA was rejected by Cal (just most of them…)

    As for the rest of your post, the painful lack of logic makes me question the education one gets on the farm. You state:

    “Tedford is a fantastic coach, no doubt, and my two posts never mentioned his name. His record speaks for itself. But at what cost? With Cal’s recent record of academic fraud for football players, funneling money to basketall prospects, and sub-50% grad rates for football players, I have to wonder what (if anything) is out of bounds in Berkeley.”

    How do you link: (1) academic fraud; (2) money to basketball prosects; or (3) old graduation rates to Jeff Tedford? The academic fraud was under Holmoe, had nothing to do with the athletic department, and has not been repeated. The money to Jelani Gardener was under Bozeman, and he was fired. And graduation rates - which are misleading to begin with given transfers, early entry into the NFL, etc. - are up.

    As for the Rose Bowl every half-century, that’s fair enough. But I’ll bet you we get there before you do. And don’t forget the very first Rose Bowl, if you want to talk about history. Stanfurd forfeited to Michigan after getting blown out in the first half. It was such an embarassment to west coast football that they didn’t have another Pac-10/Big-10 Rose Bowl for years. It seems to be a common tactic among Stanfurd athletes. If you can’t win, quit. To borrow from an old Stanfurd marketing campaign, wimps in the classroom (no Fs), wimps on the field (forfeits).

  50. LaughingBear Says:

    LeftCoast -
    I stand corrected, as I only remember the phone number on the billboard outside of stanford stadium — however this does illustrate my level of interest in Stanford athletics.

    You’ll find no argument from me regarding the cyclical nature of the Pac10, but with the new contract and this year’s strong recruiting, the Golden Bears are well prepared to stay in the upper tier of the Pac10 until the end of the decade.

    I buy into the statement that “excellence is a habit, not an event.” Tedford has built a program that is still proving it’s excellence, but when it does, a Rose Bowl victory will be the event to crown it.

  51. Cardbill Says:

    LB,
    Dream on! Tedford showed last year how to continue the Rose Bowlesss streak. Cal had a Golden opportunity to get back to the Rose Bowl for the first time in 50 years, but as usual they found a way to blow it. Even with the more difficult admission standards the Cardinal will be in the Rose Bowl before the Bears. Character & intelligence ultimately is the difference between a good team and a championship team. Tedford seems to be able to get Cal to the good team status, but when Stanford re-tools (under Harbaugh) they will become PAC 10 & Rose Bowl champions!

  52. Harold Says:

    Leftcoast, I share your amusement at the touching concern of Cal fans about admissions standards. It would be more convincing if Cal had gotten rid of the professor who passed the two no-show football players, but consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as they say.

    I disagree with you, though, about Stanford admissions. I don’t think Stanford has devalued athletic achievement in the admissions formula. What’s happened is that that the academic part of the formula has become more rigorous for athletes just as it has for other prospective Stanford students. I can only shake my head when Stanford fans cite this player or that player from the Jim Plunkett era as an example of a guy whose scores and gradepoint wouldn’t be good enough to get him in these days. Guess what? LOTS of people who went to Stanford in in the Plunkett era — or the Darrin Nelson era or the Steve Stenstrom era — wouldn’t get into Stanford these days. It’s a more competitive academic environment, and as long as Stanford is Stanford, that’s going to be true for athletes as well as everybody else.

    As for the “relevance” of Stanford football to Cal, all I can say is it looked pretty relevant midway through the fourth quarter of the Big Game last season. Imagine that — the losingest football team in all of Stanford history, still in position to win the Big Game with five minutes to go. Kind of puts the Cal season into perspective, doesn’t it?

  53. LaughingBear Says:

    Football isn’t horseshoes or hand-grenades.

    Stanford was also two minutes from defeating the 1AA Davis Aggies. Kind of puts the Cardinal DECADE in perspective, doesn’t it?

    Stanford fans can continue to pick, prod, and predict until the cows come home to the farm, but the fact remains that the Cardinal is the worst team in the Pac10 until they prove otherwise on the field.

  54. Leftcoast Says:

    The “irrelevant” argument was kind of hard to hear through the din of long and emotional posts, the laborious rebuttals and the telling comments on our past players and stars. I think they protest a bit too much ….

