Courtesy of John Wilner at the Mercury, click here to view details about Tedford’s latest contract.

For me, this article brings to mind the statement so often heard regarding college football head coaching salaries: the fact that universities pay a larger salary to college football head coaches than professors is proof that the university values the success of the football team over achieving oustanding academics.  

I absolutely hate hearing the above statement because I don’t think it’s true.  Just because a college football head coach is paid more than a university professor does not mean the university values a successful college football team over great academics. 

I think most people forget that the two professions are entirely different, they have their own salary bell curves, and vastly different responsibilities. 

Here is a pretty cool website which shows the average professor salaries.  As you can see, Cal and UCLA have some of the highest professor salaries for public universities. 

If you bothered to check the highest salaries of professors across the entire nation, private schools pay the most.  In fact, Stanfurd apparently pays the third highest salaries to the their professors.  Obviously, they’ve over-valued their second rate professors and the education they provide. 

But back to the argument.  

Even the highest paid professors earning over $185k a year do not earn anywhere near what some of the bottom dweller coaches earn (here is a cool USA Today article showing CFB head coach’s salaries).  That right there seems to be the proof that the going rate for a CFB head coach is much more than a professor no matter how bad the CFB head coach may be. 

For example, a university may have the best and highest paid professors in the nation, but if they want to have a football program then they’re going to have to shell out around twice as much than they spend on the professor just to secure a crappy D1A head coach. 

So just because Tedford earns millions means that Cal values Tedford more than George Smoot?  Nah.  Cal values both, but Tedford just comes with a higher price tag.

ESPN.com published its grades on our favorite conference’s basketball recruiting efforts here.  Of our Bears, it says, in its entirety:

Ben Braun and the Bears were able to land two recruits, led by 6-7 Omondi Amoke (Oxnard, Calif.).

Is he good?  Bad?  Does anyone care?  Can someone please fire Braun now?  Thanks for coming, folks!  Drive home safely.

Ted Miller, in another special to ESPN.com, gives a team-by-team breakdown of the Pac-10 after the conclusion of spring football here.  As always, I enjoy examing these things point by point.

Top returners
QB Nate Longshore: WR DeSean Jackson; C Alex Mack; OT Mike Gibson; TE Craig Stevens; LB Worrell Williams; DT Matt Malele
Key losses
RB Marshawn Lynch; DT Brandon Mebane; CB Daymeion Hughes; LB Desmond Bishop; DL Nu’u Tafisi
Top newcomer: RB Jahvid Best
2006 statistical leaders (* returners)
Rushing: Marshawn Lynch (1356 yds)
Passing: Nate Longshore* (3,021 yds)
Receiving: DeSean Jackson* (1060 yds)
Tackles: Desmond Bishop (126)
Sacks: Nu’u Tafisi (5.5)
Interceptions: Daymeion Hughes (8)

Spring answers: 1. Toss the rock: Longshore could push for all-conference honors and his stable of receivers might be the best in college football, topped by the sensational Jackson, though we shouldn’t slight Robert Jordan or Lavelle Hawkins. The Bears often threw deep this spring, and they should stress just about any secondary.

I don’t know that DeSean, Jordan, and Hawkins really make up the best receiver corps in college football, if only because it seems that Jordan and Hawkins can be inconsistent at times. 

Dropped passes are going to happen in football, since according to Madden 07, "it’s just part of the game."  So why do I always feel my heart stop when I see the ball headed towards Hawkins? 

Maybe it’s just me.  Still, having said all that, I do expect our passing game to do very well. 

2. New Lynchpins: Justin Forsett, who’s posted 1,674 yards rushing with six 100-yard games, will move out of the sidekick role behind Lynch and will be the lead tailback. Redshirt freshman James Montgomery, who was outstanding this spring, will be the No. 2.

Here’s a visual breakdown of Forsett’s game by game numbers in 2006.

That kind of inconsistency isn’t really what you want to see from your new feature back, although the picture improves considerably when we look at games in which Forsett led the team in rushing attempts.

So here’s hoping that Forsett acts much more like he did when he took on the role of the man, than he did when he was relegated to second-string duty behind the Solid Investment.

