OaktownBear;842613086 said:

---

As another point, I've historically found "inside information" at Cal very unreliable. Insiders have agendas just like anyone else, only they are playing with real money. Often you can get contradictory inside info as multiple factions push their own views.

---

Bingo. When agendas aren't really at work, where donors and AD people are all on the same page, in my experience, "insider information" is usually pretty good, at least in those instances where the truth eventually comes out.

When donors and AD people are not all on the same page, "insider information" tends to be pretty worthless. As you say, you get contradictory information.

When Kasser left Cal, I managed to get stories from 3 different "insider" sources about his departure. They were all pretty good sources. Those 3 sources gave 3 conflicting stories. To this day, I have no idea whether zero or one source had been correct. All I know for sure is that at most, one was correct.

Unless the donors and AD people are on the same page about an issue, take any "insider information" with a grain of salt.

beelzebear;842613163 said:

---

^^^ Say what you will about Tedford...but I really appreciated his discretion. He wasn't perfect but there was no public displays or perceptions of bitching, complaining or weasel-y behavior. He was at least consistent, where as the usually glib Coach Dykes has done a 180 and zipped it completely about this stuff. He doesn't have to say much but even a coachspeak press release would be more in character than radio silence.

---

To be perfectly honest, I put JT in there because it rhymed with "me." It works lyrically; not meant to be anything deeper. Night Ranger was never all that deep anyway

BearsWiin;842613172 said:

---

To be perfectly honest, I put JT in there because it rhymed with "me." It works lyrically; not meant to be anything deeper. Night Ranger was never all that deep anyway

---

Huh. When I saw you put "JT" in there, I thought, "I guess BearsWiin doesn't know what he's thinking, coming off a hard night of drinking." But you were just rhyming, not trying to be deep.

I was expecting Oaktown to reply to your post and say, "What do you do when it's falling apart, and you knew it was gone from the very start? Do you close your eyes and refuse to give Dykes an extension?" but he probably didn't do that because he figured that "refuse to give Dykes an extension" doesn't rhyme with "dream about me." I think you guys need to stop thinking about what works lyrically and start saying things meant to be deeper.

beelzebear;842613063 said:

---

Here's what it comes down to:
A) some want to give Dykes an extension/raise for improving
B) while others only want to give an extension/raise for winning

Along the same lines is the 1-11 season because some (group A) think it was unavoidable while others (group B) think it wasn't.

I'm in the latter B group because I think the automatic raise while still under contract is part of the crazy CEO compensation culture in this country, i.e., massive rewards for not really doing anything, expected rather than earned. I have no problem making things incentive based, like $xxx for conference championship, $xxx for academics, etc.

I do have a problem with mediocrity demanding an extension/raise, and Dykes' overall record at Cal is below mediocre. Sorry, no raise for .362.

---

In part though an extension at this point would also be to protect Cal's future interests. At this point I don't think Sonny has done anything that should cause a big raise, but I also think he's good enough that we should want him around next year (ignoring recent events, realistically I think he's done enough not to get canned).

So let's say hypothetically (and this is REALLY hypothetical), we didn't extend Sonny's contract. So Sonny has 2 years left on his current contract and he returns to Cal for 2016. Now let's say hypothetically we go 10-2 or 11-1 next year in the regular season and we win the Pac-12 North. Sure it's a pipe dream, but for this example you have to just visualize that it happens.

Now we are in a bind. Sonny probably WILL have value and WILL get looks from other programs looking for a new coach. At this point we don't have much leverage, it's either going to be a HUGE extension or Sonny is gone, and we've just had our best season in years, there is hype around the program, and recruits want in.

So the reason you make a moderate extension offer now is because you are balancing what he's done so far, with both bad AND good future scenarios. You don't want a big enough extension that you are going to be crying if we go 7-5 again or worse next year, but you also don't want to have no contract in place in case the current trajectory continues.

The reality is with what we are paying we likely can't get a better coach unless we take a big risk on an up and comer. So you can pay a little more now and hope for the best, or pay nothing now and hope for the best anyway even thought it will screw you. Without an extension, we are guaranteed to either pay out big or lose Sonny if he pulls a miracle next year, and I for one would be frustrated if he has a great year and we lose him. Of course the reverse is always a worry, we pay him and see lackluster improvement for the next 5 years while he languishes in mediocrity.

-kap

kaplanfx;842613214 said:

---

In part though an extension at this point would also be to protect Cal's future interests. At this point I don't think Sonny has done anything that should cause a big raise, but I also think he's good enough that we should want him around next year (ignoring recent events, realistically I think he's done enough not to get canned).

So let's say hypothetically (and this is REALLY hypothetical), we didn't extend Sonny's contract. So Sonny has 2 years left on his current contract and he returns to Cal for 2016. Now let's say hypothetically we go 10-2 or 11-1 next year in the regular season and we win the Pac-12 North. Sure it's a pipe dream, but for this example you have to just visualize that it happens.

Now we are in a bind. Sonny probably WILL have value and WILL get looks from other programs looking for a new coach. At this point we don't have much leverage, it's either going to be a HUGE extension or Sonny is gone, and we've just had our best season in years, there is hype around the program, and recruits want in.

So the reason you make a moderate extension offer now is because you are balancing what he's done so far, with both bad AND good future scenarios. You don't want a big enough extension that you are going to be crying if we go 7-5 again or worse next year, but you also don't want to have no contract in place in case the current trajectory continues.

The reality is with what we are paying we likely can't get a better coach unless we take a big risk on an up and comer. So you can pay a little more now and hope for the best, or pay nothing now and hope for the best anyway even thought it will screw you. Without an extension, we are guaranteed to either pay out big or lose Sonny if he pulls a miracle next year, and I for one would be frustrated if he has a great year and we lose him. Of course the reverse is always a worry, we pay him and see lackluster improvement for the next 5 years while he languishes in mediocrity.

-kap

---

I don't necessarily agree with your analysis, but you are going about it the right way. There is only one reason to change the terms of Dykes contract, whether it is more pay, more years, higher buyout, whatever. That reason is that to do so benefits Cal. It is not a reward.

Now keeping him happy enough to not jump at the first opportunity MAY benefit Cal. That is a consideration.

Yes, you are balancing the concern you will be stuck in a bad deal for you with the concern you'll be priced out later. I would say a couple things on the latter. Cal will never be the highest salary out there. The NFL and major powers will outbid us if they choose. Any coach is susceptible. Monty left Stanford for goodness sake. I submit that nothing we do now is going to significantly influence that circumstance.

Then there are the teams we can bid with. The ones that will drop $3-4M. So the question there is can we buy goodwill at a reasonable price that will allow us to maybe outbid them without quite matching. I don't honestly think we save a lot in the future to justify significant raises now.

The problem with your thinking is that you think a moderate extension now protects us from a huge extension later. It doesn't. Say we up the salary by $500k per, and add 3 years. He wins 10 games next year and someone offers $3.5 or $4M. Well, if you don't renegotiate and give a huge extension, bye bye Sonny. Sonny doesn't much care about the $500k raise he got. He cares about the $1M he CAN get. You are better off banking the $500k as insurance against future negotiations. Next question is whether he wants out with the next matching offer he gets. If that is where we think we are, the only point of an extension is for appearances.

I think Cal looks at football as a risky investment. (Rightfully so - it is). When something works (like Tedford did) they'll pay to keep it. They don't put much faith in projecting success that is an iffy proposition. Financially, I think they are right in their strategy.

We apparently landed a juco JC. To reiterate what someone else said, this shouldn't have been so public but Sonny is no Tosh - he's apparently still out there working for us. Good for him.

1979bear;842612292 said:

---

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

---

Other than Duncan?

txwharfrat;842613384 said:

---

Other than Duncan?

---

Do you know what the word consensus means?
Duncan is [U]not[/U] a consensus 4 star recruit.

He is rated 4 star in one of many places, not all.

heartofthebear;842613472 said:

---

Do you know what the word consensus means?
Duncan is [U]not[/U] a consensus 4 star recruit.

He is rated 4 star in one of many places, not all.

---

but those other agencies are 2 star agencies so...

tequila4kapp;842613377 said:

---

We apparently landed a juco JC. To reiterate what someone else said, this shouldn't have been so public but Sonny is no Tosh - he's apparently still out there working for us. Good for him.

---

Dude gets us out of APR disgrace, to a bowl with 2 more wins than Nebraska (5-7) who backs into a better bowl against our very own UCLA because they're fans are money, drives our govt issued Buick around town, and works during holiday season to land us recruits. While being vilified for legitimately trying to justify a wage that is not 12th out of 12. What's not to respect here? Sounds like a public school blue collar guy to me. I like those types myself.

upsetof86;842613485 said:

---

Dude gets us out of APR disgrace, to a bowl with 2 more wins than Nebraska (5-7) who backs into a better bowl against our very own UCLA because they're fans are money, drives our govt issued Buick around town, and works during holiday season to land us recruits. While being vilified for legitimately trying to justify a wage that is not 12th out of 12. What's not to respect here? Sounds like a public school blue collar guy to me. I like those types myself.

---

Agree (but then I am a Dykes Defender:cheer ykes:cheer)
[Darn I wish there were a better smilie.]

BTW I heard a rumor that Sonny was having dinner with Williams. And I don't think it was at Boston Market.
Enquiring minds want to know.

OaktownBear;842613295 said:

---

Then there are the teams we can bid with. The ones that will drop $3-4M. So the question there is can we buy goodwill at a reasonable price that will allow us to maybe outbid them without quite matching. I don't honestly think we save a lot in the future to justify significant raises now.

---

A very thoughtful post that I think sums up our reality pretty well. My only disagreement is with the above. I (perhaps naively) believe(d?) that a show of faith in Sonny now might lead to some reciprocal loyalty after he has a satisfactory (9+ wins) season. His interview with Mizzou has given me pause. If it was just market testing, whatever. If he really wants out, then he is not our guy and I would not 'break the bank'. He will leave us after that 9+ season in any case.

I still hold out hope that Sonny may decide that the benefits of Cal (stability, loyalty, reasonable pay) are worth the challenges. I think we will only know if we have that big season and considering our history (Kapp, Holmoe, Gilbertson) I think we should stick with the devil we know...

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]

---

Why do you say that about Dykes not deserving to get what Leach gets? Dykes is a better coach and you don't get the lunacy that comes with Leach. I don't know how many times I have to say it. WSU didn't play $C or Utah this year - and instead played Arizona and Colorado. You switch those teams in Cal's and WSU's schedules and Leach goes 6-6 instead of 8-4 and Cal goes 9-3 instead of 7-5.

Leach .... Coach Of The Year. OMG! How stupid are people? Stop that is a rhetorical question - I KNOW how stupid people are....

Go!Bears;842613588 said:

---

If he really wants out, then he is not our guy and I would not 'break the bank'. He will leave us after that 9+ season in any case.

---

I'm no expert in these contracts but wouldn't an extension also result in a larger buyout? So if he really wanted to bolt after next year it might be in his interest not to get a big extension now (although he can of course use that in negotiations for his next job)? The fact that he is seemingly (not confirmed) trying to improve his extension terms means he might actually be thinking long term if he gets a reasonable contract. On the other hand, the sticking point for the bargaining might be the buyout...

-kap

txwharfrat;842613592 said:

---

Why do you say that about Dykes not deserving to get what Leach gets? Dykes is a better coach and you don't get the lunacy that comes with Leach. I don't know how many times I have to say it. WSU didn't play $C or Utah this year - and instead played Arizona and Colorado. You switch those teams in Cal's and WSU's schedules and Leach goes 6-6 instead of 8-4 and Cal goes 9-3 instead of 7-5.

Leach .... Coach Of The Year. OMG! How stupid are people? Stop that is a rhetorical question - I KNOW how stupid people are....

---

"the lunacy that comes with Leach."

how about the hope that he's given that fanbase? his teams play with more discipline than ours, and have managed to keep themselves in games. even in his 2nd year in 2013, they've played more competitively than we have in big match-ups, including a 7-10 loss against USC and 24-31 against Auburn. beat Cal, Arizona, and Utah (and even skunked Idaho 42-0).

you want to talk about installing an offense that mitigates the need for top end talent as TFS has claimed to do? look at how WSU has competed with top teams. they have one of the worst recruiting locations, second to or Corvallis, and yet Leach gets a lot of mileage out of the kids he has to work with. oh, and they're looking to bring in their top recruiting class in at least a decade (low #40s), maybe best ever for them?

so what that they didn't play $C or Utah this year? that's like saying "Cal is lucky they didn't play ASU or Utah in 2014." WSU beat ASU by 14, Oregon by 7, and UCLA by 4, and barely lost to Stanfurd by 2, a total margin of +23. Our same 4-game margin was -43.