    And yes, there were quite a few nervous Cal fans sitting next to me in Memorial stadium last Dec 2 who didn’t think Stanford was irrelevant during the 4th quarter of last year’s BG.

    From time to time one or the other program tries to state that they’ve “moved on”, “hit a higher plane”, etc and so on but their new rivals come and go. Stanford and Cal are joined at the hip - for the 100 years of history and on into the future.

    Fans who state otherwise either lack historical perspective, are making a cheap point or just don’t get it.

    But don’t worry - most Cal fans undertand even if they pretend not to and those few who don’t will as soon as the Axe is in Palo Alto. The cycle will turn again, it always does and we’ll have another Scott Fujita telling us how important getting that long hoped for win is - in that inimitable and profane cal way.

    http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=7118

    Until then expect more feigned and carefully postured indifference and protests that go on a little to loooonnng ….

    /Lefty

  55. LaughingBear Says:

    CardBill - character and intelligence DO go a long way.

    Keep that in mind in the future as it was your opinionated and unfounded attack on Cal admissions and the character/intelligence of Cal players in Post #11 that set direction and tone of this discussion.

  56. Cardbill Says:

    LB,
    Yea LB, it’s fun to stir things up! It’s also fun & interesting to see Cal & Stanford fans fighting it out over a non-winable issue. By the way post #11 was opinionated but certainly not unfounded!

  57. LaughingBear Says:

    CardBill -
    For some reason, you assume that Standford’s self-inflicted standards should be applied to the 110 programs that finished 2006 ranked ahead of the Cardinal, especially to the Bears.

    Either be proud of Stanford’s rules and the resulting team or fight to change them — but pointing at Cal and crying foul is just a defense mechanism to soothe the your agony from watching Cardinal Football.

    Lefty -
    a cursory scan through this forum seems to show that YOUR posts take up the most vertical space of any poster. Perhaps your looooonnng… protests are indicative of feigned and carefully postured equality to Cal.

    LB is out of here…
    Happy memorial day all!

  58. TommyCoug Says:

    Happy Memorial Day and Weekend too, LaughingBear!

    Now…I personally am just about read and blogged out on this Stanford vs California issue over athlete admissions, grades, progress and graduations. Hasn’t this just about been beat up enough? Jon, can we have a new topic for next week? No matter how you cut it…smart, semi-smart or dumb…the scoreboard is what we all care about!

    As a side note on Pac-10 All Academic Honors, (including football) both of the above institutions may have had to take a back seat, over the last year or so, to the little university on the East Side of the state of Washington…that’s right, the Wazzu Cougars. I report this only because that seemed to be the criteria of “excellence” another person suggested. Of course, WSU can’t afford to participate in every sport that Stanford does…or maybe Cal also. However, we have all the majors and most of the minor ones for both men and women.

    So, my plug is now in…I am looking forward to the next weeks item(s)…and preferably something other than coaches contracts!

  59. Broncoboss Says:

    Yea Jon, Let’s talk football in your upcoming articles. If you write columns about high achieving-successful football programs with great coaching staffs we can start talking about Boise State. Chris Peterson is without a doubt the best young football coach in America. He has the ability to do something very few (if any) coaches are able to do: He has BSU playing up to their full potential every game. I wish Boise could play more PAC 10 teams, especially WSU and Cal. They usually beat everybody they play!

  60. TommyCoug Says:

    Well Broncoboss, Boise State has had many winning seasons and produced several coaches that have moved on to other schools over the last 10 years or so. And Peterson, so far, is pretty early in his head coaching career…so let’s wait and see what happens…don’t “crown him” too early!

    As for “playing more Pac-10 teams like WSU and Cal…they usually beat everybody they play”…I don’t think you want a steady diet of that week after week. You are about 50-50 with Oregon State I believe and have never played Cal. You play the Washington Huskies this year and they were next to last in the Pac-10 Conference last year. So, that will give you some measure of your abilities with the tailend of our conference teams.

    In addition, as I have reminded other BSU “BOASTERS” in the past, the last team to defeat the Broncos, just a few years ago, on your “pretty home blue turf” came from Pullman, WA. I believe. I don’t remember that it was pretty for you either!!

    I hope the Broncos have a good year…and GO COUGS!!

