Unit2Sucks;842326528 said:

---

...You seem to be targeting the reflexive defenders without acknowledging we have our fair share of reflexive attackers.

---

well one group clearly has the numbers advantage on this board... hard to get in a comment without getting jumped on.

beeasyed;842326540 said:

---

well one group clearly has the numbers advantage on this board... hard to get in a comment without getting jumped on.

---

You think the number of people who are happy with Dykes exceeds the number who are unhappy? Not sure how you could draw that conclusion. I would postulate that there is a different reason that you and others get jumped on when you post certain types of comments.

Unit2Sucks;842326528 said:

---

OB - while I agree with much of what you said, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Tedford was in fact fired in large part because of the academic failings of his recruits. If the guys he recruited had succeeded in passing classes during his tenure he might still be our coach. There were 20+ kids on academic probation when Tedford left. Sonny and his staff were able to get those same kids back into good standing and I think that the guys who reportedly left because they weren't going to be able to stay eligible (because they ran out of lower division classes to take or whatever) did leave in good standing which is more than you can say for the early entrants who left on Tedford's watch.

---

This is a popular argument, because Sandy said it herself. Personally, I think she was full of it. If we'd gone 9-3 instead of 3-9 in 2012, do you think Tedford would have been fired for the academic situation? You are entitled to your opinion if you really believe that, but I find it extremely hard to believe.

Unit2Sucks;842326551 said:

---

You think the number of people who are happy with Dykes exceeds the number who are unhappy? Not sure how you could draw that conclusion. I would postulate that there is a different reason that you and others get jumped on when you post certain types of comments.

---

no, i believe the comparison was people who reflexively defend the staff, and people who reflexively attack the staff.

i believe in giving credit where credit is due. just b/c i post criticisms of the staff--and there's a lot of that to go around--doesn't mean they haven't done anything right. i'd like to believe my opinions are less petty than the, "omg Dykes, how could you say that at a press conference. you promised a top recruiting class."

grandmastapoop;842326555 said:

---

If we'd gone 9-3 instead of 3-9 in 2012, do you think Tedford would have been fired for the academic situation? You are entitled to your opinion if you really believe that, but I find it extremely hard to believe.

---

Actually, I think Tedford would have been given more time if the academics were in order even with the 3-9 record, so I do tend to think that academics was the proximate cause. I also don't think Tedford would have been fired with a 9-3 record, but as we now know that was a pipe dream.

You are changing the words of the OP. There is a difference in my mind between being the "right academic fit" from that of being an "academic risk". Not taking a required class is not the same as being a bad academic fit. These two could be future Rhodes Scholars and still be short the units needed to enroll. There is always a risk with all recruits that the time and effort put in by the coaching staff could be upended by a decision or action made by the recruit. How are we defining academic risk?

I'm also not convinced that these two player examples suggest hypocrisy. What I read is that if they had taken the right classes (the player's responsibility), they would have gotten into CAL (the coaches responsibility to know that). If you agree that the coaches can't take the tests for the recruits, what makes you think they are any more empowered to sign them up for the right classes? Unless you have inside information on what went down, I'm not sure you can suggest that there is hypocrisy in the Cal Athletic Office.

PappyVW65;842325928 said:

---

I sense there is a bit of hypocrisy running rampant within the walls of the Cal football offices.

All we hear about is recruiting the "right academic fit" and the reasoning for running kids out of the program, yet Cal just lost two key defensive recruits because they couldn't even get in the door. If academics are such a big issue then why spend time and resources recruiting kids who can't get in?

---

OaktownBear;842326505 said:

---

My issue on this thread is not with the staff, but with posters who will reflexively invent whatever explanation they think suits the staff. The original post was challenging the hypocrisy of Cal on the issue of taking academic risks and then we lose two key recruits to academics. The response was that these guys were NOT academic risks, they just didn't take enough or the right classes. As I said above - the staff can't take tests for them, so if we lose a couple of guys because they blow it in the classroom, I don't see that as a staff issue. But if we lose a couple of guys who are good students because somehow they don't take enough or the right classes, that is on the staff.

Once it became clear that they were making the staff look worse, we change the explanation back to the guys being academic risks that just didn't cut it in the classroom, and the staff did a great job in having backup plans. Which brings us right back to the original post in the thread.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with the staff taking a few guys who still have work to do in the classroom as long as they are confident that the guys will get that work done. And I accept that in doing that there will be guys who DON'T get that work done and don't make it in. So with the final explanaton, I have no problem with the staff. (though I have to say, as it is obvious that some people will just throw out any BS explanation they think sounds good with no backup, there are only certain sources of explanation I remotely trust)

But the original poster's point on hypocrisy still stands. As I said in another post, we can find ways to blame Tedford for taking recruits who are academic risks when guys who he recruited succeed in getting into the school and succeed in passing their classes during his tenure, but leave a full year after Tedford has left, with rumors (who knows if true or not) that academics was the reason. But when current staff takes an academic risk that doesn't even get into the school, it isn't the current staff's fault. Pick your position and stick with it.

I don't really care that people are blaming Tedford. HE IS IRRELEVANT. Blame Tedford. Obama. Bush. Bob Bockrath. Tom Holmoe. Barsky. Telegraph Ave. The homeless. Wilner. The political turmoil of the sixties. Whatever. It is all the same. We have people on the payroll whose job it is to deliver success. They are throughout the athletic department. They are in the football offices. As long as Cal fans want to continue to blame people and forces who are not tasked with delivering success while excusing those who are, enjoy the failure.

---

CALiforniALUM;842326562 said:

---

You are changing the words of the OP. There is a difference in my mind between being the "right academic fit" from that of being an "academic risk". Not taking a required class is not the same as being a bad academic fit. These two could be future Rhodes Scholars and still be short the units needed to enroll. There is always a risk with all recruits that the time and effort put in by the coaching staff could be upended by a decision or action made by the recruit. How are we defining academic risk?

I'm also not convinced that these two player examples suggest hypocrisy. What I read is that if they had taken the right classes (the player's responsibility), they would have gotten into CAL (the coaches responsibility to know that). If you agree that the coaches can't take the tests for the recruits, what makes you think they are any more empowered to sign them up for the right classes? Unless you have inside information on what went down, I'm not sure you can suggest that there is hypocrisy in the Cal Athletic Office.

---

bingo. this board needs to have an upvote feature lol

CALiforniALUM;842326562 said:

---

I'm also not convinced that these two player examples suggest hypocrisy. What I read is that if they had taken the right classes (the player's responsibility), they would have gotten into CAL (the coaches responsibility to know that). If you agree that the coaches can't take the tests for the recruits, what makes you think they are any more empowered to sign them up for the right classes? Unless you have inside information on what went down, I'm not sure you can suggest that there is hypocrisy in the Cal Athletic Office.

---

From what has been reported on certain sites, Sam Atoe was not even close to getting enough credits, and Chandler Leniu was classified as a high academic risk beforehand. It does seem like the staff were aware of what was going on.

Go Bears!

Unit2Sucks;842326528 said:

---

OB - while I agree with much of what you said, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Tedford was in fact fired in large part because of the academic failings of his recruits. If the guys he recruited had succeeded in passing classes during his tenure he might still be our coach. There were 20+ kids on academic probation when Tedford left. Sonny and his staff were able to get those same kids back into good standing and I think that the guys who reportedly left because they weren't going to be able to stay eligible (because they ran out of lower division classes to take or whatever) did leave in good standing which is more than you can say for the early entrants who left on Tedford's watch.

The story with Leniu and Atoe is obviously much different and bears little if anything to do with Tedford other than the fact that it's largely his fault our program is so depleted now. I agree as well that we have way too many people here reflexively responding to negative news, whether to defend the coach or attack the coach in each case without having the benefit of all of the material information. You seem to be targeting the reflexive defenders without acknowledging we have our fair share of reflexive attackers.

---

Regarding reflexive attackers - every team has them. If you go undefeated there will be a nut job that wants the coach fired for not going for the last touchdown to beat the spread. They are irrelevant. I've criticized them before because they get used as tools by people who support the coach so they can't paint all criticism as coming from the lunatic fringe. Frankly, those that want to go after the critics have enough forces on their side. At this point if you said you think Sonny will go undefeated next year but he doesn't quite have the body to pose for the cover of Vogue in a bikini, you'll end up on the bottom of a dog pile for criticizing. Frankly, it has been funny to watch people this offseason eat their own - attacking posters that have been massively positive for the least little question and then watching those attacked get ticked off and turn to the dark side. And another point about reflexive attackers. To pull off a historically bad season like last year, you pretty much have to be incompetent in every facet. There are very few criticisms of the coaching staff that are not justified.

Regarding the academic ruin of the team, Sandy said the issue was guys not graduating because they were leaving early and that those guys didn't finish out their semester. The university came out with a report that said the same thing. Why is that their public statement if they want to whisper behind closed doors that something else was going on? And why didn't they get Tedford the academic resources he requested if Tedford was the problem? And why did the APR start improving before a coaching change was made? And let's be clear, it's not Tedford's watch or Dykes' watch. It is Sandy's watch. The coach is not an educator. He has responsibility for the academics of his team. However, he cannot provide resources. That is on the AD. He cannot provide academic expertise. That is on the AD. And the AD is responsible for policy and oversight. If Tedford is the biggest failure in this area ever, the AD should be the backstop. Successful academic programs do not rely on the coach. They are self sustaining no matter who the coach is. You are looking at the wrong issue. The issue is not the last few years of Tedford's tenure. It is, with the exception of a few years under Tedford, the absolute failure of the football team when it comes to academics for DECADES, and the consistent(unfortunately successful) attempts to cover up responsibility by blaming fired coaches and saying how things are so much better now. I'm sorry, but they publicly used what a great job Holmoe was doing in cleaning up Gilby's academic mess as an excuse to keep him when in fact his results were awful also. Bottom line, there are a lot of people in the AD who will circle the wagons to protect their own asses and "information" that comes from those sources cannot be trusted. There is only one thing that can be trusted. Public, tangible results. I'll believe the athletic department has turned things around when I see wins on the field and significantly improved graduation rates and both are sustained. There is a reason the football program has been a failure in every facet for most of the last 60 years.

And Tedford was fired for losing. I have a bridge to sell you if you believe otherwise.

beeasyed;842326497 said:

---

nice strawman.

nobody said there was no need for certain players to move on, and i sincereley doubt ommy's guy is saying most of the guys who left were necessary "housecleaning".

---

GoBears58;842326507 said:

---

Eeyore;842326491 said:

---

Thanks for bringing this up.

There are some here that blame the staff..


Yes and deservedly so..

---

---

Textbook definition of straw man.

the APR disaster was the perfect cover for finding a reason to can JT. donor would NOT have raised the money if we were winning, and I mean more so than annual Toilet Bowls.

this was a very convenient excuse and frankly, I'm glad we had that to use bc it was JT's time to go. but at the same time, any HC at Cal would need to impose strict academic standards. I don't think Sonny is doing anything more than his job and what the school imposed. I don't think the staff deserves extra praise for what our old staff should've been doing this entire time. strong academics is Cal's identity and a basic requirement for the staff.

OaktownBear;842326577 said:

---

The issue is not the last few years of Tedford's tenure. It is, with the exception of a few years under Tedford, the absolute failure of the football team when it comes to academics for DECADES, and the consistent(unfortunately successful) attempts to cover up responsibility by blaming fired coaches and saying how things are so much better now.
...
And Tedford was fired for losing. I have a bridge to sell you if you believe otherwise.

---

We agree more than we disagree but the axe doesn't always fall fairly. No one is defending Sandy or the administration for their roles in the academic woes. I think the academic failure was used by Sandy and her cohorts as a lever in fundraising to get rid of Tedford who still had a lot of fans in the circles that matter. The academics were the last straw and I really do think academics played a part.

Please PM me about the bridge you're selling and if the discount is right, who knows.

:beer:

EeeBore;842326582 said:

---

Textbook definition of straw man.

---

To pull off a historically bad season like last year, you pretty much have to be incompetent in every facet. There are very few criticisms of the coaching staff that are not justified.



Exactly. And Barbour should be the one getting the boot for the APR as well as hiring Dykes.

CALiforniALUM;842326562 said:

---

You are changing the words of the OP. There is a difference in my mind between being the "right academic fit" from that of being an "academic risk". Not taking a required class is not the same as being a bad academic fit. These two could be future Rhodes Scholars and still be short the units needed to enroll. There is always a risk with all recruits that the time and effort put in by the coaching staff could be upended by a decision or action made by the recruit. How are we defining academic risk?

I'm also not convinced that these two player examples suggest hypocrisy. What I read is that if they had taken the right classes (the player's responsibility), they would have gotten into CAL (the coaches responsibility to know that). If you agree that the coaches can't take the tests for the recruits, what makes you think they are any more empowered to sign them up for the right classes? Unless you have inside information on what went down, I'm not sure you can suggest that there is hypocrisy in the Cal Athletic Office.

