Dealing with Adversity

The results of the 2008 football season will reflect whether this Cal team and the football program as a whole can take a step forward in its mental toughness and resiliency. Coming off a miserable season where the Bears went from undefeated and #2 in the nation to a team that barely showed up in dismal losses to Pac 10 bottom dwellers Stanford and Washington, this has become issue #1.

Can this team and this program find what was so obviously missing last year - The leadership, the competitive fire and the never back down attitude that are such necessary ingredients to winning college football games? Coach Tedford has gone out of his way to recognize these missing ingredients and changes have been made. No longer will Tedford manage the offense, instead he hired Frank Cignetti to lead the offense and call the plays. He challenged the team to find leaders and for its seniors to speak out and set the pace. He found insight and inspiration in a book titled, “Talent is never enough” and adopted its principles.

Whether any or all of this will translate to the team’s performance is to be determined. But make no mistake; this is far and away the biggest question for Cal football going into this season. Bigger than the quarterback competition, the loss of the WR corps or questions about the run defense. In trying to project how things might turn out, it’s sometimes helpful to look back in time. The subject of mental fortitude and the ability to overcome adversity are highly subjective topics and applying empirical data to this issue will by no means provide answers but it may provide some perspective.

Let’s look back at the Tedford era and remind ourselves how the Bears have performed when under adversity:

Winning on the road in the Pac 10 is never easy and to do so requires a certain amount of toughness and the ability to perform under less than ideal conditions:
· Tedford’s Bears have gone 12 and 13 for a winning percentage of 48%. That number strikes me as solid but not spectacular. Comparing it to USC and Oregon State may provide some relative perspective as those are the Pac Ten's top 2 programs outside of Cal over the past five years. USCs record is unsurprisingly much better at 20-5 and Oregon State’s is somewhat surprisingly also markedly better at 60% (All of the Oregon State information cited here goes back only to 2003 which was when Mike Riley took over as their head coach)

How about winning big games? They don’t come any bigger than rivalry games and bowl games:
· Cal has shined winning 5 of 6 Big Games while going 4-1 in bowls

Others might define big games by those that occur at the end of the season where the stakes get raised significantly:
· In games played on November 1st and later (excluding the aforementioned Bowl Games), Tedford’s Cal teams have gone 13-9 for a winning percentage of 59%. That’s not too shabby but below Tedford’s overall winning percentage of 66% and perhaps not as impressive when the Stanford games are removed (making the record 8-8). The trend is also interesting as Cal went 9-2 during this period in Tedford’s first three seasons and only 4-7 since. To make these numbers more real, let’s compare them again to the Beavers and the Trojans. Oregon State under Riley has won 63% of their post November games while USC has a remarkable 96% winning percentage since 2002 in games after October.

Adversity can perhaps best be measure by in game challenges:
· When tied or trailing after three quarters, Cal is 7-17 for a 29% winning percentage. Trend wise, the Bears were nearly .500 at 5-7 during Tedford’s first three seasons and a much more anemic 2-10 these past three years. This is a particularly uninformative number in the absence of relative data and citing only two Pac 10 teams improves things only marginally but USC has a .500 record under the same circumstances while Oregon State is at 24%. Riley's Beavers trend line is more positive than Cal's as they were 0 and 7 his first two years before rallying for a 5-9 record the past three seasons.

How about games decided by ten or fewer points?
· Cal is 19-24 or 44% in close games but 2 and 1 in games decided in overtime. Not exactly clutch but the numbers don’t say chokers either.

Getting beyond the numbers, there are several factors folks look at when trying to understand the mental makeup of the team. The first notion is that a team takes on its coaches personality. In Tedford, Cal has a no-nonsense, straight shooting and hyper intense coach whose integrity and character are unimpeachable. Under Tedford’s leadership the Bears have been a highly disciplined group that is well prepared every time they stop on the field. It’s also worth noting that this is his first head coaching experience and as the program grows and improves, facing new challenges and at time dizzying heights of success, Tedford is experiencing those same things for the first time as the top dog. All that said, Tedford is not a fiery emotional leader or an overtly rah-rah guy. While he’s clearly a highly competitive and determined person, he’s better known for not wanting to run up the score and avoiding saying anything inflammatory about other coaches or programs. This is in sharp contrast to the highly emotional types such as Mike Riley and Pete Carroll whose teams we have compared to Cal in this article. It’s also very different from the Bruce Snyder coached Bears who were as apt to get an ill timed personal foul as they were to win a big game.

What about the players? In the past, Cal’s leaders have been obvious and easy to see to even the most casual fan. From Hardy Nickerson to Mike Pawlawski to Eric Zomalt to Jerrot Willard to Tony Gonzalez to Donnie McClesky and Desmond Bishop, the Bears have had men whose stellar play on the field and emotional verve made them natural leaders. Last year and looking forward to this year, it’s less obvious who those folks were and will be. Alex Mack is clearly that type of a player and his intensity at practice is second to no one but offenses usually look to their quarterback for this type of leadership. That may in fact have factored into the coaches decision to start Kevin Riley over Nate Longshore. Riley’s demeanor on the field speaks to more intensity and competitive fire than the understated Longshore and in his two appearances, Riley definitely did well in the face of significant adversity, leading one near comeback and another successful one. It’s interesting to ponder whether the Bears success in the classroom and its relative absence of the off the field problemshas a side effect relative to finding these fanatical football players. I’m certainly not advocating anything other than the current direction the coaches have gone with their recruiting evaluations as never before have Cal fans and alums been able to be equally proud of a football program both on and off the field. That said, I wondered prior to last season where the junkyard dog, back down from no one, never give up, want them at your back in a dark alley type of players were on the team. I don't think we ever found them.

After raising a provocative question and supplying some data and some pure conjecture for contemplation, let me give you my conclusion.

I believe the Bears will bounce back and have a far more successful year this season than what was experienced in 2007, in large part because of the improved mental toughness and fortitude of the 2008 team. Here’s why I have confidence in this years team finding what was missing last season:

- The changes Tedford has made on his coaching staff and in his decision to delegate control of the offense addresses this issue head on. Bringing in Tosh Lupoi to coach the defensive line and Al Simmons to handle the defensive backs has immediately increased the intensity and competitive fire of the defense. The veteran Simmons and the very young Lupoi have an emotional style that gives the team something that Tedford personally lacks. Coach Tedford now has the time to monitor and adjust the teams emotional and mental fitness as a result of not handling the offense
- Senior leadership is obvious this year on both sides of the ball. Alex Mack came back to Cal to win a national championship and he practices and prepares as if he is planning on nothing less. As mentioned above, Riley's leadership style at QB is as important as his big arm and quick feet. On defense, Rulon Davis’ maturity and his non stop motor set a cadence for the rest of the defense to follow. Zach Follett and Worrell Williams have both been outspoken about leading this team and I believe the defense will in fact set the emotional tone for the 2008 Bears
- Expectations are lower this year and perhaps more importantly, the program has gotten used to the pressure brought on by higher expectations. From the lessons in 2006 from visiting Knoxville to last years collapse, these Cal players not only expect to win and win often, they know what it feels like when it all goes wrong. The pressure will be off and when adversity does arise, they will be prepared.
- The absence of “me first” players who saw themselves as bigger than the program. One of the primary advantages of the perennial powerhouses in college football is not simply that they can attract 5 star talent. It’s that those big time prep players know without a doubt that they are not bigger than the tradition and winning legacy of their school. Cal is building that tradition but is not there yet. In fact, in recent years, Cal has probably done more to promote individual players than the program as a whole. That has led to a small number of prima donnas whose own agenda superseded that of the teams. Those players are now gone.

If Jeff Tedford were to lose his mind and ask me for advice on this topic, the one thing I would suggest is that when he recruits student athletes that he take their heart and their desire to win football games as perhaps even more important than their latent talent. I’ll take 2 and 3 star players who will do anything to win games rather than 4 and 5 star talents who either lack the desire to truly compete in the face of adversity or are simply out for themselves. That’s not to say that talent isn’t important, but as Jeff recently read, it’s never enough.