A comparison of Cal and UCLA football

by Yoyo on Dec 29, 2006 12:56 AM PST Comment 7 comments

Cal Football from 2001-2006

2001: 1-10 (one of the worst years for Cal football)

Tedford hired after 2001 season

7-5
8-6
10-2
8-4
9-3

Cal had one of their worst seasons in 2001, a dismal 1-10 team. Struggling head coach Holmoe was quickly replaced by Tedford. While his paycheck is big, he has been a solid coach, turning the Cal program from a Pac-10 bottom dweller to a top Pac-10 team. Every year in the Tedford era has been a winning season, and the last three have been well over .500. What he started with, a 1-10 team, has turned into a Rose Bowl contender year in and year out.

In sharp contrast is Dorrell's impact on Bruin football, which we know very well.

UCLA Football from 2001-2006

Dorrell hired after 2002 season

6-7
6-6
10-2
7-6

While Dorrell has not yet coached for five years, we can see that there is a discrepancy. There has been no improvement on Toledo's program. Contrast this with Cal's program.

Keep all of this in mind when KD apologists mention that we have unrealistic expectations. I am sure there are many more examples of this; if you can think of any good ones, please share it with the rest of us.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

There's a reason that

People think Tedford is a possible NFL coach in the future and that I think he will be a strong canidate at Alabama if Saban declines to go there. He is a good coach and a true offensive guru. Because of this the players we used to get want to play for him now. The only reason DeSean Jackson is at Cal and not $C is because he wanted to be the feature guy and establish himself immediately, not wait behind Jarrett and Smith and all those guys. We should have been right there waiting at his doorstep, remember how much of a question mark our WR's were going into 05.

So, not only does Cal have a better coach they have the 2nd best athletes in the Pac 10, wasnt there a time where we were getting the best athletes in the conference let alone the 2nd best? Guys like Foster or Ogden or Mitchell weren't at Cal or $C 5-10 years ago. Somewhere along the way all of this suddenly changed and while it seems recruiting has picked up a little bit this cycle we're still losing too many good guys to other schools. It sucks. Losing guys to Notre Dame or some other schools that recruits California sucks enough but losing them to rival programs in the Pac 10 is a killer.

FSU had more horses than we did and that's why they won the football game, they were just more athletic when they needed to be whether it was the 6'6'' WR or the 4.3 running back, or the freak athlete outside linebacker. A very athletic team with mediocre coaching beat a team with mediocre coaches and athletes, period.

by ucla21 on Dec 29, 2006 5:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

This is why I don't buy the admissions excuse

Cal is just as demanding academcially as us, if not more so, yet they have a far higher quality football program than we do.

Flat out, Tedford is a better coach, built a better staff, and has constructed a better program.

We don't need to worry about building a stadium, but just the fact that boosters are throwing down considerable money to refurbish/ renovate Veterans Memorial Stadium at Cal shows the kind of loyalty and confidence Tedford has inspired by his presence and his hard and high-quality work.

Even in the first year (i.e. Year 4) when Tedford has presumably all of "his" own recruits, he went 8-4.

EIGHT wins. A magic number Dorrell seemingly cannot reach.

I'm getting this close to saying 10 wins or or tank Dorrell next year.

MIM

by Meriones on Dec 29, 2006 7:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

cal now has its second 10 win season in the last 3

years. they probably would've had an 11 win season two years ago if they didn't get snubbed from the rose bowl and feel let down going into the holiday bowl.

while for regular students cal is hard to get into academically, they're not as stringent as ucla when it comes to allowing football players on their team. i think stanford then ucla have the highest requirements for athletes in the pac-10. i don't know why we're so strict but we've just always been that way. still that's no excuse, it's always been like this. notre dame also has high academic standards for their athletes compared to most schools.

by babyblue98 on Dec 29, 2006 10:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Tedford Has Guts Too

I am sure everyone saw how Tedford went for it on 4th and goal in the same situation (I think Cal was up by 7 or 10; UCLA was up by 7 on their 4th and goal) that our esteemed Koach chose to capitulate and settle for the field goal instead. The difference: Cal scored a TD and stuck a dagger in A&M's heart, while Duh-rell's patented tail-tucking maneuver gave FSU the confidence boost it needed.

Brilliant!

by Koach Karl I on Dec 29, 2006 10:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs