Bottom line this is either a 7+ win season or the Sonny's last one. There's really no excuse for at least mediocre success this year.

BeachyBear;842501319 said:

---

Bottom line this is either a 7+ win season or the Sonny's last one. There's really no excuse for at least mediocre success this year.

---

+1

and no extensions even if he does win 7.

HuntingtonBear;842501322 said:

---

+1

and no extensions even if he does win 7.

---

Nah, I'd support an extension for 7. Just not a lifetime one a la Tedford. I've been a pumper for Sonny and happy with the progress so far. As long as it continues. I see no reason to withhold support for him and the program in the meantime, can take up the issue at the end of the season.

7 wins with this schedule .. we better pay them ... if nothing else cost of living bump to or something

you dont think another school will pay peeler MORE ? keep being a fool

BeachyBear;842501337 said:

---

Nah, I'd support an extension for 7. Just not a lifetime one a la Tedford. I've been a pumper for Sonny and happy with the progress so far. As long as it continues. I see no reason to withhold support for him and the program in the meantime, can take up the issue at the end of the season.

---

7-win bar with the best QB in the conference, this deep a WR unit, and the most "experienced" team in years? I hope not.

I hope the administration sees how the conference team records shake out before calling our schedule difficult.

edit: I have no problem with peeler making a lot more; he has already proven his value. guys like Kaufman, Tate, and Sonny still have a lot more to prove to deserve more money, esp Sonny, who is only on year3 of a 5-year contract. an extension shouldn't be given on the basis of improving APR, which at this point is part of the core job requirement at Cal.

I don't see the upside for Cal to give him an extension unless he really overachieves wrt the rest of the conference. if he just gets 6-7 wins, I doubt any program with higher prestige than Cal will poach him. then depending how he handles the 2016 season without Goff, we can choose to extend it let it play out.

That's 50% more revenue per SEC school vs. Pac-12. I'd expect big jump in salaries among SEC head coaches AND assistant coaches. Going to be hard for Pac-12 to retain its better coaches, especially the assistants who can make a lot more while enjoy much lower cost of living.

These win total bets are virtually impossible (at least for me, probably because I keep taking the over for the Bears). Would have bet my life that in both 2012 and 2013 we'd beat the paltry win numbers Vegas estimated for us. Turned out in both cases that Vegas was wildly optimistic. I had very little confidence going into 2014 (but I made the bet anyway) and we handily beat Vegas. This year? I'm definitely hopeful for 7+ wins, but on the betting side I've learned it's a lot better to take these bets when the win numbers are really low. A few breaks, and/or break out players and you're in the money. Much harder to win when Vegas has you at 8 wins or something like that even if your expectations are sky high. There's just a lot that can go wrong during the course of a long football season. This year I'm hopeful that a lot goes right.

pingpong2;842500924 said:

---

And if he gets knocked out in the first game ala Longshore we may very well go winless.

---

Longshore had no mobility and despite playing behind our best offensive line suffered serious injuries in each of 2005, 2007, and 2008 (though that one was a pec tear from weight lifting before the season began).

Doesn't Vegas usually set odds or over/under in order to generate interest? Vegas may actually believe that 6 wins is the more likely and induce Cal fans to bet the over.

Goff's well-being is central to our success. However, all the concern now about getting to the quarterback is a bit late. Teams aimed for him last year as well and the Oline did a decent job of protecting him. Goff's ability is no secret to opposing coaches and hasn't been for two years. The QB will be sacked and he will be hit and he will go down. That is to be expected. Longshore suffered because of injury to his lower leg. Riley suffered as well from a cheap shot from a Duck player. It's the after-the-ball is gone injury that we have to watch out for, when defensive linemen try to inflict their personal hatred on Goff.

6bear6;842501386 said:

---

Doesn't Vegas usually set odds or over/under in order to generate interest? Vegas may actually believe that 6 wins is the more likely and induce Cal fans to bet the over.

.

---

Definitely designed to generate interest, but the subtlety is that is designed to generate an equal amount of interest on both sides. The point is often made that Vegas isn't really setting a line based on what they think will happen. They are setting a line based on getting 1/2 the people to think one thing and 1/2 another. But the beauty of it is that it is uncannily accurate (once the bets are made) on predicting the actual results. A fascinating example of the intelligence of large groups.

beeasyed;842501344 said:

---

7-win bar with the best QB in the conference, this deep a WR unit, and the most "experienced" team in years? I hope not.

I hope the administration sees how the conference team records shake out before calling our schedule difficult.

edit: I have no problem with peeler making a lot more; he has already proven his value. guys like Kaufman, Tate, and Sonny still have a lot more to prove to deserve more money, esp Sonny, who is only on year3 of a 5-year contract. an extension shouldn't be given on the basis of improving APR, which at this point is part of the core job requirement at Cal.

I don't see the upside for Cal to give him an extension unless he really overachieves wrt the rest of the conference. if he just gets 6-7 wins, I doubt any program with higher prestige than Cal will poach him. then depending how he handles the 2016 season without Goff, we can choose to extend it let it play out.

---

You and others are placing huge value on Peeler based on some nice recruiting. That is huge but you are not valuing the fact that he's never been an actual coach and comparing him to guys that have coached for 20 years is a little nuts. Peeler will be rewarded but needs to put in his time as well.

Ncsf;842501392 said:

---

You and others are placing huge value on Peeler based on some nice recruiting. That is huge but you are not valuing the fact that he's never been an actual coach and comparing him to guys that have coached for 20 years is a little nuts. Peeler will be rewarded but needs to put in his time as well.

---

ncsf, I feel like he should get a bump on recruiting alone. how much a bump obviously depends on his value in other regards. I'm not advocating he gets paid on par with the best WR coaches in cfb or anything. just making the point he has actually earned a raise

GivemTheAxe;842501198 said:

---

Easy money, eh? You don't run a Las Vegas betting parlor do you?
I believe Cal will win 6-7 games. But I wouldn't call it easy money.

---

Wow so serious.

KoreAmBear;842501401 said:

---

Wow so serious.

---

You caught me at a serious moment. Now that it is Friday afternoon, I say bet the family farm.

GivemTheAxe;842501427 said:

---

You caught me at a serious moment. Now that it is Friday afternoon, I say bet the family farm.

---

LOL now you're talking haha. Go Bears!

beeasyed;842501394 said:

---

ncsf, I feel like he should get a bump on recruiting alone. how much a bump obviously depends on his value in other regards. I'm not advocating he gets paid on par with the best WR coaches in cfb or anything. just making the point he has actually earned a raise

---

we either pay him or lose him/them ... coaching chemistry can not be understated again... its all about reloading in college ball great point about him not actually coaching yet .. but at the point you have so many holes that need to be filled .. a bad shake up will set us back 7-10yrs ..

sec will come snatch him then what ???

HuntingtonBear;842501322 said:

---

+1

and no extensions even if he does win 7.

---

You have to extend him if he wins 7+. Without an extension he's handicapped when recruiting.

Extend the years on the contract, but don't re-up the buyout amount.

OaktownBear;842501079 said:

---

Guys, seriously. Cal has 2 cupcakes on the non-conference schedule that we should automatically assume are victories. For the sake of argument assume a loss to Texas and a worst case scenario non-conference record of 2-1. 5 wins means 3-6 in conference.

Goff and Kessler are by far the best QB's in the conference. Most teams are playing inexperienced QB's and in the Pac, experienced QB play is the key to winning. Cal has a ton of experienced talent at the offensive skill positions. If we don't expect to pull a winning record in conference this year (or if 4-5 is worthy of "publicity") what are we doing this for? A nice day at CMS and watching the band?

Minimum of 5 wins in conference and a minimum of 2 wins nonconference or this is a severe setback. 7 wins total, minimum. Over/Under of 5 wins is ridiculous.

I wouldn't bet it because if Goff goes down we are relying on a complete unknown to replace the strength of the team. Goff gets injured for a substantial part of the season and I'd agree you need to reevaluate expectations. But some are selling this team short to the point where I wonder if they are sandbagging or if they don't really have the confidence in the coaching staff to provide reasonable results.

---

Agree with all this. The expectation should be 7 wins, with a further expectation that Sonny will continue to keep things on an upward trend, both on the field and in the classroom. Not hard to find a coach who can get us 1, 5 and 5 wins over three years - our history is full of lousy Cal coaches who could accomplish that poor feat. Heck even Gilby had one winning season before running things into the ground.

BeachyBear;842501506 said:

---

Agree with all this. The expectation should be 7 wins, with a further expectation that Sonny will continue to keep things on an upward trend, both on the field and in the classroom. Not hard to find a coach who can get us 1, 5 and 5 wins over three years - our history is full of lousy Cal coaches who could accomplish that poor feat. Heck even Gilby had one winning season before running things into the ground.

---

well alright then

moonpod;842501498 said:

---

You have to extend him if he wins 7+. Without an extension he's handicapped when recruiting.

---

A little OT, but yah, if he gets 7, better to negotiate a modest extension after a 7-win season than try to negotiate in year four after an 8+ win season. Sure, we lose a lot of talent on O, but we have a lot in the wings and the system works well with mediocre talent. We'll score points in 2016. And there's a very good chance our defense will be an asset then and we might actually be a much better overall team in 2016 than 2015 when we still have depth and experience issues on defense.

going4roses;842501432 said:

---

we either pay him or lose him/them ... coaching chemistry can not be understated again... its all about reloading in college ball great point about him not actually coaching yet .. but at the point you have so many holes that need to be filled .. a bad shake up will set us back 7-10yrs ..

sec will come snatch him then what ???

---

LOL. you're talking about a guy who's never been an assistant coach before. if they "snatch him" then, then you sack up and use it an opportunity to hire someone even better. we're the #1 public institution in the world, and a premier place for student-athletes--i have no doubt we'll find more than adequate candidates (provided our AD is competent).

i'm all for him getting a bump for his recruiting abilities, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I'm totally fine with a 2 year extension after 7 wins.

BerlinerBaer;842502450 said:

---

I'm totally fine with a 2 year extension after 7 wins.

---

It's amazing how thin the line is between hoping your coach doesn't get poached and hoping he gets fired. If we win 5, it'll be "off with his head." If we win 8, people will be talking about how "he turned the program around in 3 years, and he'll probably bail for Texas Tech."

I wonder what percentage of fans of all schools think their over/under pre-season bet is too low. 80%? Higher?

TheSouseFamily;842502518 said:

---

I wonder what percentage of fans of all schools think their over/under pre-season bet is too low. 80%? Higher?

---

72% of all statistics are made up

Dykes future at Cal hinges on the success of Kaufman's D. SD has already proven he can handle the offense, recruit decently and redress academics, but his early handling of the defense was nothing short of disastrous (Buh) and threatened his tenure. If Kaufman turns around the D from abysmal to decent, then Dykes' short term future at Cal will be secure.

Cal88;842502540 said:

---

Dykes future at Cal hinges on the success of Kaufman's D. SD has already proven he can handle the offense, recruit decently and redress academics, but his early handling of the defense was nothing short of disastrous (Buh) and threatened his tenure. If Kaufman turns around the D from abysmal to decent, then Dykes' short term future at Cal will be secure.

---

Are you sure that is proven given the last set of results. I'd say we better see what happens on the next set of results. Moraga's reporting sounds good, but I've seen Cal say wait til next year too many times.

Oaktown, you're starting to sound like Stanford Observer!

Cal88;842502540 said:

---

Dykes future at Cal hinges on the success of Kaufman's D. SD has already proven he can handle the offense, recruit decently and redress academics, but his early handling of the defense was nothing short of disastrous (Buh) and threatened his tenure. If Kaufman turns around the D from abysmal to decent, then Dykes' short term future at Cal will be secure.

---

the pieces are here now DL /LB still questions in the DB unit .. but if the the darious bros stay healthy(with that assuming progression especially in man coverage ) expect overall progression in defense - dont hold me to how much but a noticeable up tick ( more so wins /than ranking or stats )

we will find some one to outside of BS last year to get after QB's and with looney in the middle with mustafa (im going to assume middle DL push will be at its best in 3-4)

also have of confidence that these defense coaches, now with better depth (but still need more ) ... have pride in and believe within selfs thus that last year is last year and they will be better ...

if you go back and look at the players that art and tate had on their defenses ... we did not have anything close to it( but in 2014 saw more playing together as 1 unit ) as of spring i have seen guys that will either ball out or get passed by competition ( with lack of depth you job/PT is not in doubt) this part is turning the corner

If somehow the D gells, and goes from being 121st in the NCAA to something like #40 or #50 (right around where you'd expect a mid-tier Pac12 defense to be), we're going to have a great season. That's a pretty big jump though...

Cal88;842502679 said:

---

If somehow the D gells, and goes from being 121st in the NCAA to something like #40 or #50 (right around where you'd expect a mid-tier Pac12 defense to be), we're going to have a great season. That's a pretty big jump though...

---

It's time for Mr. Kaufman to earn his pay these next few months.

Cal88;842502569 said:

---

Oaktown, you're starting to sound like Stanford Observer!

---

You are dead to me.

j/k - maybe.

OaktownBear;842502696 said:

---

You are dead to me.

j/k - maybe.

---

I miss SO.

KoreAmBear;842502706 said:

---

I miss SO.

---

Do I need to start making a "dead to me" list now?!?!?!?