Points I’m willing to concede about Tedford
(Written by kencraw)
OK, a couple more thoughts on Tedford’s job security…
I’m willing to concede the following points:
- Tedford may be paid a bit much. He’s worth $1.5 million or so, maybe even bordering on $2M. The $2.5+M is a bit more than his performance is worth, when basing it on what other coaches make.
- Tedford is not a “great coach”. He’s a good coach, but there are clearly times when he’s still learning and times when his mistakes (or the mistakes of his staff) are pretty frustrating, particularly when no halftime adjustments seem to help.
That’s about it. In every other way, I think he’s the perfect head coach for Berkeley. He’s recruited well, considering his facilities. He’s a stand-up guy who always does the right thing by his coaches, players and the University as a whole. He’s won a LOT of games that we’d never have won in the past. He’s brought the fans back to Berkeley. He’s gotten the money and facilities moving in a way I just about never thought would happen.
So what do we do with the fact that he makes a bit too much? One option is to dump him and pay him all the money his buyout is worth. Then we’ve either got to get a budget coach or pay just as much if not more for someone better. The other option is to just keep paying him. I’d argue that we’ll get a better value for our dollar by just paying him. The only thing to do is when he contract is up is to make the next one a little less and perhaps give him bigger incentive clauses. Maybe $1.5M for every BCS game appearance but only $1.5M base? I don’t know exactly what, but I think it’s obvious conceptually what I’m suggesting.
The overall point is that this isn’t something worth focusing. OK, OK, we can be upset we lost, but let’s focus our energy somewhere else besides whether Tedford deserve to be fired. It’s just not going to happen, at least for another 3 years (isn’t the contract through 2014?). It’s just not worth banging our heads against that wall.
September 20th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Dear Ken,
I agree completely with your comment about what we should do. The only option right now is to just keep paying him. I am personally angry that my current university is still paying Charlie Weis a bunch of money, while the new coach is not much better. Sandy Barbour got us into this mess by giving Coach Tedford too many extensions. Now we just need to suck it up and wait it out.
I don’t agree with the people who are calling for his head. But nor do I agree with those who want to defend his performance. Our goal is a Rose Bowl, and Tedford does not seem capable of getting us there. I appreciate what he has done, but the sad fact is that he doesn’t seem capable of helping us meet our ultimate goal.
The fact of the matter is, he is here for the next 4-5 years. I wish him the best, and I hope he proves me wrong.
September 20th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I think where we differ is in our level of hope for the next few years. I tend to think Tedford is learning new lessons every year and working to get better. The last few years have been tough and he’s learned some lessons the hard way. But between facilities helping with recruits (remember, those who sign in Feb, will start school their first year in the newly opened SAHPC) and the year when the right stars line up, I can easily see a Rose Bowl in the next 5 years. I’d give it a 50% shot before his contract runs out.
But you’re right, we’re paying him as if he’s already won a Rose Bowl for us.
September 20th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Thanks Ken,
I am a pessimist. You have me there. I don’t think he gets the players ready to play. Ever since Arizona (2006), he has been awful at his worst, and pretty good at his best.
Two things:
1) Can we agree that Sandy Barbour needs to stop giving him extensions?
2) You have no need to “concede” anything. I love your blog and value analysis. People can always change their minds.
September 20th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
At his current salary? No.
However, if I were Sandy, if he goes 8-4 and wins his bowl game this year, I’d be willing to give him a 1-year extension at $1.5M a year for each year he accomplishes that feat. If he wants his current salary he’s going to have to go 10-2 a couple times before his current contract expires.
September 20th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Dear Ken,
I don’t understand that perspective. Its not like there are a lot of people knocking down his door anymore, and this would just make it harder for us to make a change 3-4 years from now if things don’t improve.
Coaches should only get extensions if they perform well and if there is a real risk that they might get poached. Tedford hasn’t performed exceptionally well since 2006. We shouldn’t continue to give him indefinite security. He is set until 2015. Why push it back to 2016?
Of course, this is all moot. He would never accept a pay decrease, and Sandy would never offer him an extension with an embedded pay decrease. She really only has two choices — she can either extend him at the same rate (or with a raise), or not extend him at all. By definition, you can’t “extend” a contract at a lower rate.
Extensions are rewards for good work. I don’t think we should give them for mediocre work. We owe him 11.5 million at this point. I see no need to increase that figure until things improve.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
A few facts to focus upon:
1. Tedford’s record is very good, not mediocre. He is 67-35, second best in the Pac 10 for the time period.
2. Tedford is not getting worse as a coach. It’s debatable if he’s getting better, but he continues to work very hard for the program.
