[Kathy]

For all the crap that Tedford gets for the last 4-5 years of his reign, he was actually a damned good coach for the first 5-6. Maybe the conference quality was down (although that sounds a bit like wishful thinking about the present more than objective analysis), but he had a run from 2002-2008 that was quite good, especially by Ca.l standards. The Tedford narrative I buy into is that he worked his butt off those first years and the product on the field showed it. THen he got his big contract and prioritized his life towards family and he couldn't sustain it. Basically, he's an average talent who succeeded through great effort and dedication but in the end he couldn't sustain the effort and his natural ability never compensated once he took his foot of the gas.

When I look at our two programs over 2002-present, on balance I will take the wild extremes that Stanford has faced over that period to the more moderated successes and failures of Ca.l. But that's easy to say now that we're at a peak and not a trough. Back in 2004-2008, I was pretty darned envious of what was happening across the Bay.

As a wise man once said, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain

I doubt Tedford would have had the same success as a head coach at Stanford that he had at Cal. He built the weenies program with marginal students posing as athletes. The minimal admissions qualifications for athletes, poor graduation rates and low APR standings in that program would be unacceptable at Stanford.

[Kathy]

For all the crap that Tedford gets for the last 4-5 years of his reign, he was actually a damned good coach for the first 5-6. Maybe the conference quality was down (although that sounds a bit like wishful thinking about the present more than objective analysis), but he had a run from 2002-2008 that was quite good, especially by Ca.l standards. The Tedford narrative I buy into is that he worked his butt off those first years and the product on the field showed it. THen he got his big contract and prioritized his life towards family and he couldn't sustain it. Basically, he's an average talent who succeeded through great effort and dedication but in the end he couldn't sustain the effort and his natural ability never compensated once he took his foot of the gas.

When I look at our two programs over 2002-present, on balance I will take the wild extremes that Stanford has faced over that period to the more moderated successes and failures of Ca.l. But that's easy to say now that we're at a peak and not a trough. Back in 2004-2008, I was pretty darned envious of what was happening across the Bay.

As a wise man once said, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain

I doubt Tedford would have had the same success as a head coach at Stanford that he had at Cal. He built the weenies program with marginal students posing as athletes. The minimal admissions qualifications for athletes, poor graduation rates and low APR standings in that program would be unacceptable at Stanford.