gobears725;842326674 said:

---

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.

---

I will point out that Tedford MAY have been a longshot but maybe not. Gladstone called 'his shot'. He said he would know a good coach when he interviewed one because he knew what it took to be a good coach. Maybe we wouldn't need coaching longshots if the person picking the next coach actually knew what it took to succeed at coaching football.

82gradDLSdad;842326747 said:

---

I will point out that Tedford MAY have been a longshot but maybe not. Gladstone called 'his shot'. He said he would know a good coach when he interviewed one because he knew what it took to be a good coach. Maybe we wouldn't need coaching longshots if the person picking the next coach actually knew what it took to succeed at coaching football.

---

so until she is gone .. kinda just save the sonny this sonny that stuff ... root for the players and hope things start turning around

whos idea was it to bring in a spread coach/ system to a pro style depth chart and then add on top not one of the coaches on staff had any recruiting ties to ..wonder if that hiring firm is affiliated in any way to sonnys agent

SonOfCalVa;842326632 said:

---

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

---

Shocking. You turn up with your typical hollow sound bite from your perrenial post on Sonnys johnson.

Tedhead94;842326767 said:

---

Shocking. You turn up with your typical hollow sound bite from your perrenial post on Sonnys johnson.

---

Your fixation of Sonny's "johnson" is remarkably revealing ... a replacement for your love of Ted's "head", perhaps
<yawn>

OaktownBear;842326611 said:

---

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.

---

Ok, I think we can say we agree. However, my point is that we don't know what happened (at least I don't). I leave open the possibility that the player was not forthright in either their intent or follow through to take the required classes. I also don't know whether the coaches dropped the ball either. So, in the end, it is all speculation until somebody with any sort of credibility can confirm or deny what really happened. I think too many people rush to judgement based on lack of evidence.

For the record, I also think there is a measure of risk with any recruit. To the extent that a player (Atoe) fills a really important team need (S), I think you can recruit them even if it will require additional effort on both the staff and student's part to stay in good academic standing. Atoe clearly wasn't an academic juggernaut, but if there is reasonable likelihood he can make it academically, then doubling down on the young man seems like a reasonable risk. I think we can have a few players on the team who will require more than your average support. Of course, that is not to say that we should be doing this across the board, a la Mr. Lupaid.

SonOfCalVa;842326798 said:

---

Your fixation of Sonny's "johnson" is remarkably revealing ... a replacement for your love of Ted's "head", perhaps
<yawn>

---

Good one, SonofaDykesCA.

gobears725;842326674 said:

---

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.

---

Dykes' failure is accentuated by Tedford's success and high expectations of the program. Given that Sonny has predictably emptied the cupboard (minus a few gems we still have left), any new coach will have some leeway due to lowered expectations. Remember 5-7 under Tedford? This place was pure anarchy. Imagine a 5-7 season now? People here would slapping each other's back and giving bro hugs.

I don't think we would have a problem finding a coach. Any halfway decent coach that can give us a respectable season (in an admittedly difficult P12) will be seen as a success (at least for a few years).

I have a feeling that for years to come Dykes will be pointed to as a low point in the program and be used as perspective when we're back to winning seasons and complaining about not getting to the next level.

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.

---

Hear hear. I always found the "agenda" accusations silly and ironic.

freshfunk;842326823 said:

---

Hear hear. I always found the "agenda" accusations silly and ironic.

---

EVERYONE has an agenda.

Thats not true but i can see how people with an agenda will think that

Davidson;842326834 said:

---

Thats not true but i can see how people with an agenda will think that

---

My agenda includes a hot link from Top Dog.

NYCGOBEARS;842326835 said:

---

My agenda includes a hot link from Top Dog.

---

mine is grabbing a steak sandwich and watching the Germany match

:beer:

beeasyed;842326837 said:

---

mine is grabbing a steak sandwich and watching the Germany match

:beer:

---

Cheers Ed. :beer:

Do you have an idea of what "far better" equates to in wins? IMO, 3 or 4 wins would be far better if the losses are at least close; 3 or 4 wins with a bunch of 30 point losses, not so much.

59bear;842326937 said:

---

Do you have an idea of what "far better" equates to in wins? IMO, 3 or 4 wins would be far better if the losses are at least close; 3 or 4 wins with a bunch of 30 point losses, not so much.

---

Clock keeps ticking. We'll start learning and knowing soon enough.

MoragaBear;842326944 said:

---

they'll lose almost no players expected to contribute much this season.

---

Honestly for me this will be the best indicator. If they retain most of the guys who will have eligibility remaining I will be encouraged, because actions speak far louder than words and the players are the ones who know what's going on with the program, no bs, because they are the program. Another mass exodus and it will be hard for Dykes to ever recover imo and we will be set back for years to come, probably rebuilding in yet another new scheme with yet another staff and with very few high talent recruits. We need to win this year or next to turn up recruiting or we're in deep trouble.

MoragaBear;842326916 said:

---

Interesting that some of the biggest Tedford supporters are some of the biggest Dykes detractors. And some of the biggest Tedford critics are some of the most patient so far with Dykes.

One can define agenda however they prefer but there are strong undercurrents on both sides and if people continually posting in the same vein won't admit it or recogize it, most others certainly do, no matter how much some might protest..

No matter who the coach is, if I think the criticism is unfair, I'll speak up. I'm much less likely to shoot down some cockeyed optimist. I'll leave that to the skeptics.

I don't know yet if Dykes is the right coach for Cal. I have my doubts after last year. But there's no way I'll judge based on the one season of absurd circumstances he coached under.

Even though this team will still have tons of young starters, I think they'll have the necessary experience, skill and health level (based on spring's dramatically better health), not to mention defensive coaching, to have a far better season.

If they don't, he'll find it really rough going in Berkeley.

---

I have to challenge your position on agendas and undercurrents and point to your first paragraph to do it. Obviously I am one of those big Tedford supporters who are big Dykes detractors. I claimed my agenda is winning. I'd like to ask you how that is inconsistent with the positions I have taken.

Tedford took over a 1-10 team and posted a winning record his first year - I supported Tedford

Tedford won ten games - that had only happened at Cal once in my life - I supported Tedford.

Tedford won ten games a second time - no Cal coach had done that in my lifetime - I supported Tedford.

Tedford had 8 winning seasons in a row - never had happened in my lifetime - I supported Tedford.

Meanwhile some people were advocating firing him over having 7 or 8 win seasons. I disagreed. Cal had never fired a coach for that before, and had rarely had even that level of success. So yes, I supported Tedford.

In year 9, Tedford had his first losing season at 5-7. I wasn't happy. But we had gone 1-4 after losing our starting QB, and based on Tedford's history, I thought it was reasonable to see if he could get the mojo back.

In year 10, he eaked out a winning record - I supported him.

Then he went 3-9. I supported his firing.

So after several "firsts in my lifetime" accomplishments, I supported firing the coach for going 3-9.

Go further back. Maybe you don't remember I was a big fire Holmoe guy on Cyberbears. Actually, that is an understatement. I advocated very hard that he be fired. Basically my opinion went like this:

Hiring the DC of one of the worst defenses in the country was stupid.

Holmoe went 3-8 - I advocated he be fired.
Holmoe went 5-6 - I advocated he be fired.
Holmoe went 4-7 - I advocated he be fired.
Holmoe went 3-8 - I advocated he be fired.
Homloe went 1-10 - I advocated he be fired.

Four of those years were significantly better than last year. I was just as hard on Holmoe, maybe harder, then I have been on Dykes. There have been six seasons of better records where I advocated firing. No worse seasons where I did not advocate firing. So, basically, I'm being consistent in my criteria. Now on the flip side, it is flat out logically inconsistent to advocate firing a coach who has 5 wins, or 8 wins, and then support a coach who has 1 win and 9 blowouts. THAT indicates an agenda other than wins.

And let me be clear. I have no issue with cockeyed optimists. I love cockeyed optimists (as long as they don't affect decision making). What I take issue with is constant, repetitive, responses to any criticism whatsoever with the same, non-substantive and personal ridicule of posters. Respond with a cogent defense of Dykes - great. Constantly respond with "you are a dumbass who must not have gone to Cal. You belong at udub." - yeah, I don't think that encourages healthy discussion and debate, nor does it do Dykes any good. It frankly just makes people more ticked off, some of which probably unfairly spills over onto Dykes.

And I have to be honest. I struggle seeing the other side of this. Despite any belief that I have an agenda against Dykes, I never thought a year ago that anything could reasonably happen that would have me advocating firing Dykes. I would have been fine with 4-8, or 3-9 with maybe a few blowouts against good teams. But 1-11 with 9 blowouts - geez that just can't be excused. I could see how people can accept 8 of those games. I struggle with accepting the WSU game, but I can kinda get there. I can't see accepting the total beatdown by Stanford, ever, but at least they are good. How anyone can get past the Portland State and Colorado games, I just don't see.

You are choosing not to judge. I drastically disagree with that - I argued from the beginning that there are no free passes - but I understand it. I just don't see how it can be called unfair to judge based on those results.

grandmastapoop;842326555 said:

---

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.

---

I think you underestimate the influece of the academics at Cal

I know if one dean of one of Cal's most nationally prominent schools. He was livid with the FB program because if it's academic failings and he repeatedly let everyone know about his displeasure. He was not alone among the well respected academics on the Cal campus.

If JT had been taking Cal to a BCS bowl every year. He might have gotten a little more slack. But a losing record made him extremely vulnerable to his critics who wanted him gone because of his players poor academic performance.

I understood from someone with good inside contacts. That Sandy put the Fear Of God into Sonny. And told him he would be graded as much on academic performance as on athletic performance.

So believe what you will. But remember that in the eyes of the members of the Academic Senate, Cal is NOT Oregon or Washington or even UCLA. It insists On academic performance from all students --even the athletes.

If a cosh forgets that, soon he will be gone.

GivemTheAxe;842327037 said:

---

I think you underestimate the influece of the academics at Cal

I know if one dean of one of Cal's most nationally prominent schools. He was livid with the FB program because if it's academic failings and he repeatedly let everyone know about his displeasure. He was not alone among the well respected academics on the Cal campus.

If JT had been taking Cal to a BCS bowl every year. He might have gotten a little more slack. But a losing record made him extremely vulnerable to his critics who wanted him gone because of his players poor academic performance.

I understood from someone with good inside contacts. That Sandy put the Fear Of God into Sonny. And told him he would be graded as much on academic performance as on athletic performance.

So believe what you will. But remember that in the eyes of the members of the Academic Senate, Cal is NOT Oregon or Washington or even UCLA. It insists On academic performance from all students --even the athletes.

If a cosh forgets that, soon he will be gone.

---

No, I think you overstate it a bit. You are correct when you say, "But a losing record made him extremely vulnerable to his critics who wanted him gone because of his players poor academic performance."

This is exactly correct. I am sure there are SOME people who care deeply about this. But if Tedford had done as well in 2010-2012 as he had from 2004-2006, he would not have been vulnerable.

And if a coach ever wins nearly 30 games in 3 years here and gets fired because of academics, then we should drop football because (1) NO good coach would ever come here after seeing a coach get fired like that; (2) blaming a coach entirely for the academics is asinine - it's an institutional problem and should not be blamed on any one person.

OaktownBear;842326577 said:

---

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.

---

It is not just resources, a coach can set a tone within the team that academic performance is important. At first JT did that but later he slacked off on that. Why was Maynard still allowed to start when he should have been kicked off the team. Because JT thought Maynard gave Cal the best chance to win. Some parents of players told me that they did not believe that really JT cared about academics because he did not require his best players to toe the line.

CALiforniALUM;842326804 said:

---

Ok, I think we can say we agree. However, my point is that we don't know what happened (at least I don't). I leave open the possibility that the player was not forthright in either their intent or follow through to take the required classes. I also don't know whether the coaches dropped the ball either. So, in the end, it is all speculation until somebody with any sort of credibility can confirm or deny what really happened. I think too many people rush to judgement based on lack of evidence.

For the record, I also think there is a measure of risk with any recruit. To the extent that a player (Atoe) fills a really important team need (S), I think you can recruit them even if it will require additional effort on both the staff and student's part to stay in good academic standing. Atoe clearly wasn't an academic juggernaut, but if there is reasonable likelihood he can make it academically, then doubling down on the young man seems like a reasonable risk. I think we can have a few players on the team who will require more than your average support. Of course, that is not to say that we should be doing this across the board, a la Mr. Lupaid.

---

I'll give you this. I started to judge the staff based on the defense that was being made here. I shouldn't have as, like you say, I don't know what actually happened. And I probably seemed like I was really ticked at the staff, when my main issue here is not the staff, but the notion that any staff anywhere should bear no responsibility for their recruits not taking the right classes. That is just basic.

And, by the way, I very specifically have been saying "the staff", here, and not Dykes. There is a reason. I don't know if he has direct control over the staff that should perform this task. I absolutely do not believe that Cal football coaches historically have consistently gotten adequate support to manage the academic success of the team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoragaBear
they'll lose almost no players expected to contribute much this season.

---

OldBlue1999;842326998 said:

---

Honestly for me this will be the best indicator. If they retain most of the guys who will have eligibility remaining I will be encouraged, because actions speak far louder than words and the players are the ones who know what's going on with the program, no bs, because they are the program. Another mass exodus and it will be hard for Dykes to ever recover imo and we will be set back for years to come, probably rebuilding in yet another new scheme with yet another staff and with very few high talent recruits. We need to win this year or next to turn up recruiting or we're in deep trouble.

---

"lose [U]almost no[/U] players" "retain [U]most[/U] of the guys"

We will lose some players with eligibility remaining ... always have and it will happen again. It depends on the position. We're deep at RB and WR, but really not at any other position.
It would be nice if all the juniors stay for their senior year but that's probably not likely.

OaktownBear;842327036 said:

---

I have to challenge your position on agendas and undercurrents and point to your first paragraph to do it. Obviously I am one of those big Tedford supporters who are big Dykes detractors. I claimed my agenda is winning. I'd like to ask you how that is inconsistent with the positions I have taken.

Tedford took over a 1-10 team and posted a winning record his first year - I supported Tedford

Tedford won ten games - that had only happened at Cal once in my life - I supported Tedford.

Tedford won ten games a second time - no Cal coach had done that in my lifetime - I supported Tedford.

Tedford had 8 winning seasons in a row - never had happened in my lifetime - I supported Tedford.

Meanwhile some people were advocating firing him over having 7 or 8 win seasons. I disagreed. Cal had never fired a coach for that before, and had rarely had even that level of success. So yes, I supported Tedford.

In year 9, Tedford had his first losing season at 5-7. I wasn't happy. But we had gone 1-4 after losing our starting QB, and based on Tedford's history, I thought it was reasonable to see if he could get the mojo back.

In year 10, he eaked out a winning record - I supported him.

Then he went 3-9. I supported his firing.

So after several "firsts in my lifetime" accomplishments, I supported firing the coach for going 3-9.

Go further back. Maybe you don't remember I was a big fire Holmoe guy on Cyberbears. Actually, that is an understatement. I advocated very hard that he be fired. Basically my opinion went like this:

Hiring the DC of one of the worst defenses in the country was stupid.

Holmoe went 3-8 - I advocated he be fired.
Holmoe went 5-6 - I advocated he be fired.
Holmoe went 4-7 - I advocated he be fired.
Holmoe went 3-8 - I advocated he be fired.
Homloe went 1-10 - I advocated he be fired.

Four of those years were significantly better than last year. I was just as hard on Holmoe, maybe harder, then I have been on Dykes. There have been six seasons of better records where I advocated firing. No worse seasons where I did not advocate firing. So, basically, I'm being consistent in my criteria. Now on the flip side, it is flat out logically inconsistent to advocate firing a coach who has 5 wins, or 8 wins, and then support a coach who has 1 win and 9 blowouts. THAT indicates an agenda other than wins.

And let me be clear. I have no issue with cockeyed optimists. I love cockeyed optimists (as long as they don't affect decision making). What I take issue with is constant, repetitive, responses to any criticism whatsoever with the same, non-substantive and personal ridicule of posters. Respond with a cogent defense of Dykes - great. Constantly respond with "you are a dumbass who must not have gone to Cal. You belong at udub." - yeah, I don't think that encourages healthy discussion and debate, nor does it do Dykes any good. It frankly just makes people more ticked off, some of which probably unfairly spills over onto Dykes.

And I have to be honest. I struggle seeing the other side of this. Despite any belief that I have an agenda against Dykes, I never thought a year ago that anything could reasonably happen that would have me advocating firing Dykes. I would have been fine with 4-8, or 3-9 with maybe a few blowouts against good teams. But 1-11 with 9 blowouts - geez that just can't be excused. I could see how people can accept 8 of those games. I struggle with accepting the WSU game, but I can kinda get there. I can't see accepting the total beatdown by Stanford, ever, but at least they are good. How anyone can get past the Portland State and Colorado games, I just don't see.

You are choosing not to judge. I drastically disagree with that - I argued from the beginning that there are no free passes - but I understand it. I just don't see how it can be called unfair to judge based on those results.

---

So here is the issue as I see it with your position. You make a good argument based on a presumably factual and historical recounting of your support for and support against the coaching staff. However, you have some clear mission creep in your argument, because this thread was never about the wins and losses of the coaching staff. It was about student athletes and recruits who never set foot on campus. You clearly let your basis for evaluating the coaching staff (which was based on last year's 1-11 season) extend to the loss of two recruits due to academic qualification reasons, which was then spun into (not just by you) this is the coaching staff's fault. You even agree that you don't know the facts of what really happened with respect to these recruits (although you seem to have trouble accepting that the students could have any culpability in the situation). This thread has nothing to do with W/L records. You have clearly let your lack of support for the coaches, due to their W/L record, bias your view of this very specific recruiting situation. Examples like the above are what lead some others to believe there is an "agenda" being pushed that is not necessarily on the topic of the dozens of posts on this blog. I don't think there is a single poster on this site that is content with a 1-11 season. But to continually use the 1-11 result as a rationalization for EVERYTHING that goes on in our program doesn't really acknowledge the specific facts of each situation.

CALiforniALUM;842327062 said:

---

This thread has nothing to do with W/L records.

---

I think this thread has a lot to do with W/L records. If we were coming off a 10 win season where Dykes and Co. had righted the ship convincingly, everything would be different and nobody would be lamenting losing these guys. Odds are instead of guys we were really counting on to contribute they'd have been middle of the class type players, but I'll go a step further and say we probably wouldn't have lost them because we probably would never have recruited them. Wins earn deference and enable better recruiting. Losing means you have to take more chances from among the leftovers (for the most part) who will still consider you, with more scrutiny of new failures because there's a "pile on" effect with all your pre-existing failures. This off-season has been red flag after red flag, following a white flag of a season. People can choose to ignore all of that if they want, but it's the unfortunate reality. I hope like everyone that things improve, but objectively I don't expect it.

http://m.topix.net/city/pullman-wa/2014/06/wsu-football-recruiting-chandler-leniu-coming-to-pullman-afterall-per-report

Interesting. Shows that Lenui was indeed a qualifier and that at least in his case we are enforcing higher admission standards than qualifying.

moonpod;842327084 said:

---

http://m.topix.net/city/pullman-wa/2014/06/wsu-football-recruiting-chandler-leniu-coming-to-pullman-afterall-per-report

Interesting. Shows that Lenui was indeed a qualifier and that at least in his case we are enforcing higher admission standards than qualifying.

---

Perhaps he's an NCAA qualifier but not UC?

NYCGOBEARS;842327087 said:

---

Perhaps he's an NCAA qualifier but not UC?

---

I think that's correct, but can't confirm.

OldBlue1999;842327075 said:

---

I think this thread has a lot to do with W/L records. If we were coming off a 10 win season where Dykes and Co. had righted the ship convincingly, everything would be different and nobody would be lamenting losing these guys. Odds are instead of guys we were really counting on to contribute they'd have been middle of the class type players, but I'll go a step further and say we probably wouldn't have lost them because we probably would never have recruited them. Wins earn deference and enable better recruiting. Losing means you have to take more chances from among the leftovers (for the most part) who will still consider you, with more scrutiny of new failures because there's a "pile on" effect with all your pre-existing failures. This off-season has been red flag after red flag, following a white flag of a season. People can choose to ignore all of that if they want, but it's the unfortunate reality. I hope like everyone that things improve, but objectively I don't expect it.

---

You need to go back and read the first page of this thread. I'm not ignoring anything regarding the past, but I am also not accounting for "what ifs". You are certainly in your right to think that this staff needs to be replaced based on their on the field results, but to lay this recruiting situation at their feet alone without knowing all the facts, suggests you are not being objective. Your entire statement above is predicated on a "what if" statement and a bunch of hyperbole regarding how this should be perceived.

I read the whole thread before I posted. 1-11 is not a "what if." It happened. If you think that didn't impact recruiting then I don't know what to say to you.

I'm sorry, didn't Moraga say that Lenui dropped a UC-required class?

Either he really did change his mind and understood this was his way out, or he messed up and the media is just misinforming

EchoOfSilence;842327133 said:

---

I'm sorry, didn't Moraga say that Lenui dropped a UC-required class?

Either he really did change his mind and understood this was his way out, or he messed up and the media is just misinforming

---

Yes but there have been posters in the past that are fairly sure that in general we admit by NCAA not UC standards. I don't know the situation personally but if we admit to UC not NCAA standards I would have thought cases like Lenui would be a bit more common

OldBlue1999;842327075 said:

---

I think this thread has a lot to do with W/L records. [U]If we were coming off a 10 win season[/U] where Dykes and Co. had righted the ship convincingly, everything would be different and nobody would be lamenting losing these guys. Odds are instead of guys we were really counting on to contribute they'd have been middle of the class type players, but I'll go a step further and say we probably wouldn't have lost them because we probably would never have recruited them. Wins earn deference and enable better recruiting. Losing means you have to take more chances from among the leftovers (for the most part) who will still consider you, with more scrutiny of new failures because there's a "pile on" effect with all your pre-existing failures. This off-season has been red flag after red flag, following a white flag of a season. People can choose to ignore all of that if they want, but it's the unfortunate reality. I hope like everyone that things improve, but objectively I don't expect it.

---

OldBlue1999;842327131 said:

---

I read the whole thread before I posted. 1-11 is not a "what if." It happened. If you think that didn't impact recruiting then I don't know what to say to you.

---

LOL. You can't even read your own post. You didn't refer to a 1-11 season, you started off with if we were coming off a 10 win season. A 10 win season most definitely did not happen, which makes every other statement you follow it with rather irrelevant and speculative.

I still think you should go back and read the first page of this thread. Wins and losses were not part of the discussion, period. Are you suggesting that the 1-11 season led to the two recruits who committed to CAL to ultimately decide not to take the required classes?

CALiforniALUM;842327062 said:

---

So here is the issue as I see it with your position. You make a good argument based on a presumably factual and historical recounting of your support for and support against the coaching staff. However, you have some clear mission creep in your argument, because this thread was never about the wins and losses of the coaching staff. It was about student athletes and recruits who never set foot on campus. You clearly let your basis for evaluating the coaching staff (which was based on last year's 1-11 season) extend to the loss of two recruits due to academic qualification reasons, which was then spun into (not just by you) this is the coaching staff's fault. You even agree that you don't know the facts of what really happened with respect to these recruits (although you seem to have trouble accepting that the students could have any culpability in the situation). This thread has nothing to do with W/L records. You have clearly let your lack of support for the coaches, due to their W/L record, bias your view of this very specific recruiting situation. Examples like the above are what lead some others to believe there is an "agenda" being pushed that is not necessarily on the topic of the dozens of posts on this blog. I don't think there is a single poster on this site that is content with a 1-11 season. But to continually use the 1-11 result as a rationalization for EVERYTHING that goes on in our program doesn't really acknowledge the specific facts of each situation.

---

That is not what my position is. First of all, did you read my post? I specifically said I wasn't blaming Dykes in any case because I don't know if the staff in question is under his control. OP basically said "X happened so the coaches are at fault". Fans (who by the way have clearly let their SUPPORT for the coaches bias THEIR view of this very specific recruiting situation) responded to OP by saying, "No, X didn't happen. Y happened, so the coaches are not at fault." I said. "If Y happened, then most certainly the staff is at fault. I don't blame them if X happened but I do if Y happened." Yes, that is separate from wins. That is just a straight competence issue. If I was so influenced by wins and losses, I would have blamed this theoretical incompetence on Dykes. I did not.

The win/loss record discussion comes because there was what I feel was a passive-aggressive implication that I have an agenda in my lack of support for Dykes. I responded that my agenda was success. I felt there was a further passive-aggressive response that because I supported Tedford that the agenda was something else. So I pointed out that someone with an agenda of success may very well have supported Tedford when I did and not Dykes because when I supported Tedford he was successful and Dykes has not been. Two completely separate points.

You are taking other people's positions on the recruit issue, mixing them up with mine, and then adding that to a completely different point that may have sprung from the conversation, but was totally separate from that discussion.