3. To use the Rose Bowl as the only measure of success is simplistic. Getting to the Rose Bowl can be arbitrary. Look at 2004, Cal was ranked 4th and Texas was ranked 6th. Then Mac Brown gamed the system to send the Longhorns to the Grandaddy. It wasn’t bad coaching that kept Tedford out of the Rose Bowl.
If Cal went to the Rose Bowl in 2004, would that have made Tedford a great coach? He has the same abilities regardless of how the AP Poll turned out.
4. Paying Tedford less will not create more wins. Paying Tedford more will not create more wins, either. People performing at the highest levels are not motivated by money. The compensation amount is to keep Tedford at Cal. The university competes with other colleges and the NFL.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
We’re paying Jeff Tedford for all that he’s done for Cal football:
He’s taken us from a 1-10 national joke to an eight-years-and-counting-winning-season program. He’s taken us from 0-7 in the Big Game to 7-1. He’s led us to a shared Pac-10 championship as well as bowl appearances in all but one season (which we would have gone if not for a postseason ban from the previous regime). He’s driven the stadium and SAHPC development to fruition. He’s consistently recruited some of the nation’s best athletes, with classes ranked in the top 25.
Jeff Tedford has made Cal football relevant again. More often than not, national interest in our program is high. Memorial Stadium sells out–or comes close–on a weekly basis.
Cal football is fun to watch and exciting to root for. Since 2003, I have never gone into a new season believing the Rose Bowl was out of the question. Rare is the time I go to a game feeling like we don’t have the “W” in hand.
THAT’S what we’re paying Jeff Tedford for, and I firmly believe he is worth every penny.
Talk to me after a losing season (or two). Talk to me after a consistent and sustained slide back toward mediocrity (or worse). Talk to me after a season full of going into games knowing that we don’t stand a chance, sitting in a near-empty–but shiny and new–stadium.
Maybe then I’d be open to this ridiculous idea that Jeff Tedford is overpaid and needs to have his contract bought out. Somehow, even then, I doubt it.
Names like Holmoe, Teevins, Dorrell, Gilbertson, Koetter and Doba quickly come to mind, and I’m once again thankful and appreciative for everything Jeff Tedford has done for Cal football.
We’re gonna lose games, and we may look dreadful doing so. That’s part of football. We’re also going to win games we have absolutely no business winning. That’s part of football, too.
Jeff Tedford is the man who got us to where we are today and I’m convinced that he will take us further: more upset wins and come-from-behind victories; Pac-10 championships; Rose Bowls; BCS games; maybe even a national championship.
Let’s not forget that the reason we’re paying him what we are is because we so appreciated all he had done for Cal, we wanted to make sure we didn’t lose him. Doesn’t anyone remember the fear that he was going to get snatched up by another school or, worse, the BIG bucks of the NFL? Remember how much he meant to us then?!
I have the utmost faith that Jeff Tedford is right coach for Cal and that he’ll continue to move our program forward.
In the end, I feel foolish for even writing this. We’ve only lost one nonconference game. It’s hardly reason to panic and go to extremes, but, I guess that’s part of football, too. Especially Cal football.
(Two last things:
1. Tedford DID accept a pay decrease last season. I don’t recall the actual amount, but it was a significant pay cut in an attempt to curb tensions between the faculty and the athletic department, as well as a response to California’s economic woes.
2. Tedford isn’t making as much money as his contract allows. There are bonuses and performance incentives in place that he could receive for Pac-10 championships, Rose Bowl appearances/wins, and national championships. So, for those who think he’s terribly overpaid, just imagine how frustrated he must feel knowing how much his inability to take us to the promised land is costing him!)
Go Bears!
September 20th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
I was in the process of writing my micro-novel before Rick’s post appeared, so he basically beat me to the punch in a much more eloquent–and far less wordy–fashion.
Well said, Rick!
September 21st, 2010 at 4:44 am
I hate playing this role, because I really respect Tedford as a person. But I think Rick misses the mark here. I am NOT for vilifying the guy.
