#drop50;842612055 said:

---

He's gone from 1-11 to 5-7 to 7-5 and that 6 game improvement over two years is (somehow) not enough for a majority of the fanbase. That's why he's looked at other options.

---

The team he inherited was 3-9, so he has only seen a net 4 game improvement after 3 seasons (and a 2 game slide in his first season).

FremontBear;842611697 said:

---

Reasonable people could argue Dykes deserves a mulligan for the mess Tedford caused, but not for the ones Dykes created without Tedford's help. Hiring of Andy Buh was a catastrophe and exposed Dykes as an ammateur Head Coach not ready to head a major program in one of the toughest P5 conferences. A parade of other assistant coaches he had to replace also lend support to the notion Dykes isn't ready for prime time.

---

No one ever said that Dykes would not make mistakes during his tenure. No coach is perfect. Every coach makes bad hires. It's part of the job. Also, just because a coach is, in your words, "not ready for prime time," it does not mean that he never will be.

Quote:

---

Your assertion Dykes should be give as much time as he needs is only understandable if viewed from the perspective of non-Cal fan. You accuse Dykes critics as "want it NOW culture," and your remedy is to give him not merely 3 or 4 years, but "as much time as needed." So what is that blank check? 5 years? 7 years? How about 10 years of losing football and a hall of fame member of the Pac-2 cellar. I'll admit that might be OK with non-Cal fans, but most Golden Bear fans have more expectation and common sense than that.

---

Other non-Cal fans would probably rake me over the coals for suggesting such a thing. I once suggested to other Tennessee fans that we give Butch Jones a chance in the early days after he was hired, and people wanted to murder me for suggesting that. After all, a Big East coach who had lost 45-23 to Derek Dooley who, in their minds, was the worst coach in the history of Tennessee football (and I know for a fact that this isn't necessarily true. We've had worse.).

Secondly, I wasn't "accusing" anyone of anything. I was merely suggesting that in this day in age, people are unwilling to be patient and wait for things to come to them. And I wasn't just pointing out those who have given up on Dykes, I was pointing to all college sports fans. Everyone, at some point, has been guilty of this. Even me, when I was young and stupid. When you're a sports fan, patience is an important character trait to learn. You have no control over the direction that your favorite team goes. The only thing you can do is watch and support them as much as possible. I'm not trying to suggest that you shouldn't be disappointed with their performance of they are underperforming, just that that's still your team from a unique school, with a lot to take pride in and a lot to hang your hats on. California is not a big football school. They are not SC. They are not Ohio State. And they certainly are not Alabama (and thank the Lord for that!). Does it mean that they can't become a big football school? Of course not. But that's not what makes Cal Berkeley Cal Berkeley. Remember that.

As for Dykes, the criticism is understandable, as is the doubt and skepticism. But when you start calling for his head after a 7-5 season in which they will play in a bowl game, that's when it goes down a very dangerous path. And I keep bringing up Cuonzo Martin because he left Tennessee because of the disrespect he was getting from the fans. Who's to say that Dykes won't do the same thing? I would suggest to you to be VERY careful what you wish for, because you might get it. And if you do, there is a possibility that it won't be good, and you might look very foolish.

beelzebear;842611721 said:

---

I never made any comparisons to UT FB. Sorry no mulligans because of the DC he hired was bad, very bad. Hiring a decent DC could have meant 2 more wins IMO, and that's not unreasonable. Also Dykes purged hard and didn't seem to regret it. You can't avoid some of it, but encouraging it...bad move. The biggest issue however was Dykes seemed to throw in the towel after a few games. He simply wasn't interested, didn't show any fight. Cal might not be good but one of its motto is: The Bear will not quit, the Bear will not die. Dykes basically rolled over.

1) The high powered offense stalled against good teams with defense: see Utah, UCLA, USC, Oregon and Stanford.

2) The defense statistically finished 110/127. That's after the two previous seasons at or near the bottom and 1 year at the bottom at LaTech. The defense is not much, much better. Dykes doesn't seem to care about defense and that might be okay in the WAC but it doesn't cut in the Pac. Have to have defense.

---

Well, he got a mulligan anyway, it appears.
I acknowledge that the phrase "much, much better" was an overstatement. But I didn't overstate the fact that defense has gotten better from the 1-11 campaign. That year, they were historically bad. I know. But by doing a simple eye test, I saw that this year's defense is better. It was not a dramatic improvement, but it was improvement nonetheless. Does this mean that all of the problems are solved and all is well? Of course not. But don't act like they haven't tried to improve and play better defense.

Secondly, you brought up the conference comparisons. I honestly hate when people do this, because while the level of competition might be better in the Pac-12, it doesn't change the fact that football is football, and any team is capable of beating any team, regardless of conference, on any given day. I see SEC fans doing this all the time. "Team ABC gave up 25 points per game. Look at what Team XYZ is doing. That might fly in the WAC or SWAC or Pac-12, but this is the SEC. We're better than all of those weaker, pansy mid-major conferences." It hints at conference chest pounding, which infuriates me because it's a slap in the face to all other conferences. And I like to respect other conferences, because they all bring something to the table.

heartofthebear;842610965 said:

---

You really believe that?

---

Nah!. Was just adding on in light of the excuses list posted earleir.

Defending Dykes is not that difficult. It would be easier if he had at least ONE consensus four star recruit.

I could easily defend SD for a fourth year, no question even if there are doubts. That being said, he chose to poison the well so to speak, and thus he has to live with the repercussions. Unfortunately so too do our young student athletes in blue and gold and our loyal fans and we want and deserve better---a leader who is ALL IN.

#drop50;842612055 said:

---

He's gone from 1-11 to 5-7 to 7-5 and that 6 game improvement over two years is (somehow) not enough for a majority of the fanbase. That's why he's looked at other options.

---

and who was responsible for that 1-11 season? who set the bar that low? his biggest achievement to date has been correcting the academics of the team.

still, Cal is:

7-20 in the conference
0-9 against California schools
0-3 against Oregon
0-8 against T-25

somehow, improving on one of the worst seasons in all of college football doesn't seem that much an achievement worthy of a big extension and/or salary bump.

on recruiting, we've whiffed on a variety of local kids with the grades to come to Cal--they're not starting at other schools. still haven't had a T-25 class--something JT could pull off even before we started recruiting "poor fit" kids. still haven't had a consensus 4* recruit (unless you count Goff). highest rated kid on average is WR Erik Brown who hasn't cracked the rotation (insert reason) and WR Carlos Strickland.

would be nice if we tried harder recruiting on defense, and finally attempted to hire some assistants with a knack for it, and with actual connections out West. you know, like real connections, not the ones falsely inflated and attributed to Sonny & staff when he was first hired.

many of the explanations made at the time from his hiring have not held up. "This staff is from the south but they have lots of connections out West from recruiting the JCs"; "His defenses at LaTech besides that one season were good"; or "Buh is a decent hire/will be fine."

Dark Reverie;842612183 said:

---

I was merely suggesting that in this day in age, people are unwilling to be patient and wait for things to come to them. And I wasn't just pointing out those who have given up on Dykes, I was pointing to all college sports fans. Everyone, at some point, has been guilty of this. Even me, when I was young and stupid. When you're a sports fan, patience is an important character trait to learn. You have no control over the direction that your favorite team goes. The only thing you can do is watch and support them as much as possible. I'm not trying to suggest that you shouldn't be disappointed with their performance of they are underperforming, just that that's still your team from a unique school, with a lot to take pride in and a lot to hang your hats on. California is not a big football school. They are not SC. They are not Ohio State. And they certainly are not Alabama (and thank the Lord for that!). Does it mean that they can't become a big football school? Of course not. But that's not what makes Cal Berkeley Cal Berkeley. Remember that.

As for Dykes, the criticism is understandable, as is the doubt and skepticism. But when you start calling for his head after a 7-5 season in which they will play in a bowl game, that's when it goes down a very dangerous path. And I keep bringing up Cuonzo Martin because he left Tennessee because of the disrespect he was getting from the fans. Who's to say that Dykes won't do the same thing? I would suggest to you to be VERY careful what you wish for, because you might get it. And if you do, there is a possibility that it won't be good, and you might look very foolish.

---

Some Cal context helps for the discussion about patience.

If memory serves, Cal has fired exactly 3 head football coaches in the past 30 years. One of those coaches was only notified that he would be dismissed (and even then, only after the season) following an incident where he unzipped his pants in front of the media following a blowout loss. The 2nd of these coaches never posted a winning season, was in charge while an academic scandal occurred and had an up til then (since surpassed by Dykes) worst in history of the school football season. He lasted 5 (FIVE!) seasons. The third coach was Tedford, who was allowed to stay even while an atrocious and embarrassing academic performance was underway, which nearly put us under penalty.

We had an Athletic Director say that 8-4 was the perfect season. A lot of people kind of are okay with that notion. Actually, most people probably are okay with that. The only force truly driving the school to try for more is that we now are on the hook to pay for the stadium so "revenue streams" (euphemism for winning here) have suddenly taken on more importance. But even then, only grudgingly so.

The point being: Cal is not every other school. We are the antithesis of nearly every other power 5 conference school. We are largely overly willing to find any sign of something positive then glom onto it with rationalization after rationalization. (This is especially frustrating to many of us since it is the ONLY thing at Cal where absolute excellence is not expected or tried for). So, as you hear people complaining about Dyke's 7-5 understand that this is like the millionth time that we've been through this before. Some of us are tired of hearing the rationalizations, excuses, etc. We understand that we might not be good, we just want the administration to be "all in" (in a Cal way - academics will always matter here) like it is for everything else.

Dark Reverie;842612183 said:

---

No one ever said that Dykes would not make mistakes during his tenure. No coach is perfect. Every coach makes bad hires. It's part of the job. Also, just because a coach is, in your words, "not ready for prime time," it does not mean that he never will be.

Other non-Cal fans would probably rake me over the coals for suggesting such a thing. I once suggested to other Tennessee fans that we give Butch Jones a chance in the early days after he was hired, and people wanted to murder me for suggesting that. After all, a Big East coach who had lost 45-23 to Derek Dooley who, in their minds, was the worst coach in the history of Tennessee football (and I know for a fact that this isn't necessarily true. We've had worse.).

Secondly, I wasn't "accusing" anyone of anything. I was merely suggesting that in this day in age, people are unwilling to be patient and wait for things to come to them. And I wasn't just pointing out those who have given up on Dykes, I was pointing to all college sports fans. Everyone, at some point, has been guilty of this. Even me, when I was young and stupid. When you're a sports fan, patience is an important character trait to learn. You have no control over the direction that your favorite team goes. The only thing you can do is watch and support them as much as possible. I'm not trying to suggest that you shouldn't be disappointed with their performance of they are underperforming, just that that's still your team from a unique school, with a lot to take pride in and a lot to hang your hats on. California is not a big football school. They are not SC. They are not Ohio State. And they certainly are not Alabama (and thank the Lord for that!). Does it mean that they can't become a big football school? Of course not. But that's not what makes Cal Berkeley Cal Berkeley. Remember that.

As for Dykes, the criticism is understandable, as is the doubt and skepticism. But when you start calling for his head after a 7-5 season in which they will play in a bowl game, that's when it goes down a very dangerous path. And I keep bringing up Cuonzo Martin because he left Tennessee because of the disrespect he was getting from the fans. Who's to say that Dykes won't do the same thing? I would suggest to you to be VERY careful what you wish for, because you might get it. And if you do, there is a possibility that it won't be good, and you might look very foolish.

---

You failed to answer the central point in your original lecture to the Cal fan base, when you said we should give Dykes "as much time as needed" to make Cal competitive with the best in the Pac-12. So, let's cut to the chase; what exactly do you mean by giving Dykes as much time as needed? 5 years? 7 years? 10 years? Even more years...???

I'll just cut to the chase: if these were your UT Vols...the conversation would be very different, right. Because no one from Vol nation ever considers W/L as a criteria for coaching.

Here's a serious question: what was the worst season ever, historically the worst, for the UT Vols?

Now on to red meat, why didn't you guys keep Dooley? See how that works?

Dark Reverie;842612190 said:

---

Well, he got a mulligan anyway, it appears.
I acknowledge that the phrase "much, much better" was an overstatement. But I didn't overstate the fact that defense has gotten better from the 1-11 campaign. That year, they were historically bad. I know. But by doing a simple eye test, I saw that this year's defense is better. It was not a dramatic improvement, but it was improvement nonetheless. Does this mean that all of the problems are solved and all is well? Of course not. But don't act like they haven't tried to improve and play better defense.

Secondly, you brought up the conference comparisons. I honestly hate when people do this, because while the level of competition might be better in the Pac-12, it doesn't change the fact that football is football, and any team is capable of beating any team, regardless of conference, on any given day. I see SEC fans doing this all the time. "Team ABC gave up 25 points per game. Look at what Team XYZ is doing. That might fly in the WAC or SWAC or Pac-12, but this is the SEC. We're better than all of those weaker, pansy mid-major conferences." It hints at conference chest pounding, which infuriates me because it's a slap in the face to all other conferences. And I like to respect other conferences, because they all bring something to the table.

---

tim94501;842608748 said:

---

Please just entertain me with why you are standing behind him at this point? He's obviously looking for a way out.

---

I am no Dykes pumper, but:

It could be because this breakup is not him, its us.

Phantomfan;842612355 said:

---

I am no Dykes pumper, but:

It could be because this breakup is not him, its us.

---

Welcome. ��

Phantomfan;842612355 said:

---

I am no Dykes pumper, but:

It could be because this breakup is not him, its us.

---

How is the breakup Cal's fault? Is it unreasonable for AD Williams to be cautious about a big contract and long extensions for a coach that has one winning season in three and set NCAA bad-defense records in the other two? Wouldn't it make more sense to wait at least till next season and see what Dykes could do without Goff, Lawler, Treggs, Harper, Anderson, Davis, Lasco, Kragen, and Jefferson?

FremontBear;842612376 said:

---

How is the breakup Cal's fault? Is it unreasonable for AD Williams to be cautious about a big contract and long extensions for a coach that has one winning season in three and set NCAA bad-defense records in the other two? Wouldn't it make more sense to wait at least till next season and see what Dykes could do without Goff, Lawler, Treggs, Harper, Anderson, Davis, Lasco, Kragen, and Jefferson?

---

In fairness, we don't know for sure what kind of offer is on the table. It's possible that it's an insultingly low one. I doubt that it is (I expect it's a conservative extension and modest raise), but I don't know for sure.

82gradDLSdad;842612048 said:

---

Sonny may have deserved next year before actively pursuing other jobs. Now he needs to go. Every single recruit will be told that Sonny will leave Cal if given half a chance. How many recruits that have other options will come to Cal when told that by every other coach? ZERO! I'm positive Sonny weighed this fact before undertaking his 'tour'. Worse case is he's fired and gets paid for the last two years of his contract to go look for another job. I actually think the worse case is Cal weenies out and doesn't fire him and he (and us) look like crap next year because every kid on this team knows Sonny wants out.

---

It's pretty easy to counter this argument:

Coach Leech 2012-present
Coach Peterson 2014-present
Coach Helfich 2103-present
Coach Anderson 2015-present
Coach Shaw 2011-present
Coach Mora 2012-present
Coach Helton 2 weeks
Coach MacIntyre 2013-present
Coach Wittingham 2005-present
Coach Graham 2013-present
Coach Rodriquez 2012-present

Unless you played at Stanford or Arizona State, if you played in the Pac this year you either had a new head coach during your recruiting (or worse if you redshirted), or a new head coach during your tenure. The reality of modern college football is that lots of players will play for different head coaches. You should like your coach, but you should go for the school you want to play at, not just to follow a staff.

-kap

sycasey;842612386 said:

---

In fairness, we don't know for sure what kind of offer is on the table. It's possible that it's an insultingly low one. I doubt that it is (I expect it's a conservative extension and modest raise), but I don't know for sure.

---

Well, the minimum offer on the table is a 2 year contract at $2M per.

At the end of the day, I don't care that a coach looks around or plays some leverage in an extension negotiation. Both Braun and Tedford did it. Difference being that when they were in the situation, the stories, if there were any, were that there were programs interested in them, not the other way around. They essentially kept silent through the process and there was no indication that their agents were shopping them (in fact the indications were the agents were talking with Cal). The way Dykes' agent handled this was amateur time and damaging to the program and potentially the relationship. Even if Dykes is at a point where he wants to leave and even if that is Cal's fault, none of that needed to be a media story. You can see the difference in how Cal was responding as well. With Braun and Tedford the implication from Cal's responses was there were active negotiations going on. With Sonny it was - he has an offer, he hasn't responded. Faraudo stated that a Cal source told him twice last week that Dykes has not responded to the offer. They still haven't said that he has.

OaktownBear;842612428 said:

---

Well, the minimum offer on the table is a 2 year contract at $2M per.

At the end of the day, I don't care that a coach looks around or plays some leverage in an extension negotiation. Both Braun and Tedford did it. Difference being that when they were in the situation, the stories, if there were any, were that there were programs interested in them, not the other way around. They essentially kept silent through the process and there was no indication that their agents were shopping them (in fact the indications were the agents were talking with Cal). The way Dykes' agent handled this was amateur time and damaging to the program and potentially the relationship. Even if Dykes is at a point where he wants to leave and even if that is Cal's fault, none of that needed to be a media story. You can see the difference in how Cal was responding as well. With Braun and Tedford the implication from Cal's responses was there were active negotiations going on. With Sonny it was - he has an offer, he hasn't responded. Faraudo stated that a Cal source told him twice last week that Dykes has not responded to the offer. They still haven't said that he has.

---

Exactly. As much as others want to say that "this is business"...it's not. I'm sorry, but when there are issues or negotiations to be resolved or had it is conducted in the backroom, not on social media. As much as there might be upheaval in the C-suite, it's not played out on the nightly news. And then at the end of the day, a very bland statement of mutual support and admiration comes out and one party has elected to pursue other interests (and is handsomely compensated) and they all pat each other on the back and go their separate ways. As corny and B.S. as it appears, and as much as stuff might leak out later, they act professionally. This last week has been anything but that. Sonny, his agent, or if we are to believe a very conniving Mike Williams, has made this a bush league endeavor. Our HC and his side have embarrassed our university and have come across as completely amateur. I'm more concerned about the inherent damage he's causing to our reputation, our recruiting class and our ability to replace him when the time comes. Look I was all for an extension at the end of this year. He's done a good job with the academic turnaround, the team is invested in being a part of the university and the results on the field have been reasonably improving. However, I support a metered and reasonable extension to his contract and I think that is where he and many of us differ. Better results = better money --> That is real business.

:gobears:

Lumberjack_Cal;842612439 said:

---

Exactly. As much as others want to say that "this is business"...it's not. I'm sorry, but when there are issues or negotiations to be resolved or had it is conducted in the backroom, not on social media. As much as there might be upheaval in the C-suite, it's not played out on the nightly news. And then at the end of the day, a very bland statement of mutual support and admiration comes out and one party has elected to pursue other interests (and is handsomely compensated) and they all pat each other on the back and go their separate ways. As corny and B.S. as it appears, and as much as stuff might leak out later, they act professionally. This last week has been anything but that. Sonny, his agent, or if we are to believe a very conniving Mike Williams, has made this a bush league endeavor. Our HC and his side have embarrassed our university and have come across as completely amateur. I'm more concerned about the inherent damage he's causing to our reputation, our recruiting class and our ability to replace him when the time comes. Look I was all for an extension at the end of this year. He's done a good job with the academic turnaround, the team is invested in being a part of the university and the results on the field have been reasonably improving. However, I support a metered and reasonable extension to his contract and I think that is where he and many of us differ. Better results = better money --> That is real business.

:gobears:

---

Agreed. There's good business and bad business. Good form and bad form. Him not addressing the media is part of the bad form.

OaktownBear;842611560 said:

---

1. Where did he say that?
2. Why do you rely on him now when you've been yelling at people that repeat his other reports that they are dealing in internet rumors.
3. Faraudo has reported that Cal sources have told him twice this week that they are waiting for Sonny to respond to their offer. Seems that if the issue were just some money for the assistants he would respond and come to the table and talk instead of not responding and talking to others.

4. White said that Sonny has to understand Cal is not going to lock itself into a long term, high priced commitment when it comes to guaranteed commitment and lengthy extension

---

I'm so glad you are around to make logical arguments on behalf of many of us.

sycasey;842612386 said:

---

In fairness, we don't know for sure what kind of offer is on the table. It's possible that it's an insultingly low one. I doubt that it is (I expect it's a conservative extension and modest raise), but I don't know for sure.

---

Good point. It's possible Cal's offer was insultingly low. We'll see when more facts come out.

FremontBear;842612471 said:

---

Good point. It's possible Cal's offer was insultingly low. We'll see when more facts come out.

---

what's everyone's opinion of what is borderline acceptable for a guaranteed salary based on what he's acomplished on the field so far?

My argument is not that coaches leave for better situations but rather how they go about doing that. Read Oaktown's reply a few posts up. If you want your agent to look around because you are not happy you do it quietly and anything that comes out is always "School X contacted my agent to see if I would be interested. I'm extremely happy at Cal and have no intention of leaving." You don't let it come out that you are actively pursuing a bunch of other jobs all over the country. That's bs and you can't come back from that. He comes back and it is bad for everyone, including Sonny.

Honestly, the way this has played out makes me think Sonny has two completely different personalities. There's the cool, semi-serious Sonny that we all know and love. And there's the psycho, screaming Sonny that we see every week yelling almost uncontrollably at officials. Sonny okaying these sorts of stories to leak out about him searching for other jobs seems more like the later Sonny than the former.

kaplanfx;842612401 said:

---

It's pretty easy to counter this argument:

Coach Leech 2012-present
Coach Peterson 2014-present
Coach Helfich 2103-present
Coach Anderson 2015-present
Coach Shaw 2011-present
Coach Mora 2012-present
Coach Helton 2 weeks
Coach MacIntyre 2013-present
Coach Wittingham 2005-present
Coach Graham 2013-present
Coach Rodriquez 2012-present

Unless you played at Stanford or Arizona State, if you played in the Pac this year you either had a new head coach during your recruiting (or worse if you redshirted), or a new head coach during your tenure. The reality of modern college football is that lots of players will play for different head coaches. You should like your coach, but you should go for the school you want to play at, not just to follow a staff.

-kap

---

beeasyed;842612494 said:

---

what's everyone's opinion of what is borderline acceptable for a guaranteed salary based on what he's acomplished on the field so far?

---

I was going to ask the same... Based upon salary, and we discussed this before, looking at all Pac-12 salaries for HCs, I'd be reluctant to go more than 2.5M (up from 2 and change now)... Certainly not above KW's 2.6 at Utah.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

Cal89;842612507 said:

---

I was going to ask the same... Based upon salary, and we discussed this before, looking at all Pac-12 salaries for HCs, I'd be reluctant to go more than 2.5M (up from 2 and change now)... Certainly not above KW's 2.6 at Utah.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

---

exactly. if it's been suggested that what Cal offered was deemed insultingly low, i'd like to know where that line is drawn.

sure, he should make more than McIntyre, but he doesn't have the track record/experience of Andersen at OSU, nor the wins/development of talent of Whittingham at Utah. just last year, people were saying how Dykes was better version of Leach--now i'm not sure you can justify paying Dykes the same amount as Leach gets.

if Cal offered him somewhere between 2.1-2.3m guaranteed, i think that'd be fair. all the rest should be in the form of potential bonuses. i'd encourage Cal to give him huge potential earnings possibilities, skewed heavily towards performance (win) bonuses. [ex. bonus for each game won against California schools]

beeasyed;842612494 said:

---

what's everyone's opinion of what is borderline acceptable for a guaranteed salary based on what he's acomplished on the field so far?

---

Based on Dykes' about $2 million salary and incentives, I'd say:

2013: 1-11= over paid. He gets big credit for fixing Tedford's academic mess, but 1-11 is unacceptable, even with all the excuses Dykes supporters trot out.
2014: 5-7= about right. 5-7 is an improvement for sure, but Dykes' defense set NCAA records for all the wrong reasons.
2015: 7-5 (maybe 8-5)= good value for Cal; Dykes probably underpaid for 8-5 finish.

FremontBear;842612526 said:

---

Based on Dykes' about $2 million salary and incentives, I'd say:

2013: 1-11= over paid. He gets big credit for fixing Tedford's academic mess, but 1-11 is unacceptable, even with all the excuses Dykes supporters trot out.
2014: 5-7= about right. 5-7 is an improvement for sure, but Dykes' defense set NCAA records for all the wrong reasons.
2015: 7-5 (maybe 8-5)= good value for Cal; Dykes probably underpaid for 8-5 finish.

---

imo, turning around academics should be rewarded, but only through a one-time bonus, and not through guaranteed salary. once we are in good standing, maintaining should be a basic job requirement for any Cal HC. shouldn't be a basis for a lucrative contact.

adding in the 4-5 conference record, it gives a pretty good idea where he is in relation to his peers--3rd quartile (http://pac-12.com/football/standings)

i hope Williams offered a reduced buyout with a modest increase in salary, with a big bump for assistant pay (with requirements he get rid of at least Tommerdahl, if not others). if he impresses in 2016, and other schools ACTUALLY start reaching out/offering, then you come up with competitive pay.

Cal89;842612507 said:

---

I was going to ask the same... Based upon salary, and we discussed this before, looking at all Pac-12 salaries for HCs, I'd be reluctant to go more than 2.5M (up from 2 and change now)... Certainly not above KW's 2.6 at Utah.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

---

Agreed. Something that puts him closer to the middle of the pack in terms of Pac-12 coaching salaries, but still in the bottom half.

beeasyed;842612522 said:

---

exactly. if it's been suggested that what Cal offered was deemed insultingly low, i'd like to know where that line is drawn.

sure, he should make more than McIntyre, but he doesn't have the track record/experience of Andersen at OSU, nor the wins/development of talent of Whittingham at Utah. just last year, people were saying how Dykes was better version of Leach--now i'm not sure you can justify paying Dykes the same amount as Leach gets.

if Cal offered him somewhere between 2.1-2.3m guaranteed, i think that'd be fair. all the rest should be in the form of potential bonuses. i'd encourage Cal to give him huge potential earnings possibilities, skewed heavily towards performance (win) bonuses. [ex. bonus for each game won against California schools]

---

Heavily skewing towards performance is good. If he does well, he's earned his bonuses and everyone is happy. If he doesn't then he will be at (or near the bottom) which is fair.

GATC;842612538 said:

---

Heavily skewing towards performance is good. If he does well, he's earned his bonuses and everyone is happy. If he doesn't then he will be at (or near the bottom) which is fair.

---

ex.
2.2m base guaranteed
California-school games worth 150k each (450k max)
bowl eligibility 25k
each reg. season win after 8 wins, 50K each (200k max)
conference title win, 150k
playoff appearance, 150k

give him another 400-500k (puts us slightly above P12 avg.) for assistant pay, with conditions for people he has to fire.

even if reaches all those achievements, we're still only on the hook for a little over 3.1m, and ~2.6m for assistants. and if he could deliver even on half those things, Cal would very much throw him more money to keep him.

Cal89;842612507 said:

---

I was going to ask the same... Based upon salary, and we discussed this before, looking at all Pac-12 salaries for HCs, I'd be reluctant to go more than 2.5M (up from 2 and change now)... Certainly not above KW's 2.6 at Utah.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

---

It'd be fair for both parties if he were offered one more year (in addition to the two remaining) and a bump up in salary just enough so that he wasn't 12th out of 12 in the conference. All this with the understanding that, if/when he shows more, he will be rewarded commensurately. Plus a raise for the assistants... and ALL of this with a semi-Cal-favorable buyout at the end of each year.

82gradDLSdad;842612503 said:

---

My argument is not that coaches leave for better situations but rather how they go about doing that.

---

Your argument was that opposing coaches could sell against Cal by pointing out the instability at head coach. My comment was responding only to that, not to justify Sonny or his agent's alleged behavior.

-kap

82gradDLSdad;842612503 said:

---

My argument is not that coaches leave for better situations but rather how they go about doing that. Read Oaktown's reply a few posts up. If you want your agent to look around because you are not happy you do it quietly and anything that comes out is always "School X contacted my agent to see if I would be interested. I'm extremely happy at Cal and have no intention of leaving." You don't let it come out that you are actively pursuing a bunch of other jobs all over the country. That's bs and you can't come back from that. He comes back and it is bad for everyone, including Sonny.

Honestly, the way this has played out makes me think Sonny has two completely different personalities. There's the cool, semi-serious Sonny that we all know and love. And there's the psycho, screaming Sonny that we see every week yelling almost uncontrollably at officials. Sonny okaying these sorts of stories to leak out about him searching for other jobs seems more like the later Sonny than the former.

---

Since he apparently likes using the media, it's about time he holds a Sonny+Cal love-in, saying how he owed it to his family to look around, but, the more he looked, the more he realized that Cal is the greatest place on earth and he looks forward to being here forever (wife and daughters also there, beaming). He should get all Joe Kapp and be passing out yellow roses to everybody in attendance. Make it like a party. One of the happiest days of his life.

I was totally understanding about last week, but to not end very soon doesn't help anybody (except for schools competing for our recruiting targets).

Heck, I like my job, but there are plenty of days I don't feel fully appreciated or even just plain don't feel like coming to work. Those are the days I make sure I put on my biggest smile. Let's see yours, Sonny Dykes. This week. And don't forget to say, "Go Bears!"

kaplanfx;842612640 said:

---

Your argument was that opposing coaches could sell against Cal by pointing out the instability at head coach. My comment was responding only to that, not to justify Sonny or his agent's alleged behavior.

-kap

---

Your argument also, by the way, is a good argument against extending coaches simply for the sake of recruiting. I've argued for a long time that with how frequently coaches leave or get fired well before the end of their contract, I just don't buy the concept that not extending a coach for four or five years out leads recruits to question whether he will be with a team. I've been countered with the concept that kids don't look at the issue that closely, but I don't think that gives kids enough credit.

I have to say, though, there is a difference between acknowledging that coaches move around all the time, and a coach giving the impression that he wants out and will leave the first chance he gets. Cal/Sonny do need to do something to counteract that impression at this point.

OaktownBear;842612428 said:

---

Well, the minimum offer on the table is a 2 year contract at $2M per.

At the end of the day, I don't care that a coach looks around or plays some leverage in an extension negotiation. Both Braun and Tedford did it. Difference being that when they were in the situation, the stories, if there were any, were that there were programs interested in them, not the other way around. They essentially kept silent through the process and there was no indication that their agents were shopping them (in fact the indications were the agents were talking with Cal). The way Dykes' agent handled this was amateur time and damaging to the program and potentially the relationship. Even if Dykes is at a point where he wants to leave and even if that is Cal's fault, none of that needed to be a media story. You can see the difference in how Cal was responding as well. With Braun and Tedford the implication from Cal's responses was there were active negotiations going on. With Sonny it was - he has an offer, he hasn't responded. Faraudo stated that a Cal source told him twice last week that Dykes has not responded to the offer. They still haven't said that he has.

---

What is truly astounding to me is that they way this has played out makes the Rich Rodriguez situation smell really sweet. While it appeared that there was a program interested in Rich Rod, it also appeared that he was interested in them. The head coach apparently didn't just have another team knocking on his door where he politely listened and got offered a job and turned it down. No, it appeared that Rich Rod was definitely interested. Makes some sense, he hasn't been gangbusters at Arizona, he has coached in the state before. He gets offered the job and turns it down for reasons we won't really know. Then says he is SO happy to be a Wildcat. BEAR DOWN!!

It REALLY isn't going to make recruits think there is a stable situation when the head coach is interviewing for other jobs, especially when it isn't just "they came to me, so I listened to what they had to say." Rich Rod can spin it all he wants, there will still be a bit of a poor odor and concern about whether he'll bolt in the near future (especially since he hasn't exactly been a long term guy in the past).

But compared to Cal? Arizona looks like a model of stability. How did we get to that position? There is a perception that Sonny's attitude was, "I would rather be elsewhere, but if there are no other Power 5 schools that will hire me, I'll stay at Cal. It may be my last choice among Power 5 schools, but if it is my only choice, I'll stay." That is really bad.

This perception may be COMPLETELY unfair. But we know that in life, often perception is reality. And it appears that the perception that Cal was Sonny's last choice among Power 5 schools is Sonny's fault (or his agent's fault, but that is effectively the same thing). The perception that the first perception is Sonny's fault might be unfair, but it sure looks like Sonny's fault.

Whether it was amateur time or not, it was damaging to the program, and the relationship. Forget about "potentially" damaging to the relationship as you state, there is no "potentially" about it. Maybe the damage to the program and the relationship can be healed. Assuming the end of this story is that Sonny is the 2016 Cal football coach, I sure hope Sonny has a REALLY good story to tell. He definitely needs a good story to tell players and recruits. The damage, however, is there, and the question if Sonny stays is how to minimize the damage both in terms of intensity and duration.

I don't know how much Cal fouled up in this process, it isn't like Cal didn't know a year ago about some dissatisfaction and the desire for an extension, but without being part of the process, it is hard to say for sure what Cal could have done to help avoid the damage to the program.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how this ends well. Maybe I get surprised and it does. A friend who died almost 5 years ago in his early 50's was somewhat at peace with dying relatively young not having seen Cal in the Rose Bowl, because he figured if he lived to be 100, he still wasn't going to live to see Cal go to the Rose Bowl. The more crap like this goes on, the more I am thinking he was right.

sycasey;842612534 said:

---

Agreed. Something that puts him closer to the middle of the pack in terms of Pac-12 coaching salaries, but still in the bottom half.

---

Should be some place between 5-7. We beat UW, WSU, OSU, ASU and gave Utah a close fight. Plus we were better then Colorado and probably UA.