Here is what I would like to see as an Alum and Bear Backer for Sonny's first year:

1) Avoid a mass exodus of players with coaching regime change

2) Hold the 2013 recruiting class together and build upon it

3) Put a unified, cohesive staff in place

4) Install new offense

5) Install new defense

6) Put a new off-the-field discipline program in place to improve APR and change the culture of the team academically

7) Change the on-the-field culture as it relates to getting blown out - ie no losses of more than 17 points

8) Have a winning season

9) Avoid post-season probation due to past APR issues

10) Go to and WIN a Bowl Game for the first time in 5 years

11) Have a winning P12 conference record

12) Recruit a few more "star" players in the 2014 class

13) Win the Big Game and bring The Axe back to Berkeley

Now, Sonny and his staff have already accomplished the first three and seem well on their way to getting #4-6 done. The rest we'll have to wait and see on.

And, while I'd LOVE to see all 13 happen this year - I'd be very, very happy if the staff and team just did the top ten only. That would actually be amazing. The rest would be gravy in 2013.

Any other "realistic" goals I may be missing for Sonny's first year?

txwharfrat;842111605 said:

---

10) Go to and WIN a Bowl Game for the first time in 5 years

---

Dang, it's crazy to think that the last bowl win came 5 years ago...time goes by pretty fast!

I know it isn't fair to task Sonny with the responsibility of ending the 9 year streak in his first year. But if we lose to SC this year it would make a consecutive decade of losses to the same team.

So I would add another goal:

14) Lead Cal to a win over USC for the first time in 10 years.

I really liked your #13 -- but I think it needs to be #1. Beating Stanfurd needs to be one of the primary goals for any Cal coach in any given year.

txwharfrat;842111605 said:

---

7) Change the on-the-field culture as it relates to getting blown out - ie no losses of more than 17 points

---

Absolutely no more blow out losses.

The Duke!;842111621 said:

---

I know it isn't fair to task Sonny with the responsibility of ending the 9 year streak in his first year. But if we lose to SC this year it would make a consecutive decade of losses to the same team.

So I would add another goal:

14) Lead Cal to a win over USC for the first time in 10 years.

I really liked your #13 -- but I think it needs to be #1. Beating Stanfurd needs to be one of the primary goals for any Cal coach in any given year.

---

should always be an objective, just from a self-preservation standpoint. All of Harbaugh's weirdness was "swept under the table" when he started beating Cal early in his coaching tenure.

I never ever ever ever ever ever ever want to see a 3rd down draw play to set up a punt ever again.

With Tedford, a sack on 2nd down meant a punt.

Nice list. Pretty solid.

Coach Dykes, just earn your second year..

CalBearinLA;842111616 said:

---

Dang, it's crazy to think that the last bowl win came 5 years ago...time goes by pretty fast!

---

We haven't won a bowl game since Obama became president.

In fact, since Obama became president, no team from outside Alabama has won the college football national championship.

Davidson;842111629 said:

---

I never ever ever ever ever ever ever want to see a 3rd down draw play to set up a punt ever again.

With Tedford, a sack on 2nd down meant a punt.

---

Yikes, I forgot it was that bad, but...it was that bad.

Nice list above and we could all come up with our own. I got a little lost at 8, 11 and 13. I mean, those are goals every year, but I hope they are just goals and not expectations. I thought, based on some early assessment of Stanford's position depth at DT, TE and WR, that Cal could shock them. But spring reports show guys stepping up at TE and DT. By fall, I think Stanford will be ready to defend their title. I could see us possibly use homefield and $C's change at QB as a way to beat the Trojans. With upsets over both OSUs and a win over Northwestern, that would put us at 8 wins and 5 conference wins, assuming we win the games we should. But I'm not expecting it because I have learned the hard way not to get my hopes up for Cal football. Note: We could lose to the Buckeye's, who are expected to seriously challenge the SEC for a national title next year, and still accomplish goals 8 and 11.

Note: Winning football is about winning the LOS. We will lose the LOS on both sides of the ball against Stanford thanks to the continued fall-out from the Marshal years. The disparity in OLs alone is ridiculous.

I agree with you that weakness and lack of depth of the OL (unless there is a miracle) will hold back the team this year and makes me see a 3-9 season---only beating WSU, Colorado and Portland. Could be even worse. If the new offense can surprise in a couple of other games, I would be overjoyed.

Some of our fans here should look at Stanford's stellar recruiting of 4 or so OL players in the top 20 preps in the country. And they already were strong and deep in these positions! Their depth there is remarkable.

We should not expect Dykes and staff to pull a rabbit out of the hat this year, but we should, hopefully, see gradual improvement each season.

heartofthebear;842111659 said:

---

Winning football is about winning the LOS. We will lose the LOS on both sides of the ball against Stanford thanks to the continued fall-out from the Marshal years. The disparity in OLs alone is ridiculous.

---

Yep. You hit the nail on the head. The disparity on the OL between us and Furd is grotesque at the moment. A complete and glaring difference between Tedford and Hairball...

Davidson;842111629 said:

---

I never ever ever ever ever ever ever want to see a 3rd down draw play to set up a punt ever again.

With Tedford, a sack on 2nd down meant a punt.

---

Saw one during the spring scrimmage

longseeker;842111696 said:

---

I agree with you that weakness and lack of depth of the OL (unless there is a miracle) will hold back the team this year and makes me see a 3-9 season---only beating WSU, Colorado and Portland. Could be even worse. If the new offense can surprise in a couple of other games, I would be overjoyed.

Some of our fans here should look at Stanford's stellar recruiting of 4 or so OL players in the top 20 preps in the country. And they already were strong and deep in these positions! Their depth there is remarkable.

We should not expect Dykes and staff to pull a rabbit out of the hat this year, but we should, hopefully, see gradual improvement each season.

---

Finally, a projection I can get on board with. I agree with you, I think it's going to be tough sledding for a while. I like the optimism on this board right now, but hope those same optimists don't become bitter and give up on Dykes when their hopes don't come to fruition this season.

Calcoholic;842111718 said:

---

Finally, a projection I can get on board with. I agree with you, I think it's going to be tough sledding for a while. I like the optimism on this board right now, but hope those same optimists don't become bitter and give up on Dykes when their hopes don't come to fruition this season.

---

I won't "give up" on Coach Dykes if the Bears don't give up..

longseeker;842111696 said:

---

I agree with you that weakness and lack of depth of the OL (unless there is a miracle) will hold back the team this year and makes me see a 3-9 season---only beating WSU, Colorado and Portland. Could be even worse. If the new offense can surprise in a couple of other games, I would be overjoyed.

Some of our fans here should look at Stanford's stellar recruiting of 4 or so OL players in the top 20 preps in the country. And they already were strong and deep in these positions! Their depth there is remarkable.

We should not expect Dykes and staff to pull a rabbit out of the hat this year, but we should, hopefully, see gradual improvement each season.

---

3-9 would be totally unacceptable.
If Tedford were retained through 2013 season for his final chance, what would he have to do to not get fired for 2014?
Would 3-9 be good enough?
If not, why is it okay for someone else plus buyout money?

FWIW here goes my ranking of game difficulty next year (hopefully this doesn't end up on Colorado's bulletin board)

1. @ Oregon (10% chance)
2 @ Stanford-this would be #1, except we always play way better at furd than at Autzen.(18%)
3. @ UCLA (30%)
4. Ohio St. (31%)
5. USC (40%)
6. @ Washingon (40%)
7. Oregon St.(45%)
8. Northwestern (54%)
9. Arizona (55%)
10. @ Colorado (65%)
11. WSU (77%)
12. Portland St.-no disrespect here. (97%)

What do you guys think? Does anybody know how strong Northwestern is on OL and DL going into next year? That will say a great deal about our chances.

Edit: I reviewed Northwestern's roster and was not impressed.

txwharfrat;842111700 said:

---

Yep. You hit the nail on the head. The disparity on the OL between us and Furd is grotesque at the moment. A complete and glaring difference between Tedford and Hairball...

---

How can you compare OLs at this point? We will be starting either 3 or 4 different kids than last year - all much improved physically and across the board, the same size as 'furd. They (as is the rest of the offense) are still a work in progress - the spring scrimmage (it was not a game) was not an accurate indicator of much of anything - other than we have a lot of really good athletes learning a new system. The real unknown point of the offense today is whether Bigelow and Lasco will be completely healthy by August.

CalBearinLA;842111616 said:

---

Dang, it's crazy to think that the last bowl win came 5 years ago...time goes by pretty fast!

---

Many consider the record setting win over Presby to be the equivalent.

:tedford to go down in history!

Masau80;842111741 said:

---

How can you compare OLs at this point? We will be starting either 3 or 4 different kids than last year - all much improved physically and across the board, the same size as 'furd. They (as is the rest of the offense) are still a work in progress - the spring scrimmage (it was not a game) was not an accurate indicator of much of anything - other than we have a lot of really good athletes learning a new system. The real unknown point of the offense today is whether Bigelow and Lasco will be completely healthy by August.

