Cal_Fan2;842129865 said:

---

I'm just saying JT must have been looking for something other than passing stats...the thing is, ZM really is bad at scrambling though he does fine on designed plays.

---

Though Maynard didn't pick up a lot of yards with his legs and did take a ton of sacks (whether his fault or not), I felt that oddly he was actually more accurate rolling out to his left compared to passing out of the pocket. Anything to the right was no bueno, though, feet set or not. I can only speculate, but maybe on the run AB is reallllllly bad, and JT figured that AB wouldn't have time for 5 or even 3 step drops with our sieve of an o-line.

Any proof that Bama is cheating in the classroom now?

socaliganbear;842129816 said:

---

Read MB's comment on this. I'm sure you can imagine that players dont just get dropped after one randomly bad semester. It's cumulative. Not just grades, but other academic requirements.

---

Thanks, I will take a look at MB's post.

For those that understand the new defense better than I (probably most), could we wind up with Scarlett starting on one side and Barr on the other, or do they effectively play the same position?

LOUMFSG2;842129883 said:

---

For those that understand the new defense better than I (probably most), could we wind up with Scarlett starting on one side and Barr on the other, or do they effectively play the same position?

---

that would be pretty sick. talk about having some size and speed off of the end

I would love to see Scarlett and Barr on the field at the same time, though the two are listed on the post-spring depth chart at the same DE position. I really like both of these guys. Both looked really good at times last season and should have put on good weight before this season rolls around.

I also like Kragen, who is listed as second string ("Or") at rush end. Kragen is behind starter McCain, the subject of this thread, and alongside Camporeale. If McCain is not playing come fall (and that looks like a good possibility), I would like to see Kragen get a lot of the snaps. He is high motor kid.

Beardog26;842129886 said:

---

I would love to see Scarlett and Barr on the field at the same time, though the two are listed on the post-spring depth chart at the same DE position. I really like both of these guys. Both looked really good at times last season and should have put on good weight before this season rolls around.

I also like Kragen, who is listed as second string ("Or") at rush end. Kragen is behind starter McCain, the subject of this thread, and alongside Camporeale. If McCain is not playing come fall (and that looks like a good possibility), I would like to see Kragen get a lot of the snaps. He is high motor kid.

---

+1
More depth is coming, also.

MiZery;842129881 said:

---

Any proof that Bama is cheating in the classroom now?

---

No. SEC schools don't cheat at anything. They're clean. No probations there, right?????? Must be clean if the NCAA hasn't hammered them.

and having coached and also taught at a high school in a competitive league that is mined for college recruits, I would say that most football recruits are not academically "ready" for four year colleges, just like many of the other freshmen we are letting into 4 year colleges these days aren't "ready". The CSUs, for example, often have over 50% of their freshmen taking either remedial math or English their freshmen year. Football is probably at the bottom of the list in terms of GPAs and SATs when compared to the other sports, along with basketball. That is the nature of the game - even though there are exceptions..our 4.0 football recruits are rare, but those kids can pick their colleges (and often pick Stanford on the West Coast.)

I think that more important are work habits and academic growth as the recruit matriculates through high school - by the senior year, we see "improvement," good work habits, and perhaps even more importantly, good character. That's why I am always wary of offering scholarships to juniors..The senior year often serves as the "maturing" year for those football players serious about college. I have seen our recruits work very hard and establish those habits to get into college - and just like at Cal, it takes a "team" of high school teachers, counselors, and coaches, to provide that important guidance. It doesn't always work.

I am going to trust Sonny & staff to contact high school coaches and teachers (I have been contacted by Cal recruiters several times) to help him evaluate the very difficult problem posed by the academics at Cal. I have seen Cal "drop" recruits during the Tedford era, only to see them re-cycle through JC and end up at with academic problems elsewhere. Even with the general high school population (I have been teaching 39 years), there is absolutely nothing magical that happens to those students with poor work habits when they enter college. JC drop out rates, for example, run in the 50% range in California.

GoldenBearofCalifornia;842129792 said:

---

Thanks for the information. I do not have access to the insider board, so it is news to me. My point is that it is strange to say he is not "able" to handle the academics, given that he did well enough to remain eligible over a prolonged period of time. I cannot comment on whether he was just hanging on and just barely getting by, as I do not know his grades and have not seen any prior evidence indicating that is the case. The fact that he managed to consistently remain eligible for every prior semester over the course of a couple of years leads me to believe he is "able" to handle the academics at Cal. That is a long time to hang on and just barely get by at something. At any rate, I hope he gets things straightened out soon for his sake.

---

Again, Dykes has a higher academic standard than Tedford. Under Tedford, McC could very well still be qualified. Keep in mind he wasnt ruled ineligible by the NCAA. This was a decision by Dykes.

I'm just speculating here but my guess is what we're seeing is a new approach to the APR.

Keep in mind that the APR only tracks scholarship players, and that those players are only given points for remaining in school and remaining eligible during the cycle year.

Since scholarships are annual, if you take a kid off scholarship while he's still in school and eligible because you think he has a high probability of becoming ineligible during the next scholarship cycle, then presto you've got no APR problem from him. On the other hand you can leave him on scholarship and take your chances. The APR system provides clear incentives to drop kids before they actually become ineligible, effectively raising the minimum eligibility requirement for those who take this "smarter" approach to APR.

It's my personal belief that this type of APR management, coupled with easier classes overall and in particular for athletes, is how the football (and basketball) factories pump out high APRs year after year.

God dammit :headbang

On the other hand, it looks like Dykes is serious about academics, which is a good thing long term for Cal, imo.

:gobears:

OldBlue1999;842129931 said:

---

It's my personal belief that this type of APR management, coupled with easier classes overall and in particular for athletes, is how the football (and basketball) factories pump out high APRs year after year.

---

Either that or their coaches are doing a better job getting their athletes to perform at top levels.

What is more believable:

A) Your conspiracy theory about schools such as Alabama and Notre Dame revoking scholarships willy nilly to manipulate APR scores,

OR

B) The concept that coaches like Brian Kelly, David Shaw, and Nick Saban are simply much better at motivating and equipping their players than Jeff Tedford was?

There is a lot of evidence for B. There is no evidence of A.

The Duke!;842129942 said:

---

Either that or their coaches are doing a better job getting their athletes to perform at top levels.

What is more believable:

A) Your conspiracy theory about schools such as Alabama and Notre Dame revoking scholarships willy nilly to manipulate APR scores,

OR

B) The concept that coaches like Brian Kelly, David Shaw, and Nick Saban are simply much better at motivating and equipping their players than Jeff Tedford was?

There is a lot of evidence for B. There is no evidence of A.

---

The evidence for A???
Doesn't EVERYONE in the country view the SEC as corrupt and full of cheaters? How many comments have you seen from AD's, presidents of universities, coaches etc... where they have made comments that refer to the sneakiness of the SEC? Gordon Gee for OSU was the latest to make "joking" comments about SEC schools.

There is 20, 30. 40 years of "evidence" that the SEC is slimy, yet they seem to be out of reach of the NCAA in most cases.

Thanks for the laugh this morning Duke! You're hilarious, keep it up.

89Bear;842129959 said:

---

The evidence for A???
Doesn't EVERYONE in the country view the SEC as corrupt and full of cheaters? How many comments have you seen from AD's, presidents of universities, coaches etc... where they have made comments that refer to the sneakiness of the SEC? Gordon Gee for OSU was the latest to make "joking" comments about SEC schools.

There is 20, 30. 40 years of "evidence" that the SEC is slimy, yet they seem to be out of reach of the NCAA in most cases.

---

DtP was just knee-jerking because of the reference to Notre Dame, the besmirching of the reputation of that noble institution which represents all that is pure and holy in college football and academics.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones . . .

Tedford took over because our previous coach (Homoe) was bad at football and couldn't get his athletes to do the right thing in the classroom. Our football program was sanctioned by the NCAA for professors illegally admitting students into classes they never took and giving them good grades.

Fast forward a few years, and now Sonny Dykes is taking over because the previous coach (Tedford) was bad at football and couldn't get his athletes to do the right thing in the classroom. And we are pretty darn close to being sanctioned by the NCAA for our team's terrible academic performance.

Sound familiar? Hopefully Dykes can break the mold.

We are in no position to disparage other schools' football related academics right now. We are among the absolute worst in the country.

One school I closely follow has a verbal commitment from a senior to be who has not yet passed the California High School Exit Exam. In its present form, that is middle eighth grade level work. Talk about prostitution.

:headbang

I can't say that any specific institution cheats to raise their APR scores, except any who have been caught in academic scandals already, but like with anything in life, the smartest (dirtiest?) always find a way to game the system. I can't imagine that it's not being done. Not that it's any consolation to our embarrassing predicament. Regardless of what other institutions are doing, Cal should simply never be where it is right now.

OldBlue1999;842129963 said:

---

Thanks for the laugh this morning Duke! You're hilarious, keep it up.

---

Definitely. The most amusing part of the schtick is when "we" is used. Also, I enjoy how the milquetoast comeback barbs are always right on cue.

Bobodeluxe;842129972 said:

---

One school I closely follow has a verbal commitment from a senior to be who has not yet passed the California High School Exit Exam. In its present form, that is middle eighth grade level work. Talk about prostitution.

:headbang

---

In recent past, Cal has offered such a high school player that I know, and when the recruit did not pass the exit exam on his final try, rescinded the scholarship offer. This has happened twice that I know of. In turn, the athlete went to another P12 school - played and went to the NFL. Moral of the story???

pingpong2;842129868 said:

---

Though Maynard didn't pick up a lot of yards with his legs and did take a ton of sacks (whether his fault or not), I felt that oddly he was actually more accurate rolling out to his left compared to passing out of the pocket. Anything to the right was no bueno, though, feet set or not. I can only speculate, but maybe on the run AB is reallllllly bad, and JT figured that AB wouldn't have time for 5 or even 3 step drops with our sieve of an o-line.

---

We have been over this many times.
IMO ZM had terrible "field vision" (couldn't see open receivers, and couldn't see defenders who were in position for an INT) and he had "happy feet".

So he was better on the run; and he was better moving to his left so that he had to watch only half of the field.

While fans differ, I thought AB was a better passer than ZM and that ZM might have been a slightly better runner than AB, he was not so much better to make up for his passing deficiencies.

As for what was going through JT's mind. I gave up trying to give him the benefit of any doubt when it came to ZM. He was so illogical (even during the last few games of the season when Cal was out of the bowl race, ZM was sputtering and struggling and the entire team seemed to quit). In most sports, when all is lost, the coach goes to his "build for next year" mode. Give any new guy a shot as runner or QB. What is the worse that will happen - we lose? So what we are going to lose any way.
Why not go down fighting and maybe we can discover a spark of hope for the coming season in the unexpected play of some runner/QB.

But enough of this venting.

BTW Michigan (another top Public school) has the lowest APR in the B1G. Northwestern has the highest.

Chapel Hill (another top public school) has the lowest APR in the ACC. Duke had the highest.

USC with all their resources is towards the bottom of the Pac.

Cal is last in the Pac at 935.

Cal Panda Bear;842129925 said:

---

Again, Dykes has a higher academic standard than Tedford. Under Tedford, McC could very well still be qualified. Keep in mind he wasnt ruled ineligible by the NCAA. This was a decision by Dykes.

---

What support do you have for the statement that Dykes has a higher standard than Tedford? I am not saying you are wrong, but I am curious about what your source of info is. Can you clarify the differences in the standard under Dykes compared to the standard under Tedford?

GoldenBearofCalifornia;842130048 said:

---

What support do you have for the statement that Dykes has a higher standard than Tedford? I am not saying you are wrong, but I am curious about what your source of info is. Can you clarify the differences in the standard under Dykes compared to the standard under Tedford?

---

let's not make this harder than it is. regardless of the standards of Cal versus bama or furd or Rudy University in South Bend, one simple way to have tougher standards than JT would be fore Dykes to say no class attendance, no playing time. and enforce it. That would go a long way. Then check on grades mid semester. If there are issues, dictate more study time. And if the athletic department is short on academic support, hire some more.

After a class has been failed is no time to jump in and try to fix it. Be proactive. And yes part of that is not taking as many academic risks, but you also have to hold current players to standards. The notion that they were given a scholarship to a great university and wasted it so they get what they deserve doesn't do a damn thing to help the APR and the current team play in a bowl next year.

BobbyGBear;842129779 said:

---

PS I'm back b*tches.
PPS F*ck Stanfurd.

---

What, F the Furd? I thought you were a furd beeotch?

The Duke!;842129942 said:

---

Either that or their coaches are doing a better job getting their athletes to perform at top levels.

What is more believable:

A) Your conspiracy theory about schools such as Alabama and Notre Dame revoking scholarships willy nilly to manipulate APR scores,

OR

B) The concept that coaches like Brian Kelly, David Shaw, and Nick Saban are simply much better at motivating and equipping their players than Jeff Tedford was?

There is a lot of evidence for B. There is no evidence of A.

---

A happens all the time. These programs bring in millions of dollars, it would actually be somewhat irresponsible if big time programs didn't have creative and effective ways to improve their score in the the APR system.



http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8248046/college-sports-programs-find-multitude-ways-game-ncaa-apr

http://wkuherald.com/sports/article_218fa1b0-9318-11e1-9e06-0019bb30f31a.html

And I've seen a lot of quote from ex-players from more academic minded schools (Jay Bilas comes to mind) that say the APR is trash because good schools do try to maintain standards and will get penalized, while other schools most definitely figure out ways to get around it. So the APR doesn't create an incentive for learning, but just getting around the system.

In my opinion success breeds success. Motivated players on the field will also be more motivated in the classroom. You frequently see our performance on the field correlated with our performance off the field. Now you can always find exceptions but it doesn't surprise me that the culture of success at football schools motivates players to not flunk out of a school with low academic standards to begin with.

ColoradoBear1;842130068 said:

---

A happens all the time. These programs bring in millions of dollars, it would actually be somewhat irresponsible if big time programs didn't have creative and effective ways to improve their score in the the APR system.



http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8248046/college-sports-programs-find-multitude-ways-game-ncaa-apr

http://wkuherald.com/sports/article_218fa1b0-9318-11e1-9e06-0019bb30f31a.html

And I've seen a lot of quote from ex-players from more academic minded schools (Jay Bilas comes to mind) that say the APR is trash because good schools do try to maintain standards and will get penalized, while other schools most definitely figure out ways to get around it. So the APR doesn't create an incentive for learning, but just getting around the system.

---

There are angles to be played, and all schools play them. But none of the examples in either of the links you provided mention anything about a program revoking a scholarship of an eligible player to manipulate APR scores because they anticipate him having academic problems in the future.

The Zollo case is the exact opposite, actually. His school wouldn't release him from scholarship until he got his grades up. They kept him in the program and continued to give him all the academic support he needed to get his grades up so he could transfer. This seems honorable.

The Duke!;842130084 said:

---

There is clearly angles to be played, and all schools play them. But none of the examples in either of the links you provided mention anything about a program revoking a scholarship of an eligible player to manipulate APR scores because they anticipate him having academic problems in the future.

---

The ESPN article states that essentially this happens-

[quote=]Athletes failing to meet grade point average requirements are enrolled in summer session. If these athletes are non-contributors, let them know their grant-in-aid will not be renewed and work with them to transfer out in "good academic standing."

---

The Duke!;842130084 said:

---

The Zollo case is the exact opposite, actually. His school wouldn't release him from scholarship until he got his grades up. They kept him in the program and continued to give him all the academic support he needed to get his grades up so he could transfer. This seems honorable.

---

That is mostly true. It's an example of a policy that manages the APR transfer issue for the advantage of the university. But then what if the player is in over his head and just doesn't make it to a 2.6? At that point it becomes a complete self serving move for a coach to not release him and require him to pay his own way for a year if transferring.

NCAA might be on to something with a one time transfer exception for a player with a sufficient GPA (I'd say 3.0 not 2.6). The player working for good grades is incentivized, but the penalty for coming up short isn't any more heavy handed than it is now. And yes, start conspiracy theories about failing players out of spite to torpedo the transfer.

ColoradoBear1;842130100 said:

---

The ESPN article states that essentially this happens-

---

But this isn't cutting them loose. This is making sure they get their grades up and then helping them transfer.

ColoradoBear1;842130100 said:

---

That is mostly true. It's an example of a policy that manages the APR transfer issue for the advantage of the university. But then what if the player is in over his head and just doesn't make it to a 2.6? At that point it becomes a complete self serving move for a coach to not release him and require him to pay his own way for a year if transferring.

NCAA might be on to something with a one time transfer exception for a player with a sufficient GPA (I'd say 3.0 not 2.6). The player working for good grades is incentivized, but the penalty for coming up short isn't any more heavy handed than it is now. And yes, start conspiracy theories about failing players out of spite to torpedo the transfer.

---

Of course there is a self-serving element to this. But it is also in the student's best interest. The school is doing the right thing by giving him all the academic resources in the world. It seems like a very reasonable requirement that he gets his grades up before he transfers.

72CalBear;842129991 said:

---

In recent past, Cal has offered such a high school player that I know, and when the recruit did not pass the exit exam on his final try, rescinded the scholarship offer. This has happened twice that I know of. In turn, the athlete went to another P12 school - played and went to the NFL. Moral of the story???

---

Cheaters prosper?

And a 7:00am tee time, the next day, for the boosters!

Keepsin' it real!

ColoradoBear1;842130064 said:

---

let's not make this harder than it is. regardless of the standards of Cal versus bama or furd or Rudy University in South Bend, one simple way to have tougher standards than JT would be fore Dykes to say no class attendance, no playing time. and enforce it. That would go a long way. Then check on grades mid semester. If there are issues, dictate more study time. And if the athletic department is short on academic support, hire some more.

After a class has been failed is no time to jump in and try to fix it. Be proactive. And yes part of that is not taking as many academic risks, but you also have to hold current players to standards. The notion that they were given a scholarship to a great university and wasted it so they get what they deserve doesn't do a damn thing to help the APR and the current team play in a bowl next year.

---

Huh? I am not asking for ways Dykes could have a higher standard that Tedford. The poster said that Dykes has a higher standard, and I was asking his source and what the differences are compared to the standard under Tedford.

GoldenBearofCalifornia;842130345 said:

---

Huh? I am not asking for ways Dykes could have a higher standard that Tedford. The poster said that Dykes has a higher standard, and I was asking his source and what the differences are compared to the standard under Tedford.

---

There are a ton of sources for you to check out to find the answers - they're there.
And, whatever "standard" Tedford may have had, he failed, and because he failed, the team failed academically and athletically.

But, what the hell, he walked away with more mega-millions on top of the mega-millions he got while coaching.

SonOfCalVa;842129572 said:

---

ABSOLUTELY :p
How can anyone even suggest that the head coach, making millions of dollars, year after year, has ANY responsibility for the student-athlete ???? :headbang

Gawd, what do people expect for a few million (or more) bucks a year (year after year)?
The head coach is responsible for WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES ... omg
... oops

:blush :blush :blush :blush

---

We get it Cal Va. You don't like Tedford.