3. Plenty of backers: Though Williams is the only full-time starter returning at linebacker, the unit is hardly green. Justin Moye, Zach Follett and Anthony Felder are talented and experienced — injuries have held them back — while Eddie Young played well this spring.

No fancy graphics here, because it’s a bit more difficult to quantify whether a defensive player is doing well.  But it’s no secret that we need our linebackers to play well, given our losses on both the defensive line and in the secondary.

4. Betting line: The O-line needed to replace two starters but it appears to be a fairly salty group with solid depth. Tackle Mike Tepper and guard Bryan De La Puente, the likely left-side tandem, are veterans, while Chet Teofilo, Kevin Bemoll were impressive at times and will provide good depth.

I have to believe we’ll be fine on the offensive line, if only because we’ve always been fine there as long as Tedford’s been around. 

5) New DL blood: The defensive line will be green after losing three starters but the early returns are encouraging. Malele is a 335-pound load, and ends Tyson Alualu and Cody Jones showed flashes last year. Redshirt freshman tackles Derrick Hill and Michael Costanzo will need grow up quick because they are being counted on to provide depth.

Just like the offensive line, I don’t see us having any problem here if only because we’ve done well here ever since Tedford arrived.  The only shock here is that we have only two Samoans on our defensive line this year.

Fall questions: 1. Replacing Daymeion: Hughes was a true shut-down corner, and it’s not clear whom his replacement will be after spring practices, though sophomore Robert Peele topped redshirt freshman Darian Hagan, Charles Amadi and Brandon Jones on the depth chart.

Hagan was a fairly highly touted recruit when he came to Berkeley, so it may be a bit surprising to not see him projected as a starter at this point.  I can only take the lack of mention here of Syd’Quan Thompson as a sign that he’s already firmly established as a starter after replacing Mixon last year, so here’s hoping that he improves and that whomever wins this free-for-all for Daymeion’s spot performs well in our last season opener. 

2. Calling Tedford: Coach Jeff Tedford will be calling plays again this fall after the one-year experiment with coordinator Mike Dunbar, who bolted for Minnesota. It will be interesting to see if he picks up where he left off, particularly his fondness for trick plays.

There wasn’t really a noticeable lack of trick plays last year (maybe because I couldn’t watch the games live, myself), but I’m for anything that spices up the game and makes it more exciting.  Whether this means the offense will use less of the spread isn’t clear, but it didn’t seem to me like Longshore was necessarily the best fit of that kind of offense anyway, because of his lack of running skills.

3. Who’s the backup QB?: Injuries halted the competition between redshirt freshman Kevin Riley and sophomore Kyle Reed. Considering that Longshore missed all of 2005 with a leg injury, this is not an insignificant issue.

This isn’t something that I’m terribly worried about, if only because thinking about the worst-case scenario only makes my head hurt.  I’d have a hard time believing that either Riley or Reed would do well enough to fulfill our Bears’ potential this year.  But there’s also no doubt that neither of them could be nearly as bad as Ayoob.  Booya!

4. Getting defensive: The Bears lost three first-team All-Pac-10 performers on defense as well as three other starters. Considering that talented unit was surprisingly inconsistent last year, fingers are probably crossed in Berkeley that the touted but unproven youth movement will do any better.

Our defense really didn’t live up to all of its press last year, when I remember reading in multiple magazines that our Bears sported top-5 crews in all three levels (line, linebackers, secondary) of the defense.  In terms of points allowed per game, the defense did manage to do fairly well, considering they were often playing with a lead and could afford to be aggresive.  But in close games where the defense absolutely needed to force a stop (Arizona, USC), it just didn’t happen.  I don’t know whether our defense will do significantly better, but I’d have a hard believing it will be significantly worse, if our offense plays up to its potential.

5) Any Volunteers?: Tennessee humiliated Cal — and, by extension, the Pac-10 — last year in Knoxville. If the Golden Bears are going to be a serious national presence and legitimate foil to USC, they need to man up and take revenge.

Enough said.

Oh, and ESPN.com also has a Three Things I Can’t Wait to See in the Pac-10 article, but there is nary a mention of our Bears.  Bully for them.