---

We're comparing at this point because it is the offseason and there is nothing else to do.:p

Having said that, come on man, Stanford could have the best 2 deep at OL in the country. They are actually 3 deep at quality OLs. Cal could be much improved and still not be able to match their front 7 on D.

Here is a list of the Stanford OLs...
[U]Starters[/U]
Peat-elite prospect killing it in camp
Flemming- 3rd year starting
Yankey-returning starter
Danser-returning starter
Wilkes-returning starter but not at Center

[U]Back-Ups[/U]
Murphy-elite prospect also doing well
Austin-reliable multi-year back-up
Garnett-another elite guy who had a start last year
Bonnell-experienced senior guard
Shuler-another experienced back-up

[U]3rd String[/U]
Davidson-above average recruit
Reihner-serviceable all round OL guy
Caspers-gets good reviews from the coaches
Underwood-experienced senior back-up
McFadden-another senior


It's not a slam on Cal but more of a solid look at Stanford, which is really living well right now in the wake of Cal's past recruiting difficulties on the OL.
The good news is that 5 guys in the Stanford 2 deep will leave after this year. With little to replace them with, the 2 deep won't be as good. But the starters should still be pretty salty.

Masau80;842111741 said:

---

How can you compare OLs at this point? We will be starting either 3 or 4 different kids than last year - all much improved physically and across the board, the same size as 'furd. They (as is the rest of the offense) are still a work in progress - the spring scrimmage (it was not a game) was not an accurate indicator of much of anything - other than we have a lot of really good athletes learning a new system. The real unknown point of the offense today is whether Bigelow and Lasco will be completely healthy by August.

---

+1 ... I have no doubt they are all working their butts off, practicing and in S&C.
Fall practice to solidify ... then the adventure begins.

heartofthebear;842111739 said:

---

FWIW here goes my ranking of game difficulty next year (hopefully this doesn't end up on Colorado's bulletin board)

1. @ Oregon (10% chance)
2 @ Stanford-this would be #1, except we always play way better at furd than at Autzen.(18%)
3. @ UCLA (30%)
4. Ohio St. (31%)
5. USC (40%)
6. @ Washingon (40%)
7. Oregon St.(45%)
8. Northwestern (48%)
9. Arizona (55%)
10. @ Colorado (65%)
11. WSU (77%)
12. Portland St.-no disrespect here. (97%)

What do you guys think? Does anybody know how strong Northwestern is on OL and DL going into next year. That will say a great deal about our chances.

---

The low probability of being able to beat Furd is why I had that listed as only my #13 goal for the year. I fully don't expect us to be able to compete with them in 2013...

heartofthebear;842111739 said:

---

FWIW here goes my ranking of game difficulty next year (hopefully this doesn't end up on Colorado's bulletin board)

1. @ Oregon (10% chance)
2 @ Stanford-this would be #1, except we always play way better at furd than at Autzen.(18%)
3. @ UCLA (30%)
4. Ohio St. (31%)
5. USC (40%)
6. @ Washingon (40%)
7. Oregon St.(45%)
8. Northwestern (48%)
9. Arizona (55%)
10. @ Colorado (65%)
11. WSU (77%)
12. Portland St.-no disrespect here. (97%)

What do you guys think? Does anybody know how strong Northwestern is on OL and DL going into next year. That will say a great deal about our chances.

---

I don't think we'll know much, if anything, about 2013 until after the NW game. Scrimmages, Spring Game and the like are like spring training in baseball. They're not competing at their most intense.

Our two sides know each other and rarely hit as hard as they will hit an opponent and be hit by an opponent. On the other hand, each side knows the other side's scheme better than they will know an opponent's schemes. Just too many ifs.

After the NW game, we'll have a much better idea of how much talent we actually have and how the players have put the new schemes into play. We know SD's O scheme works (you don't put that many points on last year's A&M team by luck) and it looks like Buh's D scheme will be relatively easy to learn and execute.

Anything else at this point just reflects our predilections toward optimism or pessimism.

Calcoholic;842111718 said:

---

Finally, a projection I can get on board with. I agree with you, I think it's going to be tough sledding for a while. I like the optimism on this board right now, but hope those same optimists don't become bitter and give up on Dykes when their hopes don't come to fruition this season.

---

So just to be safe, we should give up on Dykes and the season before it starts? :p

I think most optimists are figuring a minor bowl win would be a good year for 2013. That would be 6-6 regular season with a 7th win in a minor bowl. Optimists may be disappointed, but probably not sink into bitterness if we miss a bowl as optimists, by nature, are not going to give up on Dykes and the Bears after one season.

