General observations:

1. The Tedford fallacy: whether Dyke is or is not the right head coach for Cal, the decision to replace Tedford was correct, necessary. They are entirely separate matters; if SD turns out to be or is now the wrong choice that in no way invalidates the need to remove TF. TF left this team in a shambles, not the least of which was lack of talent.

2. Talent/Injuries. no need to discuss the injury factor, but the lack of talent was stunning, particularly in the def. line. I have been watching college football since 1959 & I don't believe there was a worse def. line since that time. Certainly the lack of pass rush, outside containment made the rest of the def. incredibly vulnerable. Other areas of "talent" need have been fully discussed on this board.

3. The bashing mentality: I have suffered as long as anyone and would reiterate that I don't know if SD is the right guy, altho Shaw's comments were particularly strong. I absolutely wanted TF gone - his time was clearly up. Given the aforementioned empty pantry left by JT, the academic problems et al, it seems incredibly premature to be calling for SD's removal. Moreover there is missing from the heated discussion any sense that usually difficult situations are much more complex and nuanced than most of us know from the outside. We're angry so can the creep.

Yes SD may be the wrong guy, but most/all of us have no idea what is going on day to day, the details involved. We live in a time where we see everything in black or white; the lack of a reasoned dialogue is most troubling. Obama is a socialist, government is evil, Dykes is over his head.... The puerile attacks here do no good primarily because at this stage (maybe not next year or in 3 years) none of us outside of the locker room understand all the issues......or certainly have the expertise to make anything but an emotional reaction....

NM

One of the sillier conventions here is the idea that more posts somehow make you smarter. As someone who has a lot of posts I am living proof that is not the case.

Welcome.

That is a great first post, glad to have on the board.

I really appreciate the OP and have said similar things and have been called a Dykes apologist for it.

It seems to me that HC of football at Cal is a pretty tough job to do well these days. Folks point to the margin of defeat and the performance of players as indications of why change should happen now. They do not realize that, while foundations are being laid, things seem to get worse. And those issues on Saturday are merely the same problems repeating themselves as they get exploited by our pac-12 foes.

Over time, these issues can get more adequately addressed. The coaching issues need to be addressed when it is clear what specific personnel are causing them. That takes time as well. Throwing all of them out is the expedient thing to do but isn't something that Cal can afford to do without more information.

What saddens me is how many true fans have expressed hostility in many forms towards these hard working coaches. They may ultimately be over their heads but they wanted Cal to be successful this year just as much as we do.

GB54;842232864 said:

---

One of the sillier conventions here is the idea that more posts somehow make you smarter. As someone who has a lot of posts I am living proof that is not the case.

Welcome.

---

You just got a little smarter in my book.

3146gabby;842232850 said:

---

General observations:

1. The Tedford fallacy: whether Dyke is or is not the right head coach for Cal, the decision to replace Tedford was correct, necessary. They are entirely separate matters; if SD turns out to be or is now the wrong choice that in no way invalidates the need to remove TF. TF left this team in a shambles, not the least of which was lack of talent.

2. Talent/Injuries. no need to discuss the injury factor, but the lack of talent was stunning, particularly in the def. line. I have been watching college football since 1959 & I don't believe there was a worse def. line since that time. Certainly the lack of pass rush, outside containment made the rest of the def. incredibly vulnerable. Other areas of "talent" need have been fully discussed on this board.

3. The bashing mentality: I have suffered as long as anyone and would reiterate that I don't know if SD is the right guy, altho Shaw's comments were particularly strong. I absolutely wanted TF gone - his time was clearly up. Given the aforementioned empty pantry left by JT, the academic problems et al, it seems incredibly premature to be calling for SD's removal. Moreover there is missing from the heated discussion any sense that usually difficult situations are much more complex and nuanced than most of us know from the outside. We're angry so can the creep.

Yes SD may be the wrong guy, but most/all of us have no idea what is going on day to day, the details involved. We live in a time where we see everything in black or white; the lack of a reasoned dialogue is most troubling. Obama is a socialist, government is evil, Dykes is over his head.... The puerile attacks here do no good primarily because at this stage (maybe not next year or in 3 years) none of us outside of the locker room understand all the issues......or certainly have the expertise to make anything but an emotional reaction....

---

We lost the big game by 50.

Are you aware what the previous highest score a team had in the Big Game was? We lost BY 50.


Dykes will keep his job, but not because he should or because he earned it.


Either way, Tedford should have been fired earlier, and yes, we have some pretty nice excuses to explain why we are re writing the scoring section of the Big Game record books.

i get all the reasons to fire tedford as i was right on the train along with everyone else.

but it was always in the back of my mind. should we just have held onto tedford for the remainder of his contract and then parted ways? it was risky because there was always the chance that we end up with someone worse than tedford and now we did. tedford was always going to have us around mediocre but that was better than downright terrible which is where we are now. also if we waited, then we would have had more money to go after our next coach.

tedford was at least smart enough to surround himself with a lot of guys connected with the nfl, so at the very least, we were always going to get nfl quality talent. tedford had more credibility with recruits than dykes.

with this group i see tthe ability to get recruits being in question because we now run a gimmicky offense and no one wants to play for a defense like this one.

Phantomfan:

Do I understand how much we lost by? I was there. Do I also know that Stanford has now won what 4 big games in a row and they lead the series comfortably? That too. Am I uncertain about SD? Yep.

So far we are moving along together on this.

But you state SD will keep his job but not because he deserves to. That the misery of this year may be partially or entirely his responsibility cannot be said. If you agree that there was a huge lack of talent (to go along with the injuries, hardly de minimis and other distractions), what then is your proof that SD should be fired now? And if you don't agree there was a huge lack talent, esp. on the lines, provide some proof of that talent.

Those who emotionally rant about firing SD are 1) quite different than those who ranted about firing TF becuz there was abundant proof that TF should go;he had more than 1 year to prove himself, and 2) we do not yet have enough evidence that SD is fully or significantly responsible for this year. It is not unlike blaming Obama for the economic woes left behind by Bush, the housing meltdown, the Iraq war etc. You can blame him now if you like, but not after his first 12 months.

Go Bears.

gabby, well-reasoned and rational posts are always welcome here. Well, at least they should be. And I concur with all your thoughts, and will add a few of my own.

Somebody on the post-game radio show used an analogy that blew my mind: the Bears were like a high school freshman squad playing against the varsity. Granted, this was a tad hyperbolic: the growth between ages 14 - 18 is much more dramatic than between 18-22. But still, I think it's mostly valid. And look how it punctures the criticism, if you picture that frosh squad getting their ass kicked every week on a varsity schedule:

The Bears should have been more competitive!
They're freshmen.

They should have improved over the season!
They're freshmen.

They look ill-prepared!
They're freshmen.


Can Dykes recruit? We'll see. He's got a tough row to hoe now, though. (Although having that WR flip from UW is encouraging)

Can Dykes coach? We certainly can't tell from this season.

Can the TFS work in the Pac-12? Can't tell from this season. (This gives me the most pause)

When did Teddy start being referred to as TF?

:tedford

JSC 76;842233052 said:

---

gabby, well-reasoned and rational posts are always welcome here. Well, at least they should be. And I concur with all your thoughts, and will add a few of my own.

Somebody on the post-game radio show used an analogy that blew my mind: the Bears were like a high school freshman squad playing against the varsity. Granted, this was a tad hyperbolic: the growth between ages 14 - 18 is much more dramatic than between 18-22. But still, I think it's mostly valid. And look how it punctures the criticism, if you picture that frosh squad getting their ass kicked every week on a varsity schedule:

The Bears should have been more competitive!
They're freshmen.

They should have improved over the season!
They're freshmen.

They look ill-prepared!
They're freshmen.


Can Dykes recruit? We'll see. He's got a tough row to hoe now, though. (Although having that WR flip from UW is encouraging)

Can Dykes coach? We certainly can't tell from this season.

Can the TFS work in the Pac-12? Can't tell from this season. (This gives me the most pause)

---

nobody twisted dykes arm and forced him to play so many freshman. if you're already going to go with a freshman QB, youd be smart to have experienced players play around him. for instance tyndall didnt see the field at all

gobears725;842233073 said:

---

nobody twisted dykes arm and forced him to play so many freshman. if you're already going to go with a freshman QB, youd be smart to have experienced players play around him. for instance tyndall didnt see the field at all

---

And I decided to play younger players over older ones so that I was building for the future I would definitely publicize this fact and I would urge my fan base to look for small signs of improvement as the season wore on. Would I lose some players? Absolutely. But I'm the leader and I'm doing what is best for the program. Basically the rule would be: if the younger guy is as good or almost as good he plays.

The problem I have with this if Sonny was doing this but not publicly saying so (for obvious reasons) is that WE DIDN'T APPEAR TO GET BETTER AT ANYTHING. I mean if we are just truly this pathetic talent wise (that none of the players were good enough for us to be competitive) I don't think Sonny will get a chance to show what he can do. We are talking about many years to accumulate enough talent to be competitive and that is assuming we recruit decently. It just doesn't look good for Sonny surviving this and maybe he gets a bad rap and the coach that follows benefits from all his hard work. At this point I have no idea.

gobears725;842233073 said:

---

nobody twisted dykes arm and forced him to play so many freshman. if you're already going to go with a freshman QB, youd be smart to have experienced players play around him. for instance tyndall didnt see the field at all

---

Wasn't Tyndall injured?

Which other JRs and SRs should have seen playing time in your opinion?

1. Tedford had to go.
2. DL issues were made worse by the insistence on going 4-3 (BTW, a general theme with this staff - they don't adjust for the talent on hand but instead stick to their system, often a sign of poor coaching).
3. Our average margin of loss was 25 points. You almost have to take a step back and say that out loud: twenty five points. We only had 1 game with a single digit loss and we went into the 4th quarter down >10 in that game. Over and above the losses, the team regressed instead of progressed on a week to week basis. It was the single worst season in the school's history. In my opinion the level of bitching has been remarkably low and civil.

3146gabby;842233040 said:

---

Phantomfan:

Do I understand how much we lost by? I was there. Do I also know that Stanford has now won what 4 big games in a row and they lead the series comfortably? That too. Am I uncertain about SD? Yep.

So far we are moving along together on this.

But you state SD will keep his job but not because he deserves to. That the misery of this year may be partially or entirely his responsibility cannot be said. If you agree that there was a huge lack of talent (to go along with the injuries, hardly de minimis and other distractions), what then is your proof that SD should be fired now? And if you don't agree there was a huge lack talent, esp. on the lines, provide some proof of that talent.

Those who emotionally rant about firing SD are 1) quite different than those who ranted about firing TF becuz there was abundant proof that TF should go;he had more than 1 year to prove himself, and 2) we do not yet have enough evidence that SD is fully or significantly responsible for this year. It is not unlike blaming Obama for the economic woes left behind by Bush, the housing meltdown, the Iraq war etc. You can blame him now if you like, but not after his first 12 months.

Go Bears.

---

I am saying he is not keeping his job on merit.

Are you saying he is keeping his job because of his performance? No, no one would argue that. No one has argued that. The best even the most ardent pumpers have come up with is that he might do better ... on and off the field.

So, my evidence that he has not earned the privileged to stay the Head Coach is apparent. He will NOT be fired, so discussing why he should be is, and has been, silly - though I think the evidence I would use for that is apparent, also.


Also, you keep saying TF? What does that mean? Jeff Tedford, TedFord, or Tony Franklin? You seem to be saying Tedford, but TF does not track.



Either way, Dykes should not be expected to be GOOD, but he should be expected to attain an absolute minimum of competency. he has not. This is literally the worst team Cal has fielded in the modern era, and Cal is well known for being bad at football in the modern era.

Agree, Tedford had to go but not for coaching but APR, grad rates. That was my straw that broke the camel's back, not the winning/losing. The thing is, it looks like the academics are being turned around with the added hires and concentration on it. Tedford lost it but he asked for more academic assistants that he didn't receive.

Now about coaching, I agree Dykes is here for at least the next season, likely two. Frankly I'd rather have him turn things around because it's easier as a fan and I don't have a vendetta against him, but rather a liking for Cal. Yes SD gets a break on the injuries, no doubt about it.

That said, the red flags are very real, from clear lack of preparation (what it rains in Oregon, WTF), lack of fundamentals and suspect hires to giving up this season for next and a lack of improvement. If there's one thing that pisses me off it's the lack of improvement and lack of showing any coaching chops. One more win would have addressed the coaching ability question but SD didn't show it.

So SD is here, I'm not going to bash him but I am going to call him on the mat for what's clear and apparent.

82gradDLSdad;842233099 said:

---

And I decided to play younger players over older ones so that I was building for the future I would definitely publicize this fact and I would urge my fan base to look for small signs of improvement as the season wore on. Would I lose some players? Absolutely. But I'm the leader and I'm doing what is best for the program. Basically the rule would be: if the younger guy is as good or almost as good he plays.

The problem I have with this if Sonny was doing this but not publicly saying so (for obvious reasons) is that WE DIDN'T APPEAR TO GET BETTER AT ANYTHING. I mean if we are just truly this pathetic talent wise (that none of the players were good enough for us to be competitive) I don't think Sonny will get a chance to show what he can do. We are talking about many years to accumulate enough talent to be competitive and that is assuming we recruit decently. It just doesn't look good for Sonny surviving this and maybe he gets a bad rap and the coach that follows benefits from all his hard work. At this point I have no idea.

---

i dont think that you necessarily use that as a rule of thumb, playing the younger guy if theyre close to equal in ability because the older guy is probably more likely to have more leadership and intangibles to bring to the table than the younger guy and although equal in skill, would provide a much better presence out on the field.

slider,

tyndall was only injured in fall camp. he was full bore ready to go by 2nd-3rd game. we had braz, crosthwaite, tyndall, bouza, andersen, gibson, williams on offense. bouza and andersen never looked like bad receivers and made plays when they were in there.

for the linebacking crew i would have possibly moved fortt in the middle and went fortt, jefferson, king.

i admit we had little choice in the secondary. walker was a pleasant surprise.

Now im not completely sure if any of these players could have contributed, but sonny and his staff has stated on numerous occasions that the team was lacking in leadership. well thats usually what happens when you play a lot of underclassmen even if they are more talented. bottomline though is that i would have taken less talent if the some of the players i mentioned above had good intangibles. it probably could have helped.

the biggest thing is on offense. you needed to have at least one player out on the field that had the ability to keep jared calm and focused. like a coach out on the field. Tony and Sonny cant go out there with him. if that meant using a less talented wr or olineman, then i would have jumped at it. it doesnt mean that such player existed on this team. but its those sort of little things that sometimes can make a difference

GB54;842232864 said:

---

One of the sillier conventions here is the idea that more posts somehow make you smarter. As someone who has a lot of posts I am living proof that is not the case.

Welcome.

---

Me too!
Good OP. I agree with the thoughts on the "JT sellers remorse" going on here. It was time for him to go. Even if he ends up doing well elsewhere, he was clearly burnt out here and there had to be some accountability for the lousy academics.

GB54;842232864 said:

---

One of the sillier conventions here is the idea that more posts somehow make you smarter. As someone who has a lot of posts I am living proof that is not the case.

Welcome.

---

I agree that my 5,000+ posts here don't make me any smarter. Rather, they make all of you smarter. Each nugget of wisdom I dispense here adds to the collective intelligence of all who have the good fortune to read it.

Sorry....I spent ten hours on the Farm on Saturday and I'm still suffering from the "contact high" of being in the presence of such a concentration of arrogance. I should be back to normal in a day or two.

heartofthebear;842232913 said:

---

I really appreciate the OP and have said similar things and have been called a Dykes apologist for it.

It seems to me that HC of football at Cal is a pretty tough job to do well these days. Folks point to the margin of defeat and the performance of players as indications of why change should happen now. They do not realize that, while foundations are being laid, things seem to get worse. And those issues on Saturday are merely the same problems repeating themselves as they get exploited by our pac-12 foes.

Over time, these issues can get more adequately addressed. The coaching issues need to be addressed when it is clear what specific personnel are causing them. That takes time as well. Throwing all of them out is the expedient thing to do but isn't something that Cal can afford to do without more information.

What saddens me is how many true fans have expressed hostility in many forms towards these hard working coaches. They may ultimately be over their heads but they wanted Cal to be successful this year just as much as we do.

---

I think the head coaching job at Cal has always been very difficult. Unlike many other schools you have a faculty that is not exactly supportive of the FB players, and "not exactly supportive" is generous. You have a school where the academics are darn tough and the competition for grades is intense. So when JT went out and recruited FB players without regard to GPA it multiplied our problems, and especially SD's problems currently. Not an excuse, just a fact. No one seems to want to face the fact that AP and honors courses in high school are usually not sprinkled freely in the course load of FB players, and when they get to Cal with what one could call an "unweighted" course load up against some of the finest pure students in America, there is the potential for disaster. Or worse yet, how about going to Cal and not even trying (no names need to be mentioned here, they already have). That culture must end. It was apparently needed for JT to extend his lucrative contract at Cal. And BTW, I loved JT and everything about him for the first five plus years, before discovery.

beelzebear;842233122 said:

---

Agree, Tedford had to go but not for coaching but APR, grad rates. That was my straw that broke the camel's back, not the winning/losing. The thing is, it looks like the academics are being turned around with the added hires and concentration on it. Tedford lost it but he asked for more academic assistants that he didn't receive.

Now about coaching, I agree Dykes is here for at least the next season, likely two. Frankly I'd rather have him turn things around because it's easier as a fan and I don't have a vendetta against him, but rather a liking for Cal. Yes SD gets a break on the injuries, no doubt about it.

That said, the red flags are very real, from clear lack of preparation (what it rains in Oregon, WTF), lack of fundamentals and suspect hires to giving up this season for next and a lack of improvement. If there's one thing that pisses me off it's the lack of improvement and lack of showing any coaching chops. One more win would have addressed the coaching ability question but SD didn't show it.

So SD is here, I'm not going to bash him but I am going to call him on the mat for what's clear and apparent.

---

Do you really believe Tedford was fired due to GSR?
If had 10 wins last season, would he have been fired?

What about 8 wins.

What about 7 wins and a bowl game?

Nobody here or any place else complained about the academics until after he was already gone, or on the verge of gone.

RealDrew2;842233181 said:

---

Do you really believe Tedford was fired due to GSR?
If had 10 wins last season, would he have been fired?

What about 8 wins.

What about 7 wins and a bowl game?

Nobody here or any place else complained about the academics until after he was already gone, or on the verge of gone.

---

Academics were the last straw for me. I was fine with the coaching because even the best have up and down years and I was willing to let Tedford coach another year. Once the academics hit, he had to go in my book.

The fact of the matter is the University of California is about academics first and football like #23. Look if the world's top public university and can't graduate a reasonable number of its football players (like par with the whole student body), then there's an issue.

You might have a different criteria and standard but I don't share it.

Phantomfan;842233116 said:

---

I am saying he is not keeping his job on merit.

Are you saying he is keeping his job because of his performance? No, no one would argue that. No one has argued that. The best even the most ardent pumpers have come up with is that he might do better ... on and off the field.

So, my evidence that he has not earned the privileged to stay the Head Coach is apparent. He will NOT be fired, so discussing why he should be is, and has been, silly - though I think the evidence I would use for that is apparent, also.


Also, you keep saying TF? What does that mean? Jeff Tedford, TedFord, or Tony Franklin? You seem to be saying Tedford, but TF does not track.



Either way, Dykes should not be expected to be GOOD, but he should be expected to attain an absolute minimum of competency. he has not. This is literally the worst team Cal has fielded in the modern era, and Cal is well known for being bad at football in the modern era.

---

I am saying really a couple of pretty simple things: the level of discourse on this site and the hysterical language (as opposed to hysteria itself) does not help, shows us to be rather un-nuanced and adds little to the discussion. No one knows if SD can do it and yes he probably made a terrible situation worse, but to assume that Tressel or Shaw or anyone else could have done substantially better is pure dreaming..... To discuss problems w/the 4-3 is much different from the ranting. I can assure you that all of us in our work have had days or seasons where an outside might have said, "boy that guy does not know what he is doing" but the real truth was hidden in probably some pretty complex detail....... I am a civil rights attorney and had a case or two over the last 35 years where from outside appearance I did not do the best job, but I hope the tough times did not justify a broadside rant that I should be de-barred and run out of the country. Now if I had ever stolen my clients' funds, showed I was incompetent then that would be a different story......

Apologies for referring to Tedford as TF.... I am a little behind on the abbreviations and still do not know what NM refers to.....not a luddite but perhaps a bit behind many of you.....

3146gabby;842233316 said:

---

I am saying really a couple of pretty simple things: the level of discourse on this site and the hysterical language (as opposed to hysteria itself) does not help, shows us to be rather un-nuanced and adds little to the discussion. No one knows if SD can do it and yes he probably made a terrible situation worse, but to assume that Tressel or Shaw or anyone else could have done substantially better is pure dreaming..... To discuss problems w/the 4-3 is much different from the ranting. I can assure you that all of us in our work have had days or seasons where an outside might have said, "boy that guy does not know what he is doing" but the real truth was hidden in probably some pretty complex detail....... I am a civil rights attorney and had a case or two over the last 35 years where from outside appearance I did not do the best job, but I hope the tough times did not justify a broadside rant that I should be de-barred and run out of the country. Now if I had ever stolen my clients' funds, showed I was incompetent then that would be a different story......

Apologies for referring to Tedford as TF.... I am a little behind on the abbreviations and still do not know what NM refers to.....not a luddite but perhaps a bit behind many of you.....

---

Ah, I thought it was strange that you wanted to keep Sonny and but firing his offensive play caller was long overdue...haha

RealDrew2;842233181 said:

---

Do you really believe Tedford was fired due to GSR?
If had 10 wins last season, would he have been fired?

What about 8 wins.

What about 7 wins and a bowl game?

Nobody here or any place else complained about the academics until after he was already gone, or on the verge of gone.

---

Bull sh*t.

First, what ifs are ridiculous here.

It only came out that the GSR had dropped to a ridiculous low mid season. Before that, it was not his recruiting class, and the numbers looked VERY good, so your claim that no one cared is way off.

in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005 our APR was 2nd in the conference only to Stanfurd.
in 2010 our APR was 6th in conference and people dismissed it as strange... a bad year, a bad class, lots of trouble makers, things will pick up.
in 2011 our APR fell to 9th in conference and people were pissed off.
in 2012 our APR fell to 12th in conference........and people flipped out like crazy and demanded better

So, yeah, in 2012 people kind of lost their **** about it...because it was revealed mid season that, holy ****: all this talk about Tedford "doing it right" was bullshit, and dropping to 9th was no aberration as claimed, it was a trend, and the trend had hit bottom. To top it off, this academic embarrassment was losing games, and if the trend continued, we would be banned from playing a bowl. Basically, the issue did not come up until he had started to lose, and by his last season, the drum beat was at LEAST as much about his 12 place APR as it was about his winning 3 games.

Kind of hard to get mad about something before it is known, though. Dontchathink?


Nice try though.

nice, interesting, reasonable and insightful post, Gabby!

You have no future on this board.

Well, if you went by is post game comments you would think he is befuddled. Stare into space and gives very short, dumb answers. Not eloquent at all. I hated when JT threw the players under the bus, but Dykes does it in a dick-like way. If you remember Singletary of the 9ers always saying, " I'll have to review the film", Dykes just says it is on him. His fault. Maybe one game is ok, but to say that for every game? gets old. he is basically admitting he is terrible. He does not come across very well in those pressers.

3146gabby;842233040 said:

---

Phantomfan:

Do I understand how much we lost by? I was there. Do I also know that Stanford has now won what 4 big games in a row and they lead the series comfortably? That too. Am I uncertain about SD? Yep.

So far we are moving along together on this.

But you state SD will keep his job but not because he deserves to. That the misery of this year may be partially or entirely his responsibility cannot be said. If you agree that there was a huge lack of talent (to go along with the injuries, hardly de minimis and other distractions), what then is your proof that SD should be fired now? And if you don't agree there was a huge lack talent, esp. on the lines, provide some proof of that talent.

Those who emotionally rant about firing SD are 1) quite different than those who ranted about firing TF becuz there was abundant proof that TF should go;he had more than 1 year to prove himself, and 2) we do not yet have enough evidence that SD is fully or significantly responsible for this year. It is not unlike blaming Obama for the economic woes left behind by Bush, the housing meltdown, the Iraq war etc. You can blame him now if you like, but not after his first 12 months.

Go Bears.

---

There is no lack of talent. Stack our last 4 recruiting classes against all the other teams in the PAC. We're at least in the middle, certainly above teams like WSU and Colorado. Heck we blow Portland St away.

Yes, not every recruit panned out but that's true for every program. We also chose to play younger players when we had more experienced players.

Hey, I'm all for him getting fired but that's a load of crap. A bit more than not every recruit did not pan out or stay healthy. Several have posted statistics. Even with all things considered, the season was terrible and speaks for itself, despite the stacked deck. Also, there aren't that many healthy good experienced players that were leapfrogged.

1-11 and we barely beat Portland state. All the rest are extra words. He should be fired.

socaltownie;842233643 said:

---

1-11 and we barely beat Portland state. All the rest are extra words. He should be fired.

---

1-11 and totally uncompetitive. Blown out in most games with an average loss margin 25 points.

So far Sonny's record at Cal is a fail:
1)Slowly assembled and weak staff
2)poor close to his first recruiting class
3)the worst season in 113 years of Cal football

He needs to get some positive results starting now or hit the bricks. His current performance is unacceptable and the Holmoesque defenses of him on BI are a joke.

Darby;842233653 said:

---

1-11 and totally uncompetitive. Blown out in most games with an average loss margin 25 points.

So far Sonny's record at Cal is a fail:
1)Slowly assembled and weak staff
2)poor close to his first recruiting class
3)the worst season in 113 years of Cal football

He needs to get some positive results starting now or hit the bricks. His current performance is unacceptable and the Holmoesque defenses of him on BI are a joke.

---

We don't know what the state of the program really was/is.

We don't know what the scuttlebutt was/is among the coaching fraternity as to the desirability of an assistant coach's job at Cal.

We don't know how competitive the assistant coach's pay was/is to enable the attraction of better, at least, ACs.

We don't know how many carry over players really bought in to SD and his staff. There was a lot of talk about how committed the players were, but we don't know if it was just talk.

We don't know a lot that has an impact on the team's performance.

We know that JT made two deals with the devil: 1. too many recruits couldn't/wouldn't do the academic work; and 2. too many recruits were promised things that their football abilities couldn't deliver.

We know that the departure of top performers (for various reasons, each of them diagnostic) showed that the program had become toxic.

We know that cleansing a program of toxicity takes more than winning games and can't be done with a wave of the magic wand.

We know that SD will not be fired this year and maybe not next.

I don't know that SD is or is not the right guy. Neither does anyone else.

We can be disappointed, but let's not be stupid.

Those calling for Tedford's firing last season pointed to the enormous amount of talent in the program that couldn't thrive under JT's leadership and coaching.

Wonder what happened to all the talent and why Coach Dykes couldn't win with it? And how will this staff recruit after a 1-11 disaster?

There seems to be a distinct division betw two schools of thought here, altho both I believe share in their great concern about the state of affairs, uncertainty about SD, and confusion as to what is the best and most realistic course of action. There is no argument that this is the worst team that any of us can remember (whether better/same than Holmoe' last, who cares?). It is however a lot harder to know what is the right path particularly as we all sit before our computers with a greater or lesser knowledge of football and certainly little info as to what goes on behind the football walls. And none of the critics on this board, including me can point to a SD track record that we had w/Tedford last season.

One group on this board has concerns, tries to analyze with some specifics, and see whether the ensuing picture is fuzzy, partially fuzzy, partially clear or fully clear. That group is uncertain about SD, not happy, recognizes the severity of the problem and ultimately acknowledges that knowing what is the best tact right now is hard to say.

The other relies it seems exclusively on the rant and the attack. Anyone who may think a little differently is an apologist at best, a jerk at worst. This group like Fox news relies on quasi-clever one liners and dismissive retorts.

The former is legitimate, the latter adds only hostility and spleen to the debate.