But in 2007 we lost 6 of our last 7 regular season games, and barely stumbled into the Armed Forces Bowl (where we almost lost). In 2008 we had our best year since 2006. But we still lost to some so-so teams and made it to the Emerald Bowl. An Emerald Bowl appearance is not for “good” teams, unless we want to define “good” as anything over .500. Last year was another disaster, as we got embarrassed by really bad teams, appeared (and were humiliated) in arguably the worst bowls in the country, and once again failed to live up to the expectations that we compete for the Rose Bowl. This year, we lose to Nevada. Since 2006, mediocrity is a good term to use to describe Cal football, especially considering the fact that we have had experienced QB’s, multiple Heisman candidates, favorable TV exposure, etc.
And we didn’t get to the Rose Bowl in 2004 because Tedford refused to play the media game to the extent that Mack Brown did. Brown called all of his friends, ran up the scores on mediocre teams, and hit all the media outlets with his narrative of why Texas deserved a BCS bowl. Tedford was a better man than that. But Brown was a better coach. He won.
September 21st, 2010 at 4:45 am
As for Truman’s post, Tedford accepted the same pay cut as the faculty, but not on his 2.5 million salary. He accepted it on his $225k base salary. So a guy making 2.5 million gave up 23k a year, while faculty making $80k gave up $8k a year.
I would ask Truman to demonstrate that he is “moving our program forward.” It seems like we are regressing in terms of bowl prestige, and wins and losses. You have to look at his recent activity, not just what he has done since 2002. And since 2006, he has been a big disappointment. Each year we have finished far below where we were supposed to.
I think we are using two different (and incompatible) systems of evaluation:
1) – measuring Tedford based on his performance (primarily 2002-2006) against our previous ineptitude.
2) – measuring Tedford’s recent record (since 2007) based on the talent he has had.
According to the first method, he is a savior. According to the second, he is a modest failure.
September 21st, 2010 at 8:34 am
Duke, I think why you don’t get my thinking is because I’m far more content with where we are. I’m OK with an 8-4 coach who will get us to the Rose Bowl once a decade or so and wins most of his bowl games. Based on your comments it appears you don’t think we’re there, but I do. But I agree that $2.5M is a bit much for that level of a coach. You look at who’s making as much as him, they’re either performing at a high level or on the hot seat. In that sense I agree with you. But in the end, minus being a bit overpaid, I’m happy with him.
So, if he keeps delivering on 8-4 with bowl wins, extend his contract for what he’s worth. You might be right that he wouldn’t be willing to take it, but I bet if you give him the incentives to make as much as he is now by going to and winning BCS bowl games, he’s more likely to take it. Then, everyone besides those who insist on the very highest elite program are happy. Tedford has the opportunity to make his big salary, but we don’t have to pay for under performance. People like me get to keep Tedford in a program we’re very happy with. That’s my thinking.
I’m not quite as high on Tedford as Truman. I definitely don’t agree with “Iām convinced that he will take us further: more upset wins and come-from-behind victories; Pac-10 championships; Rose Bowls; BCS games; maybe even a national championship.” I think this program is about where it’s going to be, with perhaps a little upward mobility after the facilities are finished. I think this is an 8-4 to 10-2 program that makes it to BCS bowl games when they’re high and things line up right in the conference. We’ve come very close twice (’04, ’06) and that was during a very dominant period of the Pac-10. I still think the Bears have a shot this year if the right things fall into place.
But the overall point is I’m happy with a good coach who’s a pillar of high morals and caring about his players, even if I don’t think it’s worth $2.5M.
September 21st, 2010 at 8:58 am
Duke:
Your points are well made and I respect you for hanging in there against a triple team.
I think our differences come down to very subjective things like “what is success?” and “what is a good coach?”. You think Tedford got outcoached by Mack Brown for the 2005 Rose Bowl. A lot of people would agree with you.
I think Tedford is a better coach for not gaming the system. A college football coach is a role model for impressionable young adults. Your behavior matters.
What Brown did was legal. Some would call it unethical, some would not.
This is not a right or wrong issue. It all matters on your worldview and life experience.
All I can say with cetainty is that I have a different worldview than you.
September 21st, 2010 at 10:53 am
Dear Ken and Rick,
We are closer perhaps than we initially thought.
I would be mostly content with Ken’s scenario: having an 8-4 to 10-2 team that makes it to the Rose Bowl once a decade and to whom we pay about 1.5 million. After over 50 years without a Rose Bowl, who wouldn’t take that. The problem is that Coach Tedford doesn’t seem able to take us to a Rose Bowl once a decade. He has until next season to come in under the decade mark. He looked to be on the verge of the first half of the “Tedford decade” (2002-2011). But since the second half began in 2007, all signs seem to point to a man incapable of taking us there no matter how many decades we give him.