If the optimists are wrong (and I consider myself an optimist), it will more likely be along the lines of giving Dykes too many seasons to turn it around.

Most of the bitterness we'll see if we end up 3-9 will come mostly from the negaBears who "saw it coming a mile away".

Heck, the truly devout negaBears will find a way to critcize a 9-3 regular season if we end up losing the Alamo or Holiday Bowl to finish 9-4, insisting that 9 wins was all a mirage and that the real Bears finally showed up to lose their bowl game - spending all off-season focusing on the 5-6 plays that lost us our final game, how they would have called a different play or defensive scheme, and lamenting the guys that got away on LOI day 2014 despite a top-20 recruiting class.

Rushinbear;842111992 said:

---

Anything else at this point just reflects our predilections toward optimism or pessimism.

---

Well put - I will have to steal that quote for future use even in non-football related instances!

It's part of what makes the off-season so maddingly long - just waiting to see what we really have instead of speculating.

heartofthebear;842111770 said:

---

We're comparing at this point because it is the offseason and there is nothing else to do.:p

Having said that, come on man, Stanford could have the best 2 deep at OL in the country. They are actually 3 deep at quality OLs. Cal could be much improved and still not be able to match their front 7 on D.

Here is a list of the Stanford OLs...
[U]Starters[/U]
Peat-elite prospect killing it in camp
Flemming- 3rd year starting
Yankey-returning starter
Danser-returning starter
Wilkes-returning starter but not at Center

[U]Back-Ups[/U]
Murphy-elite prospect also doing well
Austin-reliable multi-year back-up
Garnett-another elite guy who had a start last year
Bonnell-experienced senior guard
Shuler-another experienced back-up

[U]3rd String[/U]
Davidson-above average recruit
Reihner-serviceable all round OL guy
Caspers-gets good reviews from the coaches
Underwood-experienced senior back-up
McFadden-another senior


It's not a slam on Cal but more of a solid look at Stanford, which is really living well right now in the wake of Cal's past recruiting difficulties on the OL.
The good news is that 5 guys in the Stanford 2 deep will leave after this year. With little to replace them with, the 2 deep won't be as good. But the starters should still be pretty salty.

---

They have a great returning starting line (4 out of 5, plus one back-up with a start) - always a plus. Everyone else is simply potential or a career back-up though. We haven't seen what our starters will do as a group after a full camp - they could be better, the same, or not as good, but certainly not a "grotesque" difference. The depth issue is a valid concern. I think the new staff realized that quickly -and the new class of recruits will add the needed bodies. If the season started tomorrow, we would be starting all underclassmen and will only have 3 seniors on the roster out of 15 OL. Youth with experience is a great thing to have going forward.

#1 Win the games we should win.
#2 Win at least one upset--$C, tOSU, or Furd
#3 Athletes do better as students
#4 Win or lose, fans leave CMS wanting to come back for the next game
#5 Scare a few teams that are confident they will beat Cal.
#6 Many fewer penalties, busted plays, and hang your head moments.

LethalFang;842111727 said:

---

3-9 would be totally unacceptable.
If Tedford were retained through 2013 season for his final chance, what would he have to do to not get fired for 2014?
Would 3-9 be good enough?
If not, why is it okay for someone else plus buyout money?

---

Not saying it's OK, but I think it's more likely than making a bowl game this season.

1. New offense to install
2. New defense to install & switching back to 4-3
3. Fewest returning starters in Pac-12 (only 11, not counting specialists)
4. Pac-12 North is really strong
5. 9th toughest schedule in the country.
6. New starters at the most important offensive positions: QB, WR, RB

Based on that, I have a hard time seeing where the wins are going to come from this year.

which includes bowl win ...

NO blow loses

CMS becomes bear territory again

no one scores 40 + on on us unless we put up 50

First week of Fall practice will be very telling ..

txwharfrat;842111605 said:

---

7) Change the on-the-field culture as it relates to getting blown out - ie no losses of more than 17 points

---

Losing by 17 isn't that bad, depending on how we lost. Couple bad breaks, and maybe the final score is like 49-72. That doesn't feel nearly as bad as those 24-3 drubbings we tend to see against USC...

Calcoholic;842112086 said:

---

Not saying it's OK, but I think it's more likely than making a bowl game this season.

1. New offense to install
2. New defense to install & switching back to 4-3
3. Fewest returning starters in Pac-12 (only 11, not counting specialists)
4. Pac-12 North is really strong
5. 9th toughest schedule in the country.
6. New starters at the most important offensive positions: QB, WR, RB

Based on that, I have a hard time seeing where the wins are going to come from this year.

---

That may be true, but there is a whole bunch of highly-talented kids as a core, and if your #s 1,2, and 6 are successful then I think we play with everyone. At that point winning and losing will be determined on the field every Saturday and not on a stat sheet and roster over the summer.

oskiwanabe;842112066 said:

---

#1 Win the games we should win.
#2 Win at least one upset--$C, tOSU, or Furd
#3 Athletes do better as students
#4 Win or lose, fans leave CMS wanting to come back for the next game
#5 Scare a few teams that are confident they will beat Cal.
#6 Many fewer penalties, busted plays, and hang your head moments.

---

:bravo

I think #4 in particular says it all. Everything else is just attempting to say this, IMHO.

One hallmark of change would be to see players rising up at critical times to make big time plays. I think of the Washington games in particular where we lost 3 games in 3 years that we could have won. I remember how Lynch almost single-handedly willed Cal to victory in 2006. I want to see more of that type of personality at Cal under Dykes. That would be as satisfying as anything.

By the way, I am thinking about revising the % against Northwestern. After evaluating Northwestern's roster and last year's schedule they are really a mixed bag. I would not project them as a top 25 team. Their roster is made up of almost entirely 3 and 2 star players. I think they have 1 or 2 4 star guys. They also have several holes to fill on defense and on the OL.

In evaluating how they got to 10 wins last year it is unclear how good they are. They were most impressive in close losses to Nebraska (1 point), Michigan (OT) and Penn St. and they were able to beat Michigan St. by 3. All but the Nebraska game were road games. So they travel well, going 3-2 and winning a 4th game against Mississippi st. in the post season. But the schedule, while respectable, was not especially difficult. They did not have to play Ohio St. or Wisconsin and Vanderbilt was their toughest opponent on their 4 game OOC schedule, of which they went (4-0). Outside of that, and the bowl game, they were only 5-3, which included home wins against Indiana and Illinois and a road win against Minnesota.

While Minnesota, Vanderbilt and Mississippi St. were all bowl teams last year, I suspect that the 3-9 Cal team could have gone 3-0 against them, especially when you consider that the TO margin Northwestern had.

Northwestern led the conference averaging plus 1 TO per game. Since many of their games were close (9 within 14 points), that could have accounted for the difference, as a TO can mean a 14 point point swing.

The stats I reviewed,link here, reflect strong ST play, particularly in the punting game and strong red zone play. They were good at rushing and stopping the rush, but otherwise not so impressive.

In summary, Northwestern was a well coached opportunistic team that has limited talent but plays hard is well motivated and doesn't make mistakes. They win games by winning the battle for field position. I would compare them to Utah. I think they are very beatable as Cal matches up well, being good at stopping the run and good at a ball control passing game that will strike quickly when necessary. Under Buh, Cal seemed to be focusing on forcing TOs, which will be important also. Also, while Northwestern travels well, they have never travelled this far. What amounts to a second grand opening of CMS will certainly give Cal a needed advantage.

The only concern is that our young and inexperienced players on offense might be prone to TOs themselves. This would probably cost us the game if we have more than a couple. But this is Cal's game to lose as I don't expect Northwestern to get more than 7 wins next season.

I agree with your hope. However, I already think the expectations are pretty high, because Cal has soooo much talent, and there are those believing they can easily be 10-2...
And no, I am not saying anyone should settle, and I do agree that there was more than 3-9 talent last year....but, there are some huge question marks. Its a new coach, it doesn't happen by snapping your fingers, and waking up instantly to a great team...

pingpong2;842112152 said:

---

Losing by 17 isn't that bad, depending on how we lost. Couple bad breaks, and maybe the final score is like 49-72. That doesn't feel nearly as bad as those 24-3 drubbings we tend to see against USC...

---

Nice!
ykes

Calcoholic;842112086 said:

---

Not saying it's OK, but I think it's more likely than making a bowl game this season.

1. New offense to install
2. New defense to install & switching back to 4-3
3. Fewest returning starters in Pac-12 (only 11, not counting specialists)
4. Pac-12 North is really strong
5. 9th toughest schedule in the country.
6. New starters at the most important offensive positions: QB, WR, RB

Based on that, I have a hard time seeing where the wins are going to come from this year.

---

Because of those very astute reasons you give above, I for one won't judge Sonny and his new Staff until 2014 and am willing to give him a "pass" for next year (2013). Personally speaking, I'm trying to look at the bigger picture and will wait to see what happens in the long run.