---

It is also the player's responsibility to do strength and conditioning. I don't think coaches just say - here is your strength and conditioning program. You go do it while I pay no attention.

I already said, unless you are saying the player specifically was sabotaging the situation, so intentionally knew what he was supposed to do and didn't sign up, the point is if you want guys to play for you, you are all over them to make sure they are signed up for the right classes. Did they lie and say they signed up and then didn't and have lied ever since? Wouldn't the staff have known a long time ago that these guys weren't signed up for the right class if they were doing any follow up whatsoever? They can't sit with them and make them study. They can't make them successful in their tests. But if these guys are good students who presumably want to come to Cal, they can make sure they are taking the right classes and if not that they know it immediately.

I read the reports as saying that this is not in fact what happened, so I am not blaming the staff. But I will reiterate, if guys who are good students either at Cal or coming into Cal, don't take the right classes, that is the fault of the player AND the staff unless you claim the player intentionally did not take the classes the staff told them to take. That is purely an administration issue. This is not a new argument for me. It was the staff's fault that Echemandu lost a year of eligibility under Holmoe, period. You make sure guys are taking the right class.

A lot well said.

MoragaBear;842326619 said:

---

I don't think there's a person on the board that has a problem with measured criticism, especially if it's clear that the criticizer really wants to see the program have success no matter who the coach is, even under Dykes or with Barbour as AD. Lord knows that hideous season was worthy of criticism, as was the year before. There are just some types of posts that rub people the wrong way, setting off the "agenda alarms" that come off as unfair or worse. They respond, the OP gets offended and points fingers back and there we have the formula for typical fan forum disfunction.

---

bingo. this board needs to have an upvote feature lol

Tedhead94;842326614 said:

---

A lot well said.

---

"I am not blaming .... but ... "
A lot of words. <yawn>

MoragaBear;842326619 said:

---

I don't think there's a person on the board that has a problem with measured criticism, especially if it's clear that the criticizer really wants to see the program have success no matter who the coach is, even under Dykes or with Barbour as AD. Lord knows that hideous season was worthy of criticism, as was the year before. There are just some types of posts that rub people the wrong way, setting off the "agenda alarms" that come off as unfair or worse. They respond, the OP gets offended and points fingers back and there we have the formula for typical fan forum disfunction.

---

I'm sorry Moraga, but you really don't see a least a couple posters, or at least one poster, who reflexively repetitively responds to any post that is critical, whether the criticism is fair or not. There are a couple of posters who not only do that, but when there is a positive post with no negative response they say something like "and now the doom and gloomers will say..." (yes that is a thinly veiled reference). I encourage you to go look at post counts for the past few months of the top anti-Dykes posters vs the top Pro-Dykes posters. I have done it a few times to make a point. It is frequently in the 10-1 range for a handful of the Pro-Dykes posters. There are people that are repetitively running their agenda and by and large they are not on the anti-Dykes side.


Quite frankly, as you say, Lord knows that hideous season was worthy of criticism. So the agenda alarms should be going off a lot more when people can't find anything critical to say. If someone's agenda is to see Cal football succeed, they should be pretty upset right now.

Yes. I have an agenda. It is to see Cal football succeed. After last year I drew a couple conclusions. 1. Dykes performance was inexcusable. 2. I do not believe that he can fulfill my agenda of Cal football succeeding. First conclusion is set in stone. Given that he is still here he has the opportunity to change my second conclusion. I'll be thrilled if he succeeds. I'll be thrilled if I win the lottery also.

If he does not succeed, I return to my agenda. Seeing Cal football succeed. And in the way of that agenda is everyone making BS statements like Portland State is a good team that will win 10 games despite all the predictions to the contrary. I call BS on those statements for two simple reason. They are not dealing with reality. And Cal fans' failure to deal with reality enables administrators to do the wrong thing. So yes, I may point out that those statements are not based in reality. If people are going to stretch to find ridiculous excuses, I will point out the ridiculous excuses. Don't tell me he will be fired if he fails. Holmoe wasn't until long after he should have been. Cal administration does not have a good record to responding appropriately to incompetence. My agenda is that if his performance is as inexcusable as last year that Dykes is fired. And statements about needing 5 years to build a team or Sac State is really awesome are counter to my agenda. I don't want him fired because I don't like him. I don't know him. I only want him fired if he is in the way of Cal football succeeding.

And quite honestly, I'm tired of being painted as having a negative agenda because I don't like the performance of the coach when others will downright personally attack players and former players and alums when it suits them to do so to defend a guy who has a one year paid association with the school.

OaktownBear;842326637 said:

---

I'm sorry Moraga, but you really don't see a least a couple posters, or at least one poster, who reflexively repetitively responds to any post that is critical, whether the criticism is fair or not. There are a couple of posters who not only do that, but when there is a positive post with no negative response they say something like "and now the doom and gloomers will say..." (yes that is a thinly veiled reference). I encourage you to go look at post counts for the past few months of the top anti-Dykes posters vs the top Pro-Dykes posters. I have done it a few times to make a point. It is frequently in the 10-1 range for a handful of the Pro-Dykes posters. There are people that are repetitively running their agenda and by and large they are not on the anti-Dykes side.


Quite frankly, as you say, Lord knows that hideous season was worthy of criticism. So the agenda alarms should be going off a lot more when people can't find anything critical to say. If someone's agenda is to see Cal football succeed, they should be pretty upset right now.

Yes. I have an agenda. It is to see Cal football succeed. After last year I drew a couple conclusions. 1. Dykes performance was inexcusable. 2. I do not believe that he can fulfill my agenda of Cal football succeeding. First conclusion is set in stone. Given that he is still here he has the opportunity to change my second conclusion. I'll be thrilled if he succeeds. I'll be thrilled if I win the lottery also.

If he does not succeed, I return to my agenda. Seeing Cal football succeed. And in the way of that agenda is everyone making BS statements like Portland State is a good team that will win 10 games despite all the predictions to the contrary. I call BS on those statements for two simple reason. They are not dealing with reality. And Cal fans' failure to deal with reality enables administrators to do the wrong thing. So yes, I may point out that those statements are not based in reality. If people are going to stretch to find ridiculous excuses, I will point out the ridiculous excuses. Don't tell me he will be fired if he fails. Holmoe wasn't until long after he should have been. Cal administration does not have a good record to responding appropriately to incompetence. My agenda is that if his performance is as inexcusable as last year that Dykes is fired. And statements about needing 5 years to build a team or Sac State is really awesome are counter to my agenda. I don't want him fired because I don't like him. I don't know him. I only want him fired if he is in the way of Cal football succeeding.

And quite honestly, I'm tired of being painted as having a negative agenda because I don't like the performance of the coach when others will downright personally attack players and former players and alums when it suits them to do so to defend a guy who has a one year paid association with the school.

---

Solid post once again.

OaktownBear;842326637 said:

---

I'm sorry Moraga, but you really don't see a least a couple posters, or at least one poster, who reflexively repetitively responds to any post that is critical, whether the criticism is fair or not. There are a couple of posters who not only do that, but when there is a positive post with no negative response they say something like "and now the doom and gloomers will say..." (yes that is a thinly veiled reference). I encourage you to go look at post counts for the past few months of the top anti-Dykes posters vs the top Pro-Dykes posters. I have done it a few times to make a point. It is frequently in the 10-1 range for a handful of the Pro-Dykes posters. There are people that are repetitively running their agenda and by and large they are not on the anti-Dykes side.


Quite frankly, as you say, Lord knows that hideous season was worthy of criticism. So the agenda alarms should be going off a lot more when people can't find anything critical to say. If someone's agenda is to see Cal football succeed, they should be pretty upset right now.

Yes. I have an agenda. It is to see Cal football succeed. After last year I drew a couple conclusions. 1. Dykes performance was inexcusable. 2. I do not believe that he can fulfill my agenda of Cal football succeeding. First conclusion is set in stone. Given that he is still here he has the opportunity to change my second conclusion. I'll be thrilled if he succeeds. I'll be thrilled if I win the lottery also.

If he does not succeed, I return to my agenda. Seeing Cal football succeed. And in the way of that agenda is everyone making BS statements like Portland State is a good team that will win 10 games despite all the predictions to the contrary. I call BS on those statements for two simple reason. They are not dealing with reality. And Cal fans' failure to deal with reality enables administrators to do the wrong thing. So yes, I may point out that those statements are not based in reality. If people are going to stretch to find ridiculous excuses, I will point out the ridiculous excuses. Don't tell me he will be fired if he fails. Holmoe wasn't until long after he should have been. Cal administration does not have a good record to responding appropriately to incompetence. My agenda is that if his performance is as inexcusable as last year that Dykes is fired. And statements about needing 5 years to build a team or Sac State is really awesome are counter to my agenda. I don't want him fired because I don't like him. I don't know him. I only want him fired if he is in the way of Cal football succeeding.

And quite honestly, I'm tired of being painted as having a negative agenda because I don't like the performance of the coach when others will downright personally attack players and former players and alums when it suits them to do so to defend a guy who has a one year paid association with the school.

---

just so people know, regardless of how Dykes does this year, even if the fans want him out, theres very little chance that he will be fired after this season. i believe that when you add up how much his contract buyout decreases and also paying franklins last year on his contract and kaufman's contract, the total would come out to us saving close to 2 million just to wait one more year to fire him. so in essence if we fired Dykes after 2015 as opposed to after 2014, we'd save 2 million, it aint happening this year. so we're all going to have to buckle up, the Dykes train is running for 2 more years

OaktownBear;842326637 said:

---

I'm sorry Moraga, but you really don't see a least a couple posters, or at least one poster, who reflexively repetitively responds to any post that is critical, whether the criticism is fair or not. There are a couple of posters who not only do that, but when there is a positive post with no negative response they say something like "and now the doom and gloomers will say..." (yes that is a thinly veiled reference). I encourage you to go look at post counts for the past few months of the top anti-Dykes posters vs the top Pro-Dykes posters. I have done it a few times to make a point. It is frequently in the 10-1 range for a handful of the Pro-Dykes posters. There are people that are repetitively running their agenda and by and large they are not on the anti-Dykes side.


Quite frankly, as you say, Lord knows that hideous season was worthy of criticism. So the agenda alarms should be going off a lot more when people can't find anything critical to say. If someone's agenda is to see Cal football succeed, they should be pretty upset right now.

Yes. I have an agenda. It is to see Cal football succeed. After last year I drew a couple conclusions. 1. Dykes performance was inexcusable. 2. I do not believe that he can fulfill my agenda of Cal football succeeding. First conclusion is set in stone. Given that he is still here he has the opportunity to change my second conclusion. I'll be thrilled if he succeeds. I'll be thrilled if I win the lottery also.

If he does not succeed, I return to my agenda. Seeing Cal football succeed. And in the way of that agenda is everyone making BS statements like Portland State is a good team that will win 10 games despite all the predictions to the contrary. I call BS on those statements for two simple reason. They are not dealing with reality. And Cal fans' failure to deal with reality enables administrators to do the wrong thing. So yes, I may point out that those statements are not based in reality. If people are going to stretch to find ridiculous excuses, I will point out the ridiculous excuses. Don't tell me he will be fired if he fails. Holmoe wasn't until long after he should have been. Cal administration does not have a good record to responding appropriately to incompetence. My agenda is that if his performance is as inexcusable as last year that Dykes is fired. And statements about needing 5 years to build a team or Sac State is really awesome are counter to my agenda. I don't want him fired because I don't like him. I don't know him. I only want him fired if he is in the way of Cal football succeeding.

And quite honestly, I'm tired of being painted as having a negative agenda because I don't like the performance of the coach when others will downright personally attack players and former players and alums when it suits them to do so to defend a guy who has a one year paid association with the school.

---

very short memories on this board. one second they're telling posters critical of JT to give him more time. next, they're calling JT a "dumbass". early in the season, they say Buh is being unfairly targeted, then he's suddenly a "dumbass" too. one second Kline is a great kid and leader, next second, he's "another E11 bust".

and God forbid Sonny and staff don't succeed, they'll quickly turn on them too.

P.S. the Portland State excuses were the best. "they have so many ex-Pac players! they're going to win their conference! injuries!"

gobears725;842326657 said:

---

just so people know, regardless of how Dykes does this year, even if the fans want him out, theres very little chance that he will be fired after this season. i believe that when you add up how much his contract buyout decreases and also paying franklins last year on his contract and kaufman's contract, the total would come out to us saving close to 2 million just to wait one more year to fire him. so in essence if we fired Dykes after 2015 as opposed to after 2014, we'd save 2 million, it aint happening this year. so we're all going to have to buckle up, the Dykes train is running for 2 more years

---

1. I have no control over the money. If it isn't possible, it isn't possible. However, I think it is a mistake to just assume it isn't possible and give up

2. There are alums who could easily write a $2M check. Whether they would or not is another story.

3. A $2M differential is not that much. If he repeats what he did last year, ticket sales will plummet. I'm pretty conservative about projecting ticket sales, but the differential in ticket sales between Coach who is 2-22 and any other coach is going to easily eat up the bulk of that differential. Of course, you need to get the up front dollars to pay the buyouts, and that will take alums who may no longer want to donate such sums. The fact that they didn't write a check to get Buh out is concerning.

But again, I wouldn't fail to ask for change just because you think change is not possible. You don't ask. You don't get.

OaktownBear;842326664 said:

---

1. I have no control over the money. If it isn't possible, it isn't possible. However, I think it is a mistake to just assume it isn't possible and give up

2. There are alums who could easily write a $2M check. Whether they would or not is another story.

3. A $2M differential is not that much. If he repeats what he did last year, ticket sales will plummet. I'm pretty conservative about projecting ticket sales, but the differential in ticket sales between Coach who is 2-22 and any other coach is going to easily eat up the bulk of that differential. Of course, you need to get the up front dollars to pay the buyouts, and that will take alums who may no longer want to donate such sums. The fact that they didn't write a check to get Buh out is concerning.

But again, I wouldn't fail to ask for change just because you think change is not possible. You don't ask. You don't get.

---

i had heard that it's because they don't want to buy Buh out unless they're going to clean the entire house...

OaktownBear;842326664 said:

---

1. I have no control over the money. If it isn't possible, it isn't possible. However, I think it is a mistake to just assume it isn't possible and give up

2. There are alums who could easily write a $2M check. Whether they would or not is another story.

3. A $2M differential is not that much. If he repeats what he did last year, ticket sales will plummet. I'm pretty conservative about projecting ticket sales, but the differential in ticket sales between Coach who is 2-22 and any other coach is going to easily eat up the bulk of that differential. Of course, you need to get the up front dollars to pay the buyouts, and that will take alums who may no longer want to donate such sums. The fact that they didn't write a check to get Buh out is concerning.

But again, I wouldn't fail to ask for change just because you think change is not possible. You don't ask. You don't get.

---

well thats always been the criticism of our rich alums. they arent necessarily driven by winning. they enjoy it if it happens, but they seem to be just as happy even if we arent. someone like Shocky who seems to know alums like the Goldman's would have a better idea of where some of them might stand

my second point is just look at the behavior of the athletic department right now. we're selling naming rights, home games just to try to make a little more. i cant see us opening up the checkbook any more than we already are.

gobears725;842326667 said:

---

well thats always been the criticism of our rich alums. they arent necessarily driven by winning. they enjoy it if it happens, but they seem to be just as happy even if we arent. someone like Shocky who seems to know alums like the Goldman's would have a better idea of where some of them might stand

my second point is just look at the behavior of the athletic department right now. we're selling naming rights, home games just to try to make a little more. i cant see us opening up the checkbook any more than we already are.

---

From what I've heard (and my info is no better than yours) it is the opposite with the alums right now. If they thought money would equal winning, they'd do it, but they aren't convinced Cal can deliver no matter how much they give. And in fairness, they dumped a lot of money into building Haas on the promise that Jason Kidd brought and they ended up with a program on sanctions and a program that has brought okay success but nothing spectacular. Then they dumped even more money into Memorial after it looked like Cal had finally gotten things right, and they ended up with the lowest grad rates in America and 2 Div 1 wins in 2 years. Honestly don't think you can blame the rich alums on this one.

gobears725;842326657 said:

---

so in essence if we fired Dykes after 2015 as opposed to after 2014, we'd save 2 million, it aint happening this year. so we're all going to have to buckle up, the Dykes train is running for 2 more years

---

I agree that he won't be fired before January 1 because that's when the buyout drops each year. I think it's $3 million right now and drops $750k each year, so $2.25M buyout on Jan 1 if he puts up another stinker of a season, $1.5M if we fire him after 2015.

Would be silly to fire him other than for cause before January 1 so people should sit back, relax and hope for a decent season because if we do so poorly that Dykes needs to be fired, we are not going to be in good shape. It will have meant another disastrous season and our prospects for getting a decent coach at fair value on the heels of 3 terrible seasons with a roster rebuilt by a guy who just presided over the downfall will be very bad.

Unit2Sucks;842326673 said:

---

I agree that he won't be fired before January 1 because that's when the buyout drops each year. I think it's $3 million right now and drops $750k each year, so $2.25M buyout on Jan 1 if he puts up another stinker of a season, $1.5M if we fire him after 2015.

Would be silly to fire him other than for cause before January 1 so people should sit back, relax and hope for a decent season because if we do so poorly that Dykes needs to be fired, we are not going to be in good shape. It will have meant another disastrous season and our prospects for getting a decent coach at fair value on the heels of 3 terrible seasons with a roster rebuilt by a guy who just presided over the downfall will be very bad.

---

Theres another point. Whos going to want to come in after him and try to clean this up? at least after Tedford we had a more reputable program. Our prospects dont look good, we really need Dykes to do it. I believe we'll be back to nickel and diming pac-12 coordinators if he doesnt get it done, hoping for a longshot at the next Tedford.

OaktownBear;842326637 said:

---

If he does not succeed, I return to my agenda.

---

So, don't you want to give him a "chance to succeed" before you return to your agenda? Don't you at least want to wait until the first few games of this upcoming season? Fall camp hasn't even started, and you've already returned to your agenda. You've got an entire season to go ballistic on Dykes and all the pumpers. Save up your bitterness for August.

Eeyore;842326688 said:

---

So, don't you want to give him a "chance to succeed" before you return to your agenda? Don't you at least want to wait until the first few games of this upcoming season? Fall camp hasn't even started, and you've already returned to your agenda. You've got an entire season to go ballistic on Dykes and all the pumpers. Save up your bitterness for August.

---

OTB is hardly a bitter guy. i share in his agenda as well as do the majority of posters on here. we all want to program to do well and Dykes has a tough job ahead of him. we shall see what happens

Eeyore;842326688 said:

---

So, don't you want to give him a "chance to succeed" before you return to your agenda? Don't you at least want to wait until the first few games of this upcoming season? Fall camp hasn't even started, and you've already returned to your agenda. You've got an entire season to go ballistic on Dykes and all the pumpers. Save up your bitterness for August.

---

Yeah Holmoe fans all over again. The second we end the season, all comment has to cease.

Nope. Sorry. He put that atrocious season out there. He gets to be judged by it. He had 12 chances to get it right and went 0-fer.

But i'm sure you will move on to telling the people who constantly say what a great job he is doing that they should stop commenting until he actually accomplishes something.

See, I haven't commented at all in the offseason where I wasn't RESPONDING to someone. If you want me to stop talking, get them to stop. But I don't think the pro Sonny crowd gets 8 months of free reign with no response as much as they obviously think that is what they should get.

"Save up your bitterness for August."


OK..........................BUT.......................come August..............................!

A more realistic view expressed.

going4roses;842326480 said:

---

your source that you reference ... offense or defense ... no need to really answer but just wondering

perhaps offense side of ball??

on to the next thing who the HELL is still on team that is not 100? not expecting answers

wish they would just quit/transfer to schools closer to home or whatever ...

your inside take is basically to some extent all guys are not buying in ... still not playing as one .. hmm k so if said if player was on offense , is it a scheme causing issues they mostly were recruited to run a pro style offense to prepare them for the NFL ...

if that is not the case gotta put that on that on the responsible heads first sandy(your football team ran pro sets) and sonny ( you and tony run spread variation )... add in apr numbers this guy leaving that guy leaving or other guy getting nudged out 9

is this a coach/ staff or a player issue combination ... can it be fixed or its it all up to next coaching staff

no matter what the star / accolades of player / recruit ... CAL needs young men that bleed blue and gold

wonder if another HC with NFL/CAL ties would have fared better through transition

---

I'm almost 100% it's offense. The only upperclassman on D who have a whiff of being drafted are Scarlett and Sebastian, neither are 3rd years.

OaktownBear;842326695 said:

---

Yeah Holmoe fans all over again. The second we end the season, all comment has to cease.

Nope. Sorry. He put that atrocious season out there. He gets to be judged by it. He had 12 chances to get it right and went 0-fer.

But i'm sure you will move on to telling the people who constantly say what a great job he is doing that they should stop commenting until he actually accomplishes something.

See, I haven't commented at all in the offseason where I wasn't RESPONDING to someone. If you want me to stop talking, get them to stop. But I don't think the pro Sonny crowd gets 8 months of free reign with no response as much as they obviously think that is what they should get.

---

I have no problem with "measured criticisms" -- as MB stated earlier. I'm no cheerleader for Dykes. His atrocious first season speaks for itself. However, I do have a problem with unfair and exaggerated comments.