calumnus;842072517 said:
I may have overstated the sanctions issue, but you misread me overall. I think Cal is a great place to recruit to--when you have a entire recruiting cycle.
All I am saying is that THIS class is not the class to judge this staff's recruiting abilities, at least not based on comparative star rankings.
As far as academics (and have no doubt, the emphasis on correcting the academics situation did not originate with Dykes--he has just embraced the challenge, so comparing the situation Dykes had at other places is not instructive), Dykes can expand his recruiting and take more risks once he is confident the academic house is in order (including the possibility of kids leaving during the transition who are NOT in good academic standing and will further negatively effect or APR), but don't you think he needs a year for that? To get a feel for the scholastic aptitude of the kids we have?
Given the situation he came into, all things considered, Dykes is doing a solid job. The situation will hopefully be VERY different a year from now (including exciting, winning football). I don't believe academics will be as big an issue going forward as it is this year.
Calumnus quite honestly this is not just a response to you, but to many on the academic issue. I've seen many references to us being on the precipice of sanctions, which is not borne out by the facts. I've seen statements that Tedford was fired for academic failings, not football ones, which is ridiculous. I've seen a lot of sanctimony about who can be recruited, and about STUDENT athletes. I've seen a lot of statements that Dykes can't take everybody he wants or that we are limited on 4 and 5 stars by their academic performance. I just can't believe anymore that people can be constantly snowed by the Cal administration on this point.
What Dykes did at LaTech is not instructive as to how well he can do on academics at Cal once he is challenged to do well I agree with you entirely on that point. However, it absolutely IS instructive regarding Cal's motivations and priorities. If this was a high priority, they would have selected a coach that has a track record of teams with academic excellence. Preferably a track record of excelling on the football field and in the classroom. What they did was pick a coach that they liked from a purely football perspective, and then said academics was important.
I'm sorry, it's been too many years of lip service on this issue while we fail over and over. I call bullshyte on the administration. Maybe I'm scarred by admittedly a prior administration telling us over and over how wonderful Holmoe was doing on academics when they had the data and knew they were lying. But I look at Dykes prior track record and if the academics was the driving point that hire doesn't make sense.
My strong preference would be that we win with academic excellence. Frankly, though, I could accept the practicality of saying football (and basketball) are just different. There are a different set of rules. But pick one and be honest. I'm tired of trotting out the academic card when it suits a purpose and constant lack of follow through.
The bottom line is, the Cal athletic department is not the same as the university. The academic record in revenue sports is not good, and I don't see any ACTIONS by the administration other than telling coaches they should succeed in the classroom and then throwing up their hands when they don't. We have to stop acting like the fact that the general student population excels academically gives our athletic department claim to academic superiority.
We may very well excel academically, but if we do, it will be because Dykes does it, not because the athletic department has fundamentally changed anything. Had they done that, the substantial gains that Tedford made in the classroom wouldn't have been so easily given back once we started struggling on the field.