As for Rick’s comment, I appreciate the appreciation for trying to split the triple team š
But there is so much more to big time coaching than being a good person. My high school coach was a nice guy and great mentor. I try to be an upstanding person who shapes young people for the better in my own job as an instructor. But neither I nor my high school coach makes millions of dollars each year.
Media awareness and media strategy are essential components of the job. Mack Brown scored an A+ in 2004, and Tedford scored a D+ in this category (with a little bit of grade inflation for Coach Tedford). Tedford had the much stronger hand – we were 9 yards away from beating the #1 team in the country, whereas Texas had been soundly beaten in their lone loss. The Rose Bowl is traditionally a Pac-10 venue. We had (at the time) what looked to be 2 legitimate Heisman candidates. Cal hadn’t been to BCS in forever and deserved a shot. Texas didn’t need another BCS game.
Despite having the stronger hand, Tedford didn’t play any of his cards. Brown was holding a pair of 6’s, but he went all in. A poll is a for of an election. But our leader failed to campaign. There was nothing unethical or illegal about what Brown did. Do I appreciate it, no. But I am more disappointed with Tedford in this situation than I am with Brown. There was no good reason not to campaign (morally, legally, etc.). It may have been a legitimate worldview, but not one that I want a coach who is being paid millions to represent our interests to assume. If neither side was right or wrong, we would want (I would think) a coach that would fight for our program.
Anyhoo, I appreciate both of your comments. As always, I love your blog.
PS – Go Irish! (this weekend, if no other)
September 21st, 2010 at 11:52 am
Duke said: “Go Irish!”
… you’re right. We’re closer than we initially thought. š
(I’m like the only guy in Memorial stadium who cheers when the scores around the country shows the Irish winning.)
My only real reply to your last comment is that this decade was a particularly tough one to go to the Rose Bowl. If you look at the decade before, there was much more diversity with 7 teams making it. I suspect the next decade will be more like that and Cal will have a better shot at going, even with the current team.
How about this compromise: We’ll discount 2002-2004 for the first decade because that was the “rise to prominence” period, so his first steady state decade will be 2005-2014, right when his contract expires. If he doesn’t make it by then, I’ll gladly concede that the “once a decade” thing was inaccurate. Deal?
September 21st, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Dear Ken,
Let’s just call it the “long Tedford decade” (2002-2014). I like that a little better because it gives him full credit for the turn-around and for the success of 2004. At the same time, it allows us to say that if he doesn’t get us there by 2014, he needs to move on (after we erect a modest statue in his honor).
I’m not a huge Irish football fan. My students get far too crazy and don’t do any work from Friday-Monday because of football. Also, I don’t like how Notre Dame has forsaken its Catholic mission to the Liberal Arts by neglecting to fund the library while we pay two sets of bad football coaches at once. But I join in the craziness when it means stanfurd or USC might lose. If you ever want to come out for a SC or stanfurd game, you will find me by your side screaming for the Irish (not to mention some great tailgate fun before and afterwords).
All other games you will find me at the library (before watching the Cal game on TV, of course).
September 21st, 2010 at 3:03 pm
we didn’t go to the rose bowl after the 2004 season because we didn’t win the pac10. mack brown’s antics were just a sideshow. you can hardly revel in the glory when you’re only in the rose bowl because the team that should be there got invited to the national championship.
September 21st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I honestly don’t think anyone can truly issue final judgment on Tedford until the SAHPC and the stadium renovation are complete and he’s allowed to recruit with modern facilities. Cal’s current facilities are a joke. The job he and his team have done in that environment, with bad facilities and occasionally hippies in trees, is really remarkable. Do you know how easy it is for other teams to run down Cal with recruits?
There is no “golden era” waiting for us around the corner if Tedford is fired. Don’t you guys get it? THIS IS THE GOLDEN ERA. This is the best Cal has done since the 50s. Cal would have multiple Rose Bowls were it not for the bad synchrony of having USC ascendent simultaneously with Cal. Every program goes through some ups and downs.
Cal fans who think that the university could replace Tedford with some other coach who would continue his winning ways (or somehow improve on them?), rather than having the team regress back into the mire at the bottom of the Pac-10, are kidding themselves.
Check back in in 2014 after they’ve had three years in the SAHPC and two years of recruiting in the new stadium and we’ll talk.