  61. The California Golden Blogs :: Buyout Clauses Don’t Mean Much :: May :: 2007 Says:

    […] Earlier this week, Hydrotech reacted to a blog entry by the Merc’s Jon Wilner, pointing out that while Cal does pay its football coach significantly more than its professors, it is not because Cal values one more than the other, but because they are in entirely different markets, and Cal is willing to pay market rate for world-class employees in both cases. A very good (and subtle) point, it’s worth reiterating. […]

  62. Broncoboss Says:

    TommyC,
    Well said! You sound like a sharp guy who is expressing a fair assessment of my Broncos. I do get excited when I’m at a Boise home game and see the fan support & the fun everyone has at the game. It seems to me that when the players put on the BSU uniform & go on the field they play/perform at higher level than their true abilities. Last season they demonstrated what over-achievers can accomplish.
    Note: BSU killed Oregon State who beat PAC 10 & Rose Bowl champs USC. They also beat a championship Oaklahoma team. These teams are hardly league bottom dwellers.
    I also hope WSU has good year. As a knowledgeable Bronco fan I say to the PAC 10 “Bring um on! Anytime- Anywhere. We don’t need the blue turf to kick butt. Have a nice holiday weekend. (99 days to first Sat. college football game)

  63. Dannyboy Says:

    LaughingBear,

    Your preoccupation with Eric Abrams is troubling. Best to seek some counseling (or, at minimum, warn your neighbors) before you act on that latent impulse. Seriously.

    You seem a bit slow, so I’ll guide you and your brethren along: we didn’t know that a Cal coach paid money to recruits (some $30K, no less), but Cal got caught, and now we do (and Cal hoops went on probation); we didn’t know that a Cal professor was passing kids who never attended class or did any work so they could gain eligibility, but Cal got caught, and now we do (and last I checked, he remains on staff at Cal–what a disgrace!); we didn’t think it possible that Cal could have football players graduate less than half the time, and at a lower rate than almost all of the most shameless football factories of the southeast (thank God for Georgia and Texas, or you’d be last, LaughingBear), but somebody issued a report, and now we know.

    (note: if you Bears fans can come at Stanford with a similar list of shame, please do.)

    It’s called a pattern, Bears fans–a pattern of cheating, cutting corners, ends justifying the means, and a tolerance of same by the Cal administration. It is a pattern that leads me to wonder if Cal’s football resurgence involved some of the misdeeds tolerated and overlooked by Cal in the past. We don’t know now, but I bet someday we will.

    I’m quite happy to cheer for a school that doesn’t get put on probation in both basketball and football (impressive!). And, we even got treated to a Rose Bowl while your football players were mapping out what classes they could get credit for without attending.

  64. Dannyboy Says:

    I apologize, LaughingBear–I incorrectly named you as the poster with the Eric Abram fixation. It was in fact a few of your fellow Blue.

  65. Broncoboss Says:

    By the way the admission standards at Boise State puts both Cal & Stanford’s to shame.

  66. TommyCoug Says:

    WHHHAAATTT did you say, Broncoboss!? Now you are insulting my/our intelligence! Shame on you…show some common sense.

  67. Broncoboss Says:

    Just having some fun Coug! Calm down! Since your from WSU you’ve got to be intelligent, or do you? Anybody spending time in Eastern Washington must know something I don’t. Don’t take everything so serious, or personal. Blogging should be fun as well as the expression of opinions. Right? Have good Labor Day. Have a few bruskies & relax. Stress is not good for anyone!

  68. TommyCoug Says:

    Broncoboss, I had a “great” Memorial Day yesterday and weekend too. I will “have a good Labor Day” on September 3rd, unless…you seem to have a different calendar than I do?

    No problem on having fun and enjoying blogging. I am one that has said often…”ya need a thick skin around here.” I relish in dry humor…but, a statement like yours suggested true belief.

    And, having spent time in Eastern Washington…”I do know something you don’t, intelligent might be another matter?” We celebrate the National Lentil Festival every year! Start those John Deere tractors up boys!!

  69. Broncoboss Says:

    Coug, Thanks for your enjoyable post! We can have fun blogging with our witty humor. Boise State 37 U. of Washington 24 this fall. It probably won’t be that close but I will give U. of Washinton some respect.

  70. TommyCoug Says:

    Well, Broncoboss, you are quite optimistic this early in the year. I believe that your game with the UDUB Huskies will be played in Husky Stadium. In addition, not many people beat them by 2TD’s there or anywhere on a consistent basis.

    In the Pac-10 you had better be near perfect every weekend or you will be bashed, upset and dumped good! As you mentioned before, Oregon State beat USC who blasted Michigan in the Rose Bowl and even though you beat them early last year.

    I believe that the BSU Broncos have some holes to fill and your win over the Oklahoma Sooners, while very exciting, can’t be duplicated every week of the season. So, don’t rely on the trick and razzle dazzle plays to bail you out of trouble every game.

    SOOOO…GO COUGS…GO PAC-10…and I am sure BSU will do quite well again this year too. For fun, I will take the Huskies straight up in the fall? What say you…Broncoboss?

  71. Broncoboss Says:

    TCoug,
    I know I’m probably a little over-exuberent about Boise State. It’s just that I have been a dedicated fan of the Broncos for 10 years. I fly back each season to see a game. Last year’s storybook season was a dream come true for me. They have been real good for several years but had not gotten the opportunity to play in a big BCS Bowl. They got their chance last Jan. 1 and proved they belonged with the elite teams in the country. Those were not trick plays! I used the hook & lateral & statue of liberty when I was in high school. Those plays are probably older than you. BSU executed them perfectly & a well coached superior team should have been able to defend them. Boise not only out played U. of Oaklahomas they also out smarted them. I guess admission standards at the U. of O is pretty low? I’m holding on to BSU’s incredible season as long as I can.
    Alright you’ve convinced me of how tough Wash. will be at home and how tough the PAC 10 is week to week. New Prediction: BSU 27 Wash. 24

  72. Leftcoast Says:

    For fun, I will take the Huskies straight up in the fall? - TommyCoug

    Say it isn’t so!

    After betting on the Sled Dogs how will you ever be able to hold your head up in Pullman again? Have you perfected a nifty disguise or did you just earn your acceptance into the FBI’s witness protection program?

  73. TommyCoug Says:

    Heh, Bboss, the “statue” and “hook and ladder” plays are both older than I am…however, by how much I ain’t going to say…

    As a matter of fact…in the “Biggest Football MisCall of All Time”…the last 2 seconds of the 1998 Rose Bowl between, the Ryan Leaf led Wazzu Cougars and the game MVP Bryan Griese led Michigan Wolverines,…the what should have been the next to last play “WAS” a “hook and ladder” from WSU…but, the guy didn’t go out of bounds…which then results in the…”2 second spike NOT heard around the college football world”…the call was made bye a “Big West” or “Deep South” officiating crew or some other less than first class conference!

    So, Broncoboss, what about an answer to my wager?

    As for “Leftcoast”…that’s just WHY you are…!!

    I am a COUGAR…however, I almost went to school at UDUB and consider others…and, I really don’t HATE the Huskies…or any other school in the Pac-10. I have friends, relatives, etc. that do…I do want to beat them every time in any athletic contest and finish ahead of them in every sport…I bleed Crimson and Gray as much or more than anyone on this sports blog does for their favorite or alma mater!

    As for the “disguise”…FBI or CIA…I would have been a great agent in either service…but, what you see and read here is the real deal…nothing more, nothing less!

    GO COUGS…GO PAC-10!!

  74. TommyCoug Says:

    I hardly slept all night, Leftcoast. I need to amend my comment to you to read…”that the only Pac-10 team I do despise is USC.” Unfortunately, I even had a daughter that attended & graduated from there…and that hurt! They have thumped, me and my Cougars, often and by some big margins over the years…so anyone defeating the Trojans in the Pac-10 is a TommyCoug friend! However, I do root for the “Boys From Troy” during bowl games and when they play outside the conference…EXCEPT…when they play Notre Dame…then I have a dilemma?

    I feel better…GO COUGS!!…GO PAC-10!!

  75. _______________________________________________________________
  76. From JC (hide your eyes) The Ayr and the Burlap and the group.
  77. http://zombietime.com/nude_protest_at_memorial_oak_grove)

No comments: