I'm just curious what is being taught at the Haas business school about how to be successful.
I would think that successful people rarely focus on the results compared to the process of becoming successful.
Once you know what behaviors are necessary to become successful, you practice those until they become habits and you keep practicing them even if the results aren't always there.
The results don't determine how to be successful, they just provide feedback on how well you are practicing the process.

In sports the difference between process and results is even more confusing because the results are often relatively superficial. The concept of winning is an all or nothing concept that often does not truly refect how successful you are. In the real world, success is often a product of cooperation and does not even involve a loser. But in sports, where competition against an opponent is the arbitrary measure, there are no ways to have any middle ground between being a winner and a loser.

Unfortunately, despite the illusory nature of this arbitrary measure of winning and losing, many fans seem to really believe in it.

IOW, fans believe that there team (players, coaches etc.) are actually really winners or losers as people based on the often very fickle results that come with winning and losing.

What is lost on these fans is the process. A good example is the Chicago Cubs. A few years ago the Cubs got a new GM who committed to the process of building a winner. But it meant that the team was going to have to lose for a while to do that. One of the reasons why the Cubs have always been losers is because the culture in Chicago has never tollerated this process. The excuse has been that the fans have already endured enough losing and any more losing is just not acceptable. So, the whole losing history for the Cubs actually created the climate that prevented the club from building a winner from the ground up because folks were impatient with that process.

In short, in the world of sports, builiding a winner often times includes losing. And often doesn't even look like winning is going to happen. You have to have a certain level of sophistication to even be able to understand when a winner is truly being built. But, fanbases of teams with long losing histories often can't see the process because they are too focused on the history. Cal and the Chicago Cubs share this concept of a curse. The curse becomes so ever present that they can't see what is actually happening. They can't appreciate the ways that a winner is being built.

Cal has a chance to become a winner because they are creating something truly unique (a 2 QB system where the QBs sub in on consecutive downs or close to it and where one is a great passer and the other can pass and run). This coaching staff is the one that created that.

Also, the culture at Cal is changing so that the players themselves are selected and developed to become better teamates, committed to success in the classroom and on the field. And they are committed to each other, creating accountability where it wasn't before. Essentially success is a process of being committed to hard work and then recommitting to it when the results still aren't there. It is about persisting regardless of the results. And that is exactly what these players and coaches are doing.

Furthermore, these players and coaches seem willing to make changes when things don't work, an indication of a committment to working smarter as well as harder. Sometimes those changes take time to implement fully and that may upset some fans. The hiring of a good DC is an example of a change that took a year longer than it probably should have. But the change happened and the committment is there to do more changes if necessary.

For these reasons I am able to see Cal as a bunch of winners. The score on the scoreboard to me is relatively superficial but even the score will eventually reflect the winning process that Cal is engaged in. It just takes time. This timeline started one year ago and should not be a reflection of the decades of losing at Cal. This process is independent of the history that existed prior to it. Just as Cubs GM Epstein is not responsible for the century old history of losing in Chicago, Dykes is not responsible for the decades old history of losing at Cal. Each of these guys know what it takes to win and are engaged in that process.

There is a fine line between debating the process and how much it will lead to successful results and using the negative results as an excuse to criticize the process as unsuccessful. Too often the dominant narrative on this board is totally influenced by the results (win or lose). The presumption that Cal is great after a win and Cal is horrible after a loss detracts from what is otherwise an often elevated discussion.

I think one of the things that seems to be coming out in this "process" is that our coaches are in fact part of this "process". They are apparently learning on the fly as well. Vis a vis last year, our pre game and in week prep is light years better. We come out READY. But they seem WAAAYYY behind the curve with "in game" tactical change ups and half time adjustments. Hopefully this will cure itself soon, as we very apparently don't have the defensive depth in particular to keep playing this way, at least against the higher paced teams (Wazzu, quackies, dogs, maybe USC if they stick with it)

moonpod;842363850 said:

---

I think one of the things that seems to be coming out in this "process" is that our coaches are in fact part of this "process". They are apparently learning on the fly as well. Vis a vis last year, our pre game and in week prep is light years better. We come out READY. But they seem WAAAYYY behind the curve with "in game" tactical change ups and half time adjustments. Hopefully this will cure itself soon, as we very apparently don't have the defensive depth in particular to keep playing this way, at least against the higher paced teams (Wazzu, quackies, dogs, maybe USC if they stick with it)

---

I would agree.
I think we all have different levels of patience with the staff's learning curve. As long as they are learning and improving, I have patience. I lost patience with JT because, even when the same thing didn't work, running a draw on 3rd and long, he would continue to do it. As a fan, I felt like he was giving me the finger. I am not at that place yet with this group, however I sometimes feel that way with Franklin. I think Franklin may be arrogant enough, like JT, to not understand that our defensive woes are partly because of his offense.

heartofthebear;842363857 said:

---

I would agree.
I think we all have different levels of patience with the staff's learning curve. As long as they are learning and improving, I have patience. I lost patience with JT because, even when the same thing didn't work, running a draw on 3rd and long, he would continue to do it. As a fan, I felt like he was giving me the finger. I am not at that place yet with this group, however I sometimes feel that way with Franklin. I think Franklin may be arrogant enough, like JT, to not understand that our defensive woes are partly because of his offense.

---

VERY worrisome that possibility

Except for the 2-QB part, and change DC replacement to OC replacement, this exact same post could have been written in 1999.

Then, in 2002, a hungry relatively young and trim OC from Oregon came down and let us know that we fans didn't have to suffer through some "process" and put up with losing for the sake of future victories, and hang our hats on moral victories. He preached preparing his players, then putting them in a position to succeed.

Cal just spent $460M to play with the Big Boys of college football, but has regressed to a 1999 product. That is unacceptable. Cal has paid for a winning program. Tedford raised expectations. The Athletic Department chisels fans and squeezes revenue in every way it possibly can, overcommercializing the experience in ways that can only be tolerated if. Cal. wins. Real victories, not those feel-good moral types.

28-6 at the half shows that Cal has the players to compete in this league. 42-17 after the half shows that Cal doesn't have the coaches to compete in this league. Giving up 36 in the 4th quarter is NOT putting your players in a position to succeed. The players deserve better coaches. The donors deserve better coaches. The fans who have to put up with the overcommercialization of their Saturdays deserve better coaches. But yeah, let's wait another year or two to see if Dykes and Co. figure it out. Christ.

BearsWiin;842363864 said:

---

Except for the 2-QB part, and change DC replacement to OC replacement, this exact same post could have been written in 1999.

Then, in 2002, a hungry relatively young and trim OC from Oregon came down and let us know that we fans didn't have to suffer through some "process" and put up with losing for the sake of future victories, and hang our hats on moral victories. He preached preparing his players, then putting them in a position to succeed.

Cal just spent $460M to play with the Big Boys of college football, but has regressed to a 1999 product. That is unacceptable. Cal has paid for a winning program. Tedford raised expectations. The Athletic Department chisels fans and squeezes revenue in every way it possibly can, overcommercializing the experience in ways that can only be tolerated if. Cal. wins. Real victories, not those feel-good moral types.

28-6 at the half shows that Cal has the players to compete in this league. 42-17 after the half shows that Cal doesn't have the coaches to compete in this league. Giving up 36 in the 4th quarter is NOT putting your players in a position to succeed. The players deserve better coaches. The donors deserve better coaches. The fans who have to put up with the overcommercialization of their Saturdays deserve better coaches. But yeah, let's wait another year or two to see if Dykes and Co. figure it out. Christ.

---

28-6 at the half shows that Cal has the coaches to compete in this league. 42-17 after the half shows that Cal doesn't have the depth to compete in this league.

There, fixed it. just kidding, but I thought I'd post some black & white absurdity as well.

oski003;842363867 said:

---

28-6 at the half shows that Cal has the coaches to compete in this league. 42-17 after the half shows that Cal doesn't have the depth to compete in this league.

There, fixed it. just kidding, but I thought I'd post some black & white absurdity as well.

---

Except that our former HC, when he was young and hungry, showed us that you mask your deficiencies by changing your schemes when you have to. This is not the least talented team I've seen at Cal, or the slowest. Yet somehow it's the team that nearly gave the game away to a lousy Northwestern team three weeks ago, and let a mediocre Arizona team steal one last night with 36(!!!one!!) points in the 4th quarter. Oh, they were tired, Arizona ran 106 plays... Yeah, because we let them. But hang your hat on almost beating Arizona, just like apologists for Dykes used the close loss to Arizona last year as evidence that Cal was somehow making progress.

Christ, did the Holmoe years teach us nothing?

Your proving my point; those that are focusing on our history cannot see the process that is taking place, nor do they have patience when it is happening.

The second half problems can be solved once Franklin admits that a different type of offense needs to be used in the second half, an offense that can possess the ball for more than 2 minutes per drive on average. That is a small problem that you are globalizing into so many other things, including what we "deserve".

We are 2-1, with 1 close loss. If we had one more thing go right at the end we are 3-0. What do you want? What would it look like to get what you "deserve"?
Keep in mind that for a team to need 36 points to win, Cal has to be up by almost that much (approximations but you get the point).

I'm not an apologist and have been accused of the opposite. I'm just tired of folks who only focus on the results. What sort of process would you like to see undertaken by the coaches or different coaches?

We are 3 games in. Kaufman and Franklin are just understanding how to work their sides of the ball in complimentary ways. There is a learning curve involved in becoming successful. Even Nick Saban or Bill Walsh would be involved in a learning curve the first few years at Cal. It is not easy to win at Cal because most players actually have to go to class and study.

All sports have a process. Process is only useful if it yields results.

Theo Epstein won two world series so he is deserving of some time but it's running out. In three years he's finished last in the NL Central three times. So, he's won a few more games each year but he's not being paid that much to be the biggest midget in the circus. Next year, he has to get out of the cellar-process or not.

I will concede that Sonny is making progress but last year was such a train wreck that I'm not yet prepared to confuse noise with music. The team's arc in his tenure has gone from mediocre to abysmal and now is maybe swinging up...but to where...that's a question of wins.

Also I hate the curse analogy. Teams are cursed because of poor management not bad luck. Theo proved that once but that doesn't mean he can do it again. In college football, management is not just a coach but an administration and community that demands success. That has been Cal's curse.

heartofthebear;842363878 said:

---

Your proving my point; those that are focusing on our history cannot see the process that is taking place, nor do they have patience when it is happening.

The second half problems can be solved once Franklin admits that a different type of offense needs to be used in the second half, an offense that can possess the ball for more than 2 minutes per drive on average. That is a small problem that you are globalizing into so many other things, including what we "deserve".

We are 2-1, with 1 close loss. If we had one more thing go right at the end we are 3-0. What do you want? What would it look like to get what you "deserve"?
Keep in mind that for a team to need 36 points to win, Cal has to be up by almost that much (approximations but you get the point).

I'm not an apologist and have been accused of the opposite. I'm just tired of folks who only focus on the results. What sort of process would you like to see undertaken by the coaches or different coaches?

We are 3 games in. Kaufman and Franklin are just understanding how to work their sides of the ball in complimentary ways. There is a learning curve involved in becoming successful. Even Nick Saban or Bill Walsh would be involved in a learning curve the first few years at Cal. It is not easy to win at Cal because most players actually have to go to class and study.

---

Oh good, so what you're saying is that we've got an OC who does what he wants, and the HC can't rein him in? Then it's 2001 all over again, with Borges and Setencich clashing over personnel with Holmoe unable or unwilling to step in, be an HC, and exert his will in order to enforce cohesion and win games. Dykes doesn't pass the smell test. He didn't last year, and he doesn't this year. Your point about Franklin merely underscores Dykes' deficiencies as a leader.

We aren't three games in. We're fifteen games in with these guys, and, unbelievably, we're still somehow supposed to be happy with another close loss to a mediocre Arizona.

I was in favor of Holmoe staying a fifth year, because I once believed in this twaddle you call "process." I was cured of those misconceptions over the following years when we had a coach who expected to compete immediately, communicated that to his staff and players, then went out and did it. There's nothing more fiery and crusty than an ex-smoker, an ex-liberal, or an ex-"process" proponent. It really doesn't have to be this way, if you have the right guy. That's what makes the last two years so damn frustrating; we've got the wrong guy and so many are twisting themselves into knots trying to show that he is, because they hope he is.

GB54;842363881 said:

---

All sports have a process. Process is only useful if it yields results.

Theo Epstein won two world series so he is deserving of some time but it's running out. In three years he's finished last in the NL Central three times. So, he's won a few more games each year but he's not being paid that much to be the biggest midget in the circus. Next year, he has to get out of the cellar-process or not.

I will concede that Sonny is making progress but last year was such a train wreck that I'm not yet prepared to confuse noise with music. The team's arc in his tenure has gone from mediocre to abysmal and now is maybe swinging up...but to where...that's a question of wins.

Also I hate the curse analogy. Teams are cursed because of poor management not bad luck. Theo proved that once but that doesn't mean he can do it again. In college football, management is not just a coach but an administration and community that demands success. That has been Cal's curse.

---

Good points.
But in the process of yielding results sometimes there is a middle ground that has to be obtained between losing and winning. Unfortunately because of the way sports is structured we don't notice that nuance. That loss last night would never have happened last year. So even are losses indicate improvement yet many folks are upset as if nothing has changed. And that is truly a shame.

Also, Theo Epstein's Cubs will win next year. Have you been paying attention? The young core is playing winning baseball.

There is one part of Cal's process that concerns me. I believe that the over-emphasis on recruiting WRs leaves us lacking in DBs. And also that the high paced, quick scoring offense leaves our defense on the field too long. These are both things that Franklin could fix if he decides he wants to cooperate with the needs of Kaufman and put the team first.

I'm not sure that Franklin is a team player when it comes to his system. It seems that he has a lot of other processes at work that make success for him not necessarily success for Cal. That is my biggest concern.

Still, I feel that Cal is headed in the right direction with the type of kids they are now recruiting and my hope is the new AD, once hired, will exemplify the kind of winning process we all want for Cal long term.

The questions are: can Franklin get a feel for the needs of the team and the flow of the game, vs his over riding "system" and does Dykes have the gumption to override Franklin if needed, I feel that in some ways he may be too deferential to Franklin

i think art will let tony know whats up this week ... adjustments have to be made

going4roses;842363908 said:

---

i think art will let tony know whats up this week ... adjustments have to be made

---

art doesn't look like a guy that pulls punches. Would love to be a fly on the wall during the coaches meetings.

Preach it, BearsWiin.

Moon and roses: That is right on. Franklin will have to change with Kaufman around. And Dykes may have been deferential to Franklin initially but, with Kaufman in house and with the evidence mounting, I can't believe Franklin won't be challenged on how his offense does in the defense. The Arizona game is exhibit #1, but even the Northwestern game and last year's games speak to that problem as well.

Check out my new thread soon to be posted on the drive charts this year.

The Pac 12 network did a piece on Chris Peterson and I noticed he had John Wooden's book on a nearby bookshelf. Seems to me that would be required reading for any coach at any level. Wooden loved the practices and the preparation more than the games. He was never concerned about winning, but about playing up to your potential. I think this approach helps you perform at your best in high pressure situations without fear of failure.

BearsWiin;842363885 said:

---

Oh good, so what you're saying is that we've got an OC who does what he wants, and the HC can't rein him in? Then it's 2001 all over again, with Borges and Setencich clashing over personnel with Holmoe unable or unwilling to step in, be an HC, and exert his will in order to enforce cohesion and win games. Dykes doesn't pass the smell test. He didn't last year, and he doesn't this year. Your point about Franklin merely underscores Dykes' deficiencies as a leader.

We aren't three games in. We're fifteen games in with these guys, and, unbelievably, we're still somehow supposed to be happy with another close loss to a mediocre Arizona.

I was in favor of Holmoe staying a fifth year, because I once believed in this twaddle you call "process." I was cured of those misconceptions over the following years when we had a coach who expected to compete immediately, communicated that to his staff and players, then went out and did it. There's nothing more fiery and crusty than an ex-smoker, an ex-liberal, or an ex-"process" proponent. It really doesn't have to be this way, if you have the right guy. That's what makes the last two years so damn frustrating; we've got the wrong guy and so many are twisting themselves into knots trying to show that he is, because they hope he is.

---

Well said BW. Sooner, rather than later, we have to stop rationalizing our failures. Until we do that, we'll never be successful.

Then, once you get players the caliber of Kareem and Walton, you win championships. What a surprise.

Golden One;842364079 said:

---

Well said BW. Sooner, rather than later, we have to stop rationalizing our failures. Until we do that, we'll never be successful.

---

OK let's stop rationalizing. What process of becoming successful would like the coaches to undertake?

At the one year point they had already improved defensive coordinator, DB coach and strength and conditioning. They cleaned up the academics and generated an improved locker room.
They have improved play calling on offense.
The offensive line has improved
The running game has improved.
They are more competitive against legitimate competition.
They have a winning record and have a good shot at going 3-1 next week.
The QB play is light years ahead of what any sophmore QB has done since Longshore.
They have probably one of the best and most productive WR units in the country
The have made watching Cal football exciting again, even though it sometimes is heartbreaking.

So great Golden One, what is your advice to bring Cal football to the great era of success you suggest will happen once the "excuses" stop?

Let me guess. Fire and hire. Fire and hire. Fire and hire and repeat ad nauseum until we land a coach that gets lucky.

BearsWiin;842363870 said:

---

Except that our former HC, when he was young and hungry, showed us that you mask your deficiencies by changing your schemes when you have to. This is not the least talented team I've seen at Cal, or the slowest. Yet somehow it's the team that nearly gave the game away to a lousy Northwestern team three weeks ago, and let a [U]mediocre Arizona team[/U] steal one last night with 36(!!!one!!) points in the 4th quarter. Oh, they were tired, Arizona ran 106 plays... Yeah, because we let them. But hang your hat on almost beating Arizona, just like apologists for Dykes used the close loss to Arizona last year as evidence that Cal was somehow making progress.

Christ, did the Holmoe years teach us nothing?

---

Before yesterday, the last P12 team that played in Tucson was Oregon, ranked #5, and they lost, 42-16... Arizona is 12-5 over the last two seasons, they're not mediocre, they're a decent team.

I was extremely skeptical about Dykes after the first season but the last three games have changed my outlook.

Holy cow, the Bears are better than they were last year! I should hope so. Cal could be thrice as successful this year than last, and still have the record that got the last HC shitcanned.

Paul Hackett, Lane Kiffin, and Karl Dorrell were all fired after having winning records at their respective schools. UCLA fired Rick Neuheisel just before his Bruins played in the conference championship game. When you see that the guy you have isn't going to get you where you want to go, you get rid of him as quickly as you can, and try to find a better replacement. Dykes was a lousy replacement hire by an AD who is gone. Hopefully the next regime has a better search protocol. Maybe they can talk to Gladstone about what criteria he used to narrow his search in 2002; his short list was pretty good, IIRC. It's not a crapshoot if you know what you're doing.

(this is in response to hotb, not 88, who may not remember just how badly injured Mariota's knee was for that game)

pappysghost;842364073 said:

---

The Pac 12 network did a piece on Chris Peterson and I noticed he had John Wooden's book on a nearby bookshelf. Seems to me that would be required reading for any coach at any level. Wooden loved the practices and the preparation more than the games. He was never concerned about winning, but about playing up to your potential. I think this approach helps you perform at your best in high pressure situations without fear of failure.

---

John Wooden is a wonderful example of process and implementing his system. However, it seems that in today's world of sports John Wooden would never have been allowed to become John Wooden...too many fans and boosters would have forced ucla to make a coaching change before Wooden's system started yielding the desired results.

pappysghost;842364073 said:

---

The Pac 12 network did a piece on Chris Peterson and I noticed he had John Wooden's book on a nearby bookshelf. Seems to me that would be required reading for any coach at any level. Wooden loved the practices and the preparation more than the games. He was never concerned about winning, but about playing up to your potential. I think this approach helps you perform at your best in high pressure situations without fear of failure.

---

Wooden may not have been concerned about winning, but I think Sam Gilbert was.

BearsWiin;842364118 said:

---

Holy cow, the Bears are better than they were last year! I should hope so. Cal could be thrice as successful this year than last, and still have the record that got the last HC shitcanned.

Paul Hackett, Lane Kiffin, and Karl Dorrell were all fired after having winning records at their respective schools. UCLA fired Rick Neuheisel just before his Bruins played in the conference championship game. When you see that the guy you have isn't going to get you where you want to go, you get rid of him as quickly as you can, and try to find a better replacement. Dykes was a lousy replacement hire by an AD who is gone. Hopefully the next regime has a better search protocol. Maybe they can talk to Gladstone about what criteria he used to narrow his search in 2002; his short list was pretty good, IIRC. It's not a crapshoot if you know what you're doing.

(this is in response to hotb, not 88, who may not remember just how badly injured Mariota's knee was for that game)

---

It is appropriate to fire a coach when they are not meeting expectations and/or are refusing to change in order to improve. I refer you to my response to Golden One above and I would appreciate your response.
IOW, instead of complaining, what is your recommendation for Cal and the coaches at this point? Or are you going to let last year forever color your thinking on that?

And I would add to the list that they have underclassmen QBs already playing at a level close to the better QBs JT had under his entire tenure of tutelage at Cal. Folks are alreadt comparing Goff to Rodgers and he is barely into his Sophomore year.

Heart, give up. Bearswiin will never understand process and building a solid foundation in order to win and continue winning. He's still in love with the Tedford of 2001. He doesn't understand that ship has sailed and then sank to the bottom of the sea.

6bear6;842364179 said:

---

Heart, give up. Bearswiin will never understand process and building a solid foundation in order to win and continue winning. He's still in love with the Tedford of 2001. He doesn't understand that ship has sailed and then sank to the bottom of the sea.

---

Christ, you can't even get the years right.

We've seen this "process" before. FIfteen years ago we had talented players who were held back by their coaching staff. Any helpful suggestions for these guys today, like those guys then, will be futile.

BW, we haven't seen enough "process" this season, and the little we've seen indicates that the program has definitely improved. How much so, we will find out over the next few weeks. For now you shouldn't let the heartbreaking last second loss in a conference road game where we were two-digit underdogs cloud your judgment.

Personally I don't think Dykes is going to build a perennial BCS contender, but we're probably headed to an 8-win type program with a very exciting offense and decent student-athletes that goes bowling nearly every year. Probably enough to satisfy our fan base and pay the mortgage at Strawberry Canyon.

That's too low a ceiling for this program, IMO. We've spent far too much on the stadium and facilities to have a Sark-lite lead the Bears to mediocre, middle-Pac finishes.

I disagree that we can't use last year to assess "process" with Dykes and Co. I reject the notion that we should give the guy a mulligan for the worst season in Cal Football history.

Again, I advocated for a fifth year for Holmoe, for the same reasons that people now are supporting Dykes. I see how wrong I was, and how arguments about "process" can just as easily be frustrating and agonizing rationalizations for continued failure.

BearsWiin;842364197 said:

---

That's too low a ceiling for this program, IMO. We've spent far too much on the stadium and facilities to have a Sark-lite lead the Bears to mediocre, middle-Pac finishes.

I disagree that we can't use last year to assess "process" with Dykes and Co. I reject the notion that we should give the guy a mulligan for the worst season in Cal Football history.

Again, I advocated for a fifth year for Holmoe, for the same reasons that people now are supporting Dykes. I see how wrong I was, and how arguments about "process" can just as easily be frustrating and agonizing rationalizations for continued failure.

---

I don't understand how you equate Holmoe, who was surely incompetent, to an experienced head coach like Dykes? Dykes hasn't held the players back as you say Holmoe did. You have to give any new coach an opportunity to install his system. Holmoe had five years to do it, Dykes has had one and one fourth. Last year simply wasn't a fair test by any measure. We needn't go into all the things that happened in 2013, which amounted to a perfect storm of the worst things to befall a football team. Nick Saban and Urban Meyer would have had a tough time in 2013. If Dykes fails miserably this season I would say you have good grounds for your argument. It looks to me as though the man has his finger on what needs to be done and is doing it. It isn't perfect and so I agree with Heart that some change on the part of Tony Franklin is absolutely necessary. We need more coordination between offense and defense in the Fourth Quarter especially.

JT rasied the program up and stayed a bit too long to keep it viable... we are not going to pay anyone 3+ million to be HC at CAL .. agreed .. thus school had slim pickings..it is what it is

ballin and budget is what i would call it ...

6bear6;842364363 said:

---

I don't understand how you equate Holmoe, who was surely incompetent, to an experienced head coach like Dykes? Dykes hasn't held the players back as you say Holmoe did. You have to give any new coach an opportunity to install his system. Holmoe had five years to do it, Dykes has had one and one fourth. Last year simply wasn't a fair test by any measure. We needn't go into all the things that happened in 2013, which amounted to a perfect storm of the worst things to befall a football team. Nick Saban and Urban Meyer would have had a tough time in 2013. If Dykes fails miserably this season I would say you have good grounds for your argument. It looks to me as though the man has his finger on what needs to be done and is doing it. It isn't perfect and so I agree with Heart that some change on the part of Tony Franklin is absolutely necessary. We need more coordination between offense and defense in the Fourth Quarter especially.

---

I agree, it may be unfair to compare a coach who went 8-14 his first two years at Cal with Dykes who is currently 3-12 at Cal. A coach who took over after Gilby supposedly left the cupboard bare (a favorite topic on the old GoBears Digest), then Mooch bolted for the 49ers and recruits scattered in droves(!). Oh, poor Cal, stepping-stone program, not a destination, can't have good things, the new coach inherited a $h!t sandwich, how can we possibly expect him to win, blah blah. That incompetent will almost undoubtedly have a better record after two full years than Dykes. You're right, it's probably unfair, but to Holmoe.

Your Meyer/Saban quote makes me think that you underestimate the effect that a good HC has on a program. Nick Saban took over Michigan State in 1995 and posted a 6-5 record his first year there. MSU's record the year before? 0-11. Urban Meyer coached Bowling Green to an 8-3 record his first year there, after they went 2-9 the year before. His first year at Utah the Utes went 10-2 after going 5-6 the year before, so that's not quite pertinent to this conversation, but both coaches you cite actually took over programs in the toilet, programs with huge problems, programs that won rarely or not at all, and posted respectable records their first years there. As Oaktown has eloquently and patiently written over the last year, it takes a special talent to lose as spectacularly as Cal did last year. It can't all be excused away by perfect storm blather, unless you add poor coaching into that mix.

BearsWiin;842364418 said:

---

I agree, it may be unfair to compare a coach who went 8-14 his first two years at Cal with Dykes who is currently 3-12 at Cal. A coach who took over after Gilby supposedly left the cupboard bare (a favorite topic on the old GoBears Digest), then Mooch bolted for the 49ers and recruits scattered in droves(!). Oh, poor Cal, stepping-stone program, not a destination, can't have good things, the new coach inherited a $h!t sandwich, how can we possibly expect him to win, blah blah. That incompetent will almost undoubtedly have a better record after two full years than Dykes. You're right, it's probably unfair, but to Holmoe.

Your Meyer/Saban quote makes me think that you underestimate the effect that a good HC has on a program. Nick Saban took over Michigan State in 1995 and posted a 6-5 record his first year there. MSU's record the year before? 0-11. Urban Meyer coached Bowling Green to an 8-3 record his first year there, after they went 2-9 the year before. His first year at Utah the Utes went 10-2 after going 5-6 the year before, so that's not quite pertinent to this conversation, but both coaches you cite actually took over programs in the toilet, programs with huge problems, programs that won rarely or not at all, and posted respectable records their first years there. As Oaktown has eloquently and patiently written over the last year, it takes a special talent to lose as spectacularly as Cal did last year. It can't all be excused away by perfect storm blather, unless you add poor coaching into that mix.

---

Let's see: someone wrote that 2013 defensive starters missed a total of 90 games due to injury; we were the youngest team in the country; the most penalized in the Pac12; the toughest schedule in the Pac12; our only BYE was after the 12th game; we had a new system to install; we had a freshman starting at QB; we had walk-ons starting; it's universally accepted that Tedford left the cupboard bare of real talent; our former defensive coordinator was reminiscent of a member of Holmoe's staff; we had severe APR issues; players who failed to buy in to the system that Dykes was installing and were ultimately shown the door or suggested they apply to the League; and, I suppose there are other issues I am not aware of.

With all of the above, I wonder if Nick Saban or Urban Meyer faced the same hurdles at MSU or BG?

We agree that whining that Cal can't be as good as any other school is pure s**t. But stop living in the past. Holmoe was a mistake waiting to happen. A poor substitute for the man he followed (who also happened to recommend him). Those years are behind us. Tedford pulled some surprises his first few years, but when he received the big contract in 2007, he exhaled and the magic disappeared. Dykes is a good man. He has tried to get rid of the people who stand in the way of succeeding at Cal. He has tried to upgrade the program and bring excitement and winning back. Do you truly believe he doesn't want to win as badly as you? If so, you need to go into hiding and/or start rooting for some other school. It's obviously taken its toll on you.

6bear6;842364548 said:

---

Let's see: someone wrote that 2013 defensive starters missed a total of 90 games due to injury; we were the youngest team in the country; the most penalized in the Pac12; the toughest schedule in the Pac12; our only BYE was after the 12th game; we had a new system to install; we had a freshman starting at QB; we had walk-ons starting; it's universally accepted that Tedford left the cupboard bare of real talent; our former defensive coordinator was reminiscent of a member of Holmoe's staff; we had severe APR issues; players who failed to buy in to the system that Dykes was installing and were ultimately shown the door or suggested they apply to the League; and, I suppose there are other issues I am not aware of.

With all of the above, I wonder if Nick Saban or Urban Meyer faced the same hurdles at MSU or BG?

We agree that whining that Cal can't be as good as any other school is pure s**t. But stop living in the past. Holmoe was a mistake waiting to happen. A poor substitute for the man he followed (who also happened to recommend him). Those years are behind us. Tedford pulled some surprises his first few years, but when he received the big contract in 2007, he exhaled and the magic disappeared. Dykes is a good man. He has tried to get rid of the people who stand in the way of succeeding at Cal. He has tried to upgrade the program and bring excitement and winning back. Do you truly believe he doesn't want to win as badly as you? If so, you need to go into hiding and/or start rooting for some other school. It's obviously taken its toll on you.

---

I certainly think he wants to win. I don't think he has the ability: the leadership, the management skill, or the vision. While he seems to be a good gameplanner (early leads this year) he falls down in the ingame strategery department. But he's a good man, so we should let him try to figure out his job while Cal continues to find new and interesting ways to lose games.

I'm also not convinced that the rash of injuries last year wasn't at least in part a function of S&C and the manner in which practices were held. Injuries occur, but when that many injuries occur, there's likely a reason behind them. And that's a responsibility of the coaching staff.

I think I would agree with you BearsWin if Dykes was the same coach as he was last year. He may be the same man, but he is not the same coach. We are not giving him a mulligan for last year, we are recognizing that he has changed. For example, he runs practices differently to lessen injury risk.

Have you sought treatment for post traumatic stress disorder because you seem to be unable to be in the present without it triggering the past. You are not alone in comparing Dykes to Holmoe but personally I find it quite comical and I think so would players who have played for each one of them. For one thing, Holmoe was a good defensive coordinator but did not make sure to hire a good OC to handle that side of the ball. A similar mistake was made by Dykes last year if you flip the defense and offense. The difference is that Dykes realized his mistake almost immediately and improved his DC. As I recall, under Holmoe Cal was pretty dismal offensively for the entire duration.

I'm sorry that you feel so bad about your Holmoe mistake 20 years ago. Please get over it. I forgive you and I'm sure many others do as well.