seems like he has maxed his potential with that program, and that was 5 years ago, and they have been slipping back slowly since. Are you happy to be the 7th best team in the conference every year, or do you cut ties and try to find a better coach?
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/coaching/alltime_coach_year_by_year.php?coachid=2311
This is a tough one. I generally consider him a decent coach, but he has only ever had one team that lived up to expectations. If you're the Cal AD, I guess you're asking yourself, "Am I okay with mediocrity with the occasional 'special' team, or do I want to be contending for championships every year, understanding my new coach may need to pursue recruits the bring additional academic/legal risk to the program/university?" I work with a Cal grad who's in the former camp, and I don't know that I disagree with her. Not every university places a priority on winning football championships, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Winning is costly...
PS - This game tonight has been very difficult to watch (HOLD ONTO THE DANG BALL!!!)...thank goodness for 11W...
"The revolution will be televised."
trying to find a different coach, doesn't mean you have to hire a guy that will bend the rules/recruit thugs to be a winner. Plenty of Coaches out there that have not gotten a chance to show what they have to offer. If you know you are going to go 7-6 every year with Tedford, why not give anthor guy a try? You might get lucky and uncover the next Chip Kelly or Urban Meyer, you might get unlucky and hire the next Gene Chizik or Ron Zook, but at least you are doing something other than being 7-6 every year.
How often has Cal ever been more than just mediocre? I mean I know they have had some pretty good teams with Tedford but it's not exactly like they are or have been a perennial power. To me, Tedford got them to a great place, BUT that was years ago. I don't know that firing him means they'll get anyone any better.
I agree that a coach doesn't have to bend rules or recruit thugs, but when a good coach (which I generally consider Tedford to be) has difficulty meeting expectations, one of the first places you start looking is at the kids being recruited, and they don't have to be thugs to be a risk (see Carter, Duron; and notice I listed academics first, especially for a school like Cal). 7-6 got you a bowl game, which means extra practices, exposure and (usually) money - it ain't all bad. It should and will never be acceptable at tOSU, but that doesn't mean it can't be okay for others. Letting go of a good coach who keeps his program clean, graduates players and keeps his teams competitive isn't (and shouldn't be) a no-brainer for most of the country. Like I said before, winning is costly -- rolling the dice usually results in a lot more Chiziks than Kellys...
...and on that note, Cal loses the game. Nice.
"The revolution will be televised."
Would love to see a line graph comparing Stanford's record over the same years. That'd help the AD come to a decision.
This brings to mind Minnie's decision to let Mason go. They had a pretty good deal with him as they were pretty much a lock to go to a bowl every year, had a pretty solid rushing attack, and placed guys into the NFL with some regularity. Now look at them . . . that was a huge step back.
Has Cal reached it's potential? Is the AD and alumni ready to shell out big $$$ to bring in a good/great coaching staff, upgrade facilities, and maybe throw more money into recruiting? If they're not committed to putting their money on the line, than they may as well keep Tedford. Because a simple coaching change isn't guaranteed to bring any more success than they've already attained.
You don't fire a coach without having someone better lined up. You do back channel through a coach's agent. Is Chris Petersen ready to move on? I make the deal. Do I go to Rick Neuheisel? Probably not.