I think Bob Bockrath got shafted. Wrong thread?

The Duke!;842329194 said:

---

This isn't true. Colorado got our reject, and he did a much better job with an even worse hand.

---

He was never going to be seriously considered because of San Jose State's APR.

Reality.

:gobears:

Isn't Sonny more a Moe than a Curly? #ClownShow

ayetee11;842329228 said:

---

No one good is going to want the position. You fire your coach that has the most wins in school history (justified), but lost control of the program. Hire a guy to change things around in 1 year and want him gone while dealing with dropouts, injuries, and youth?

YES Indeed.

Then expect someone to want to replace him when they themselves may only get one year to turn around the mess created from Tedford's last few years.

---

This is nonsense



so everyone else can hire a good coach in the Pac 12 save us???? Incredible...

We were able to find Snyder and Tedford and can get a good one again with a solid AD. As long as we don't do another stupid "progressive" style hire at AD.

Bobodeluxe;842329242 said:

---

He was never going to be seriously considered because of San Jose State's APR.

Reality.

:gobears:

---

That is on the AD over at SJSU just as it was on Barbour here. She could have hired more tutors instead of having a dozen flunkies as Asst and associate AD's.

Bobodeluxe;842329193 said:

---

The squad was bereft of talent.

Um, it is time for the story to leak out. NO ONE wanted the job.

No Cuanzo appeared at the last second.

:gobears:

---

It may very well be that no better D-1 HEAD coach wanted the job. So then you look at the assistant ranks which is where Cal's last 3 successful coaches came from. You don't hire a "proven" coach who is proven to be mediocre.

You need the players and talent to win. Dykes doesn't have the players and he's not getting them. The seat is getting hotter

Bobodeluxe;842329242 said:

---

He was never going to be seriously considered because of San Jose State's APR.

Reality.

:gobears:

---

He raised SJSU's APR from 930 to 981 during his tenure there. He was the person I wanted us to hire. He checked all the boxes to be our head coach.

He took a horrible program that had just won 2 games when he got there and they won 11 games his third season and a final ranking of 21. He prevented the program from being put on academic probation and left the program with a good APR standing (basically doing there, what had to be done at Cal). Before becoming a head coach, he was a very well respected DC at Duke (he was named FBS assistant coach of the year by the American Football Coaches Association). He also has multiple years of experience coaching DBs in the NFL. And obviously he had experience recruiting in California.

I can only guess that he may have bombed in the interview process. Because like I said before he checked all the boxes that I could think of. He also would have come with the added benefit that he only lost by 3 to eventual Rose Bowl champ Stanfurd. I know I would view a loss to them by 3 as a big improvement to recent Big Games.

btsktr;842329257 said:

---

He raised SJSU's APR from 930 to 981 during his tenure there. He was the person I wanted us to hire. He checked all the boxes to be our head coach.

He took a horrible program that had just won 2 games when he got there and they won 11 games his third season and a final ranking of 21. He prevented the program from being put on academic probation and left the program with a good APR standing (basically doing there, what had to be done at Cal). Before becoming a head coach, he was a very well respected DC at Duke (he was named FBS assistant coach of the year by the American Football Coaches Association). He also has multiple years of experience coaching DBs in the NFL. And obviously he had experience recruiting in California.

I can only guess that he may have bombed in the interview process. Because he like I said before he checked all the boxes that I could think of. He also would have come with the added benefit that he only lost by 3 to eventual Rose Bowl champ Stanfurd. I know I would view a loss to them by 3 as a big improvement to recent Big Games.

---

Maybe he got more cheese from the Buffs...I think it came down to $$ right? I think his bonus potential at CU was about 1.5 mill vs slightly over 300 k for SD at Cal.

DLSbear;842329266 said:

---

Maybe he got more cheese from the Buffs...I think it came down to $$ right? I think his bonus potential at CU was about 1.5 mill vs slightly over 300 k for SD at Cal.

---

Cal turned him down. CU didn't interview him till after we hired Dykes.

OaktownBear;842329146 said:

---

Situations exactly comparable. Everyone believed Tedford was inheriting a dung heap and if he coached them like Sonny they would still believe that to this day. Lousy coaching makes players look lousy. You may have an argument if he won 3 or 4, had a few more competitive games, and the team was fundamentally sound. No obstacle a coach faces can excuse 12 atrocious, undisciplined, lazy performances.

---

The situations were not comparable. Not even close. Tedford inherited a much better situation. The most important thing you inherit as a new coach is the returning veteran players. The record in the team's previous year is totally irrelevant, except in terms of the returning players' confidence. The previous bowl appearances, the academics, even the probation do not affect the program as much as the players you inherit. Who is this "everyone" who "believed" that Tedford inherited a dung heap from Holmoe?

Here is some of your "dung heap" that Tedford inherited from Holmoe:

Nnamdi Asomugha, 1st in PAC10 in INT TD's in 2000, and 2nd in 2002 and 2003 and future first round NFL pick.
Kyle Boller, future first round NFL pick
Tully Banta-Cain, 1st team All-Conference, long NFL career
Lorenzo Alexander, long NFL career.
Jemeel Powell, 2nd in PAC12 in career yards per punt return, and 2nd in INTs in 2002.
Geoff McArthur, 1st in PAC10 receiving yards, and 2nd in the NCAA in 2002, All-Conference (2004)
LaShaun Ward: First team All-Pac10 (2002), 3rd in PAC10 receiving, 1st in PAC10 kickoff returns, yards and TD's. Played 3 years in the NFL.
Joe Igber, 3rd in PAC10 rushing in 2002.
Terrell Williams, PAC10 All-Freshman team (2001)
James Bethea, 4th in PAC10 INTs (2002), 2nd in PAC10 kick returns and 1st in punt returns (2003)
Jordan Hunter, PAC10 All Freshman team (2001)
Tom Swoboda, caught 42 passes as a tight end in 2002
Tyler Fredericksen, first in the PAC10 and 4th in the NCAA in yards per punt (2001)
Scott Tercero, offensive line starter who went on to play in the NFL
Chris Murphy, offensive line starter under Tedford
Ryan Jones, offensive line starter under Tedford
Wendell Hunter, All-Conference (2004) played two seasons in the NFL

How many players that Dykes inherited from Tedford were better than the players in this dung heap?

First of all, Alexander and Banta-Cain were better than any defensive linemen Dykes inherited. Asomugha, Powell, and Bethea were better than any DB's Dykes inherited. Joe Igber was better than any running back left over from Tedford, and Terrell Williams probably was too. McArthur was a better receiver than anyone we had last year, and LaShaun Ward probably was just as good as the ones Dykes received from JT. None of the offensive linemen Dykes inherited were as good as Tercero. You might argue that the stable of QBs left over were better than Boller, but Boller had the long NFL career, so we'll see if Goff or Kline turn out to be better down the road. I would argue that Wendell Hunter was better than any linebacker Dykes inherited. You might argue that Leiniger is better than Fredericksen as a punter, but 4th in the NCAA for Tyler is not chopped liver. Rodgers was guy who never lived up to his press clippings, and I'd say Swoboda was just as good. Neither Tedford nor Dykes used Rodgers as much as I would have liked.

This is all my opinion, but it is hard to argue with all-conference selections and NFL players. Holmoe was not a good coach. He had trouble getting the right number of players on the field. But as a recruiter, he was damn good, and he left Tedford with a lot of talent. At least 28 players who played for Tom Holmoe in his 5 years at Cal went on to play in the NFL, including the ones above who went on to make the nucleus of Tedford's 2002 team. Some more of Holmoe's NFL players were Andre Carter, Nick Harris, Deltha O'Neal, Scott Fujita, Sekou Sanyika, Langston Walker, Jerry DeLoach, John McGlaughlin and many others.

So you can blame Dykes all you want for many things, and I agree with you on some of it, but there is no way the players he inherited can compare with the players inherited by Tedford from Tom Holmoe. And in my recollection, Tedford did not have to deal with near as many injuries in 2002 as plagued last year's Cal team. The combination of inheriting players with not much more than average talent, and then having so many of them suffer injuries was devastating.

GranadaHillsBear;842329255 said:

---

You need the players and talent to win. Dykes doesn't have the players and he's not getting them. The seat is getting hotter

---

Well, many of OUR seats are getting colder since we don't want to warm Memorial anymore to watch these melt downs and blowouts. How many of us have gone from rabid to rancid after even enduring those pre Holmoe sh*t teams?
I fear this is where it ends..once you take the "entertainment/having fun" factor out of watching Cal football, it is gone..You and I don't pay to sit in Memorial for that to begin with. Like someone said, why does Cal have to settle for the worst coach in the P12? We don't.

SFCityBear;842329271 said:

---

The situations were not comparable. Not even close. Tedford inherited a much better situation. The most important thing you inherit as a new coach is the returning veteran players. The record in the team's previous year is totally irrelevant, except in terms of the returning players' confidence. The previous bowl appearances, the academics, even the probation do not affect the program as much as the players you inherit. Who is this "everyone" who "believed" that Tedford inherited a dung heap from Holmoe?

Here is some of your "dung heap" that Tedford inherited from Holmoe:

Nnamdi Asomugha, 1st in PAC10 in INT TD's in 2000, and 2nd in 2002 and 2003 and future first round NFL pick.
Kyle Boller, future first round NFL pick
Tully Banta-Cain, 1st team All-Conference, long NFL career
Lorenzo Alexander, long NFL career.
Jemeel Powell, 2nd in PAC12 in career yards per punt return, and 2nd in INTs in 2002.
Geoff McArthur, 1st in PAC10 receiving yards, and 2nd in the NCAA in 2002, All-Conference (2004)
LaShaun Ward: First team All-Pac10 (2002), 3rd in PAC10 receiving, 1st in PAC10 kickoff returns, yards and TD's. Played 3 years in the NFL.
Joe Igber, 3rd in PAC10 rushing in 2002.
Terrell Williams, PAC10 All-Freshman team (2001)
James Bethea, 4th in PAC10 INTs (2002), 2nd in PAC10 kick returns and 1st in punt returns (2003)
Jordan Hunter, PAC10 All Freshman team (2001)
Tom Swoboda, caught 42 passes as a tight end in 2002
Tyler Fredericksen, first in the PAC10 and 4th in the NCAA in yards per punt (2001)
Scott Tercero, offensive line starter who went on to play in the NFL
Chris Murphy, offensive line starter under Tedford
Ryan Jones, offensive line starter under Tedford
Wendell Hunter, All-Conference (2004) played two seasons in the NFL

How many players that Dykes inherited from Tedford were better than the players in this dung heap?

First of all, Alexander and Banta-Cain were better than any defensive linemen Dykes inherited. Asomugha, Powell, and Bethea were better than any DB's Dykes inherited. Joe Igber was better than any running back left over from Tedford, and Terrell Williams probably was too. McArthur was a better receiver than anyone we had last year, and LaShaun Ward probably was just as good as the ones Dykes received from JT. None of the offensive linemen Dykes inherited were as good as Tercero. You might argue that the stable of QBs left over were better than Boller, but Boller had the long NFL career, so we'll see if Goff or Kline turn out to be better down the road. I would argue that Wendell Hunter was better than any linebacker Dykes inherited. You might argue that Leiniger is better than Fredericksen as a punter, but 4th in the NCAA for Tyler is not chopped liver. Rodgers was guy who never lived up to his press clippings, and I'd say Swoboda was just as good. Neither Tedford nor Dykes used Rodgers as much as I would have liked.

This is all my opinion, but it is hard to argue with all-conference selections and NFL players. Holmoe was not a good coach. He had trouble getting the right number of players on the field. But as a recruiter, he was damn good, and he left Tedford with a lot of talent. At least 28 players who played for Tom Holmoe in his 5 years at Cal went on to play in the NFL, including the ones above who went on to make the nucleus of Tedford's 2002 team. Some more of Holmoe's NFL players were Andre Carter, Nick Harris, Deltha O'Neal, Scott Fujita, Sekou Sanyika, Langston Walker, Jerry DeLoach, John McGlaughlin and many others.

So you can blame Dykes all you want for many things, and I agree with you on some of it, but there is no way the players he inherited can compare with the players inherited by Tedford from Tom Holmoe. And in my recollection, Tedford did not have to deal with near as many injuries in 2002 as plagued last year's Cal team. The combination of inheriting players with not much more than average talent, and then having so many of them suffer injuries was devastating.

---

Tedford turned a 1-11 team into a bowl eligible team. Basically the same players holmoe had so what was the difference? Coaching. Dykes turned a 4-7 team into a 0-11 team with basically the same team Tedford had. What was the difference? Coaching. I'm not saying we had loads of talent or that Tedford left the cupboards full but we had enough there to win a couple games. Of note is that there were 6 or so nfl players on the team and most of them were barely used or used wrong. Our 3rd round pick tight end whose getting good reviews in the nfl was used as a fullback lol. The game I knew dykes was awful was the wsu game. We had a definite talent advantage with or without injuries, it was homecoming, desperately needed that win and it was at home. Blown out. Dykes looked completely lost and withdrawn with his arms folded a la holmoe. Even through all that, I woulda felt better about the future if I actually saw improvement during the year which shows he's teaching concepts. Nope. Goff actually looked like he peaked or regressed as the season went on which is incredibly disheartening since he is like the only hope especially since we have no running back plays that work. As to blaming injuries, no coach worth anything will blame that. Oh wait dykes has. We still should have won at least a game last year

I have my doubts about Sonny but I want him to win so I'm not going to slam him too much.

I will say this however...Sonny should have been able to beat one (1) D1 team last season. A decent coach would have figured out the lay of the land, how messed up things were and would have plotted a single game plan against a crappy opponent to win ONE more game, i.e., bone up, load up and run through the wall. Looking back that game would have been against Arizona at CMS. Tedford did this against Furd in '09 in the Big Game.

SFCity is right that overall there were more solid players on the team inherited by Tedford. But Tedford coached up these guys. Three more years of Holmoe and few would have made the NFL. Take Boller. He was off the NFL radar until Tedford. Holmoe did nothing substantive to get Boller to the NFL. Well, I'd like to ask Boller what he thinks.

SFCityBear;842329271 said:

---

The situations were not comparable. Not even close.

---

You clearly don't understand the concept of comparison. If things are exactly the same, you can't compare them. They need to be at least a little different to be comparable.

Tedford had some advantages over Sonny. And Sonny had a lot of advantages over Tedford. But they both inherited Cal programs coming off terrible seasons. Of course you can compare them. If you can't compare these two situations, then you can't compare anything.

Did you go to Cal?

Snyder had been a head coach (Utah St.) before going to the Rams as an assistant.

btsktr;842329257 said:

---

He raised SJSU's APR from 930 to 981 during his tenure there. He was the person I wanted us to hire. He checked all the boxes to be our head coach.

He took a horrible program that had just won 2 games when he got there and they won 11 games his third season and a final ranking of 21. He prevented the program from being put on academic probation and left the program with a good APR standing (basically doing there, what had to be done at Cal). Before becoming a head coach, he was a very well respected DC at Duke (he was named FBS assistant coach of the year by the American Football Coaches Association). He also has multiple years of experience coaching DBs in the NFL. And obviously he had experience recruiting in California.

I can only guess that he may have bombed in the interview process. Because he like I said before he checked all the boxes that I could think of. He also would have come with the added benefit that he only lost by 3 to eventual Rose Bowl champ Stanfurd. I know I would view a loss to them by 3 as a big improvement to recent Big Games.

---

FWIW, I floated MM's credentials on this board at the time, pretty much citing what you just cited. I'm guessing about 40% of the respondants agreed that he might be a great candidate, while about 60% said no way. When Dykes got the hire, I absolutely did NOT see why he was supposed to have been a better candidate than MacIntyre. Then, Sandy talked him up, explaining how great he was in the interviews.

I guess what's more important, though, is that there WEREN'T many noticeably superior candidates that we could have hired, so those that criticize SB for hiring Dykes: What would you have done? I know, I know, FIND A WAY to lure Petersen from Boise St.

btsktr;842329257 said:

---

He raised SJSU's APR from 930 to 981 during his tenure there. He was the person I wanted us to hire. He checked all the boxes to be our head coach.

He took a horrible program that had just won 2 games when he got there and they won 11 games his third season and a final ranking of 21. He prevented the program from being put on academic probation and left the program with a good APR standing (basically doing there, what had to be done at Cal). Before becoming a head coach, he was a very well respected DC at Duke (he was named FBS assistant coach of the year by the American Football Coaches Association). He also has multiple years of experience coaching DBs in the NFL. And obviously he had experience recruiting in California.

I can only guess that he may have bombed in the interview process. Because like I said before he checked all the boxes that I could think of. He also would have come with the added benefit that he only lost by 3 to eventual Rose Bowl champ Stanfurd. I know I would view a loss to them by 3 as a big improvement to recent Big Games.

---

He and his assistants also had stronger recruiting ties to the west coast: multiple years building up relationships with California high school coaches, multi-year connections to local 2013 prospects, as well as several years scouting the 2014 and 2015 classes. McIntyre and his hypothetical staff could have hit the ground running in recruiting, but since I'm arguing from a counter-factual...

Bobodeluxe;842329242 said:

---

He was never going to be seriously considered because of San Jose State's APR.

Reality.

:gobears:

---

Aren't you just making stuff up now because it fits into the order of your universe?

Big C_Cal;842329331 said:

---

FWIW, I floated MM's credentials on this board at the time, pretty much citing what you just cited. I'm guessing about 40% of the respondants agreed that he might be a great candidate, while about 60% said no way. When Dykes got the hire, I absolutely did NOT see why he was supposed to have been a better candidate than MacIntyre. Then, Sandy talked him up, explaining how great he was in the interviews.

I guess what's more important, though, is that there WEREN'T many noticeably superior candidates that we could have hired, so those that criticize SB for hiring Dykes: What would you have done? I know, I know, FIND A WAY to lure Petersen from Boise St.

---

But look at the basketball search. If rumors are to be believed she was ready to hire an assistant on staff with no head coaching experience when Cuonzo suddenly appeared. I think there were a number of coordinators at the NFL level or in college who could have been better options. I don't think this AD networked that well within her major field of concern- mens football and basketball; nor does she have apparent expertise in these sports.

SFCityBear;842329271 said:

---

The situations were not comparable. Not even close. Tedford inherited a much better situation. The most important thing you inherit as a new coach is the returning veteran players. The record in the team's previous year is totally irrelevant, except in terms of the returning players' confidence. The previous bowl appearances, the academics, even the probation do not affect the program as much as the players you inherit. Who is this "everyone" who "believed" that Tedford inherited a dung heap from Holmoe?

Here is some of your "dung heap" that Tedford inherited from Holmoe:

Nnamdi Asomugha, 1st in PAC10 in INT TD's in 2000, and 2nd in 2002 and 2003 and future first round NFL pick.
Kyle Boller, future first round NFL pick
Tully Banta-Cain, 1st team All-Conference, long NFL career
Lorenzo Alexander, long NFL career.
Jemeel Powell, 2nd in PAC12 in career yards per punt return, and 2nd in INTs in 2002.
Geoff McArthur, 1st in PAC10 receiving yards, and 2nd in the NCAA in 2002, All-Conference (2004)
LaShaun Ward: First team All-Pac10 (2002), 3rd in PAC10 receiving, 1st in PAC10 kickoff returns, yards and TD's. Played 3 years in the NFL.
Joe Igber, 3rd in PAC10 rushing in 2002.
Terrell Williams, PAC10 All-Freshman team (2001)
James Bethea, 4th in PAC10 INTs (2002), 2nd in PAC10 kick returns and 1st in punt returns (2003)
Jordan Hunter, PAC10 All Freshman team (2001)
Tom Swoboda, caught 42 passes as a tight end in 2002
Tyler Fredericksen, first in the PAC10 and 4th in the NCAA in yards per punt (2001)
Scott Tercero, offensive line starter who went on to play in the NFL
Chris Murphy, offensive line starter under Tedford
Ryan Jones, offensive line starter under Tedford
Wendell Hunter, All-Conference (2004) played two seasons in the NFL

How many players that Dykes inherited from Tedford were better than the players in this dung heap?

First of all, Alexander and Banta-Cain were better than any defensive linemen Dykes inherited. Asomugha, Powell, and Bethea were better than any DB's Dykes inherited. Joe Igber was better than any running back left over from Tedford, and Terrell Williams probably was too. McArthur was a better receiver than anyone we had last year, and LaShaun Ward probably was just as good as the ones Dykes received from JT. None of the offensive linemen Dykes inherited were as good as Tercero. You might argue that the stable of QBs left over were better than Boller, but Boller had the long NFL career, so we'll see if Goff or Kline turn out to be better down the road. I would argue that Wendell Hunter was better than any linebacker Dykes inherited. You might argue that Leiniger is better than Fredericksen as a punter, but 4th in the NCAA for Tyler is not chopped liver. Rodgers was guy who never lived up to his press clippings, and I'd say Swoboda was just as good. Neither Tedford nor Dykes used Rodgers as much as I would have liked.

This is all my opinion, but it is hard to argue with all-conference selections and NFL players. Holmoe was not a good coach. He had trouble getting the right number of players on the field. But as a recruiter, he was damn good, and he left Tedford with a lot of talent. At least 28 players who played for Tom Holmoe in his 5 years at Cal went on to play in the NFL, including the ones above who went on to make the nucleus of Tedford's 2002 team. Some more of Holmoe's NFL players were Andre Carter, Nick Harris, Deltha O'Neal, Scott Fujita, Sekou Sanyika, Langston Walker, Jerry DeLoach, John McGlaughlin and many others.

So you can blame Dykes all you want for many things, and I agree with you on some of it, but there is no way the players he inherited can compare with the players inherited by Tedford from Tom Holmoe. And in my recollection, Tedford did not have to deal with near as many injuries in 2002 as plagued last year's Cal team. The combination of inheriting players with not much more than average talent, and then having so many of them suffer injuries was devastating.

---

First of all, your list is riddled with inaccuracy. For instance, I don't know how Asomugha managed to be second in the Pac-10 in interceptions in 2003 while he was playing for the Raiders, but he had 1 inteception in 2000, 3 in 2001, and 3 in 2002.

Another example - Terrell Williams never did anything under Tedford. He barely played. As for running backs, Tedford would have been ecstatic to have Lasco and Muhammed in 2002. They have much higher potential than the runningbacks Tedford inherited - what the coach does with them is another issue.

By the end you seem to just be listing Holmoe guys that started under Tedford. Well, I can do that with Tedford guys that started last year. It is pointless. Somebody has to start. I think it is extremely funny that you list OL's who were crashingly bad as a unit until Tedford got here.

You also (as is your common practice) misrepresent what I said. I didn't say they were a dung heap. They weren't. I was actually one of the few at the time who said that Tedford had enough talent to show some improvement and I expected him to do so. I said that people BELIEVED at the time they were. That is flat out true. People wanted Boller benched. People said they didn't care if players left because they all sucked. People laughed when we got the bowl ban because of its supposed irrelevance. Not just a couple people. Most people. I argued, as I am now, that they were being unfair to the players because coaching made them look bad. I was right then. I believe I'm right today.

How do you know, for instance, that we don't have a Wendell Hunter on the roster among guys like Nickerson and Jefferson? We didn't know that Wendell Hunter was going to step up when Tedford was hired. You are assuming it because you haven't seen it.

Your whole post misses the point entirely. My point is that those were good players who demonstrated they were good players once the lousy coach left and Tedford came in. So your stating how awesome they all became after Tedford coached them really does nothing but bolster my point. My point is that we have many good players on the roster today who would demonstrate it if they had a good coach. The reason people think they suck is that their performance sucked. The reason their performance sucked is, like under Holmoe, they had a lousy coach.

We got blown out by Colorado - one of the worst teams in major college football. We barely beat Portland State. If nothing else, those results - coupled with no positive results to counter them - should demonstrate to anyone that we were performing way below our talent level even if you think our talent sucks. No way our talent was that bad.

59bear;842329322 said:

---

Snyder had been a head coach (Utah St.) before going to the Rams as an assistant.

---

I know that, but it doesn't really change where he was in the coaching market when we hired him.

Big C_Cal;842329331 said:

---

FWIW, I floated MM's credentials on this board at the time, pretty much citing what you just cited. I'm guessing about 40% of the respondants agreed that he might be a great candidate, while about 60% said no way. When Dykes got the hire, I absolutely did NOT see why he was supposed to have been a better candidate than MacIntyre. Then, Sandy talked him up, explaining how great he was in the interviews.

I guess what's more important, though, is that there WEREN'T many noticeably superior candidates that we could have hired, so those that criticize SB for hiring Dykes: What would you have done? I know, I know, FIND A WAY to lure Petersen from Boise St.

---

1. Part of the job of the AD is to attract good candidates. You wouldn't say about a football coach - well he took a bunch of 2 stars, but that is all he could get.

2. I have said Sandy's approach was overly conservative and just flat out wrong. You pay a premium to get an existing head coach because he is supposedly a known quantity. The only point in paying that premium is if he is a known GOOD quantity. If you can't get that, why pay the premium. So I would have taken my run at Petersen, and then, assuming no other similar candidate made an appearance, gone after a top assistant. In terms of profile on paper, I actually would have preferred Franklin to Dykes, though for other reasons that is not a choice I would have made either. But Franklin has won 10 games at some level and he coached the top offense. I don't see why you pay a premium for a guy who has never won 10 games in his life. Take a riskier move on a candidate that is not a name but is ready to make the jump. Not saying it would have worked (though based on laws of possibility, I will say it would have worked better than what we did). But you take a shot at catching a rising star. I don't know enough about the assistant ranks to know who that guy would be, but it would be somebody like Tedford in 2002 or like Spurrier when we interviewed him in 1987.

The Duke!;842329085 said:

---

Tedford inherited a similar situation in 2002, except the record was worse and the team was already on NCAA academic-related sanctions. But he didn't struggle to eek out a single win vs. Portland State.

Good coaches can turn things around quickly in the Pac. But bad coaches can screw things up quickly.

I agree that it is bowl or bust time.

---

+1

OaktownBear;842329379 said:

---

1. Part of the job of the AD is to attract good candidates. You wouldn't say about a football coach - well he took a bunch of 2 stars, but that is all he could get.

2. I have said Sandy's approach was overly conservative and just flat out wrong. You pay a premium to get an existing head coach because he is supposedly a known quantity. The only point in paying that premium is if he is a known GOOD quantity. If you can't get that, why pay the premium. So I would have taken my run at Petersen, and then, assuming no other similar candidate made an appearance, gone after a top assistant. In terms of profile on paper, I actually would have preferred Franklin to Dykes, though for other reasons that is not a choice I would have made either. But Franklin has won 10 games at some level and he coached the top offense. I don't see why you pay a premium for a guy who has never won 10 games in his life. Take a riskier move on a candidate that is not a name but is ready to make the jump. Not saying it would have worked (though based on laws of possibility, I will say it would have worked better than what we did). But you take a shot at catching a rising star. I don't know enough about the assistant ranks to know who that guy would be, but it would be somebody like Tedford in 2002 or like Spurrier when we interviewed him in 1987.

---

That's why I mentioned that MM was very highly regarded while DC at Duke. Before he was hired at SJSU he was the type of assistant you are describing. His last season at SJSU he won 10 games (he didn't coach the bowl game) and his only losses were to Stanfurd by 3 and Utah St. who was ranked # 16 at seasons end. He almost beat eventual Rose Bowl champ Stanfurd with a bunch of 2 stars and we have come that close in years with 3 stars and higher. People also need to remember that football was such an embarrassment to SJSU because of both their record and APR standing that there was serious consideration about whether they should drop it.

I am not saying that I know that MM is going to be a great coach but the fact that he never really seemed to be a serious contender blows my mind. Obviously, I too would have wanted Petersen if we were able to pull that off. But if not I thought that MM was the best of the more realistic candidates because what he did at SJSU was to me a minor miracle.

btsktr;842329408 said:

---

That's why I mentioned that MM was very highly regarded while DC at Duke. Before he was hired at SJSU he was the type of assistant you are describing. His last season at SJSU he won 10 games (he didn't coach the bowl game) and his only losses were to Stanfurd by 3 and Utah St. who was ranked # 16 at seasons end. He almost beat eventual Rose Bowl champ Stanfurd with a bunch of 2 stars and we have come that close in years with 3 stars and higher. People also need to remember that football was such an embarrassment to SJSU because of both their record and APR standing that there was serious consideration about whether they should drop it.

I am not saying that I know that MM is going to be a great coach but the fact that he never really seemed to be a serious contender blows my mind. Obviously, I too would have wanted Petersen if we were able to pull that off. But if not I thought that MM was the best of the more realistic candidates because what he did at SJSU was to me a minor miracle.

---

He has the profile of somebody I would have made a candidate. Did they have to pick him in my eyes - no. Could be reasons he just didn't see right, but I would have expected a 10 win coach or an assistant. That being said, what is disturbing with the MM thing is how there was a lot of word out that he was not a candidate because of academics and that has been used many times since as a reason he was not a viable candidate. I didn't look at his record at the time and took it at face value, but now seeing his record that seems to be a poor assertion.

Tedhead94;842329360 said:

---

Aren't you just making stuff up now because it fits into the order of your universe?

---

Bozo has a lot of company in the lying department.

http://www.amazon.com/935-Lies-Decline-America%C2%92s-Integrity/dp/1610391179

OaktownBear;842329379 said:

---

1. Part of the job of the AD is to attract good candidates. You wouldn't say about a football coach - well he took a bunch of 2 stars, but that is all he could get.

2. I have said Sandy's approach was overly conservative and just flat out wrong. You pay a premium to get an existing head coach because he is supposedly a known quantity. The only point in paying that premium is if he is a known GOOD quantity. If you can't get that, why pay the premium. So I would have taken my run at Petersen, and then, assuming no other similar candidate made an appearance, gone after a top assistant. In terms of profile on paper, I actually would have preferred Franklin to Dykes, though for other reasons that is not a choice I would have made either. But Franklin has won 10 games at some level and he coached the top offense. I don't see why you pay a premium for a guy who has never won 10 games in his life. Take a riskier move on a candidate that is not a name but is ready to make the jump. Not saying it would have worked (though based on laws of possibility, I will say it would have worked better than what we did). But you take a shot at catching a rising star. I don't know enough about the assistant ranks to know who that guy would be, but it would be somebody like Tedford in 2002 or like Spurrier when we interviewed him in 1987.

---

Trying to "catch a rising star" (no HC experience) might be the way to go, but it might not. What I mean is, if one hires a candidate who has never been an HC and he doesn't work out, everybody second-guesses the hire by saying one important criteria is having had that job before.

I don't know if there is any data available that predicts success rate for these positions based on resume, but it would be interesting to see, especially if all the variables could be accounted for, to some extent.

Anyway, I would have gone with MacIntyre. Or, as you alluded to, I should have been so clued into the situation that I could have found a rising star. Crap, if I've just conceded my original point, then so be it.

Despite different topics / threads over the past few months, it's essentially the same discussion over and over again.

If we don't end September with more wins than losses and zero blow-outs (us on the bad side) against that competition, SD will have once again left us with little hope to expect better.

Last Fall, during the first few games, I felt like I was one of the few supporting SD and this staff, even the D. I said that I'd change my tune though if I didn't see improvement in the form of various stats, and even spelled out what I'd like to see, comparing the the first 4 games to the next 4, and then to the last. No improvement of note, in some respects it got worse. The season, the worst in Cal's history was punctuated with the worst loss in BG history.

That is on SD and whoever hired him.

I was one those people giving the benefit of the doubt. That's been done, for me. A sliver of hope that things are on the right track is not asking much, yet that was not satisfied. I spoke of the perfect storm of youth, inquiries, new staff and forgot what else. Those are realities I explained, not just excuses. I still believe that today. However, over the course of months, solid coaching begins to reveal itself in some form. Not evident.

How was Cal's recruiting the 3 4 years before SD? Not the worst in the conference or the nation, that's for sure. Certainly not the worst in our history. By most accounts in the top half the Pac-12, maybe even the top third.

The injury bug was horrendous, on D primarily. UCLA had a ton also.

Someone earlier mentioned Coach Mac, now with the Buffs. Sure, they weren't very good last year, but better than 2012, which is more than we can say. Also, and more importantly, I feel, both their O and D improved from a ppg perspective from 2012. Not for us. And of course they whipped us head-to-head. They did so with a freshman QB the last 1/2 of the year and gave up the fewest sacks in the conference per pass attempt. Their recruit rankings the previous years were not nearly as highly regarded as ours. Those could be excuses or reasons too, but the Buffs don't have to go there. There is reason for some hope in Boulder, which is what I was wanting to see over the course of our 2013 season.

Until the TFS can show that it can be prolific where it counts, on the scoreboard (POINTS), it's not proven at this level, and with that, we shouldn't expect to see recruiting to pick-up, and rightly so. For major talent, those with professional aspirations, particularly on O, this is seemingly not the system to get them ready for the next level. We lost some good kids just for that reason. It's not the Cal they remember and what they signed-up for. As a fan, I feel the same way.

With SB no longer the AD, and one of the better ones we've had, the writing is on the wall. Deliver and now, or at least by the end of September, because it gets no easier after that

Just curious ... When was the last time we beat a team we weren't expected to beat - on the road?

txwharfrat;842329645 said:

---

Just curious ... When was the last time we beat a team we weren't expected to beat - on the road?

---

Oregon '07?

HaasBear04;842329668 said:

---

Oregon '07?

---

Stanfurd in 2009?

tydog;842329669 said:

---

Stanfurd in 2009?

---

yes of course...

tydog;842329669 said:

---

Stanfurd in 2009?

---

well damn... its F ing 2014 truly ridiculous to not be a football program clearly trending up


that was a hella of game luck is still throwing them picks lol

remember the CAL crowd being soooo much louder than the home fans..priceless

that was too long ago ... i hope team has gotten tired of losing ..play as 1