is Dykes a better coach than Leach? sure doesn't look like it at the moment, and it has little to do with his total win count. Sonny has less of a track record coming into Cal than Leach, and has done significantly less with more. so no, i don't believe Dykes deserves to get what Leach gets on the basis of performance (not taking into account COL factors).

beeasyed;842613601 said:

---

"the lunacy that comes with Leach."

how about the hope that he's given that fanbase? his teams play more disciplined than ours, and have rarely been blown out. they've played more competitively than we have in big match-ups, including a 7-10 loss against USC and 24-31 against Auburn. beat Cal, Arizona, Utah, and skunked Idaho 42-0.

you want to talk about installing an offense that mitigates the need for top end talent as TFS has claimed to do? look at how WSU has competed with top teams. they have one of the worst recruiting locations, second to or Corvallis, and yet Leach gets a lot of mileage out of the kids he has to work with. oh, and they're looking to bring in their top recruiting class in at least a decade (low #40s).

so what that they didn't play $C or Utah this year? that's like saying "Cal is lucky they didn't play ASU or Utah in 2014." they lost to Stanfurd by 2, beat ASU by 14, Oregon by 7, and UCLA by 4, a total margin of +23. Ours 4-game margin was -43.

is Dykes a better coach than Leach? sure doesn't look like it at the moment. has less of a track record coming into Cal than Leach, and has done significantly less with more. so no, i don't believe Dykes deserves to get what Leach gets on the basis of performance (not taking into account COL factors).

---

Dykes got a little lucky last year in the Palouse but he out coached Leach this year for sure. You say they beat Cal - I assume you are referencing 2013 in Dykes first year .... Leach has lost twice in a row since then and lost to PORTLAND STATE this year....

My memory must be foggy... they beat us this year? Didn't we beat them this year? It was also convenient that they beat Oregon minus Adams...unless you think Lockie is comparable.

SRBear;842613607 said:

---

My memory must be foggy... they beat us this year? Didn't we beat them this year? It was also convenient that they beat Oregon minus Adams...unless you think Lockie is comparable.

---

that's like saying Sark beat Cal while at U$C. and they even had a bunch of injuries! so he must be a better coach than Sonny?

it's funny we're trying to find reasons to diminish what Leach has done with his roster, instead of trying to overachieve like they have.

txwharfrat;842613606 said:

---

Dykes got a little lucky last year in the Palouse but he out coached Leach this year for sure. You say they beat Cal - I assume you are referencing 2013 in Dykes first year .... Leach has lost twice in a row since then and lost to PORTLAND STATE this year....

---

In 2015, against the following opponents: Stanfurd, UCLA, Oregon, & ASU.

A.) One team collectively had a +23 pt margin against said opponents. It's in its 4th year under its HC, and has a much sh*ttier recruiting base.

B.) The other team had a -43 pt margin against said opponents. It's in its 3rd year under its HC, and is located in a great recruiting region.

Pretty obvious which coach seems to be doing better with what he has.


Also, I agree. We planned for the WSU game better this year, even though I don't think a win over WSU (or OSU) is much to brag about, regardless of the coach at the helm. And in the same game, weren't we only up by 6, backed up at our 4 yard line, when we had that 36 yard draw play? We then turned the ball over on downs, intercepted WSU, and had to punt again. like i said, not bragging about beating Wazzu.

Yeah, he's earned lower half of the Pac pay, because that's all he's done. If he does more, he should make more. Till then, he's producing a bottom half program with better resources than many below it. Seems fair.

I just wonder how much of the recruiting pool has been cut off due to the new academic restrictions.

txwharfrat;842613592 said:

---

Why do you say that about Dykes not deserving to get what Leach gets? Dykes is a better coach

---

What are you basing that on? Leach's track record as a head coach is much better than Dykes'.

SRBear;842613630 said:

---

I just wonder how much of the recruiting pool has been cut off due to the new academic restrictions.

---

See UCLA, Stanfurd, and Northwestern. Hell, even Duke.


Also, timely story about easiest programs to recruit at. Cal ranks #27th easiest nationally, 5th in Pac12. WSU #62 in the country, last in the P12.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14312923/college-football-easiest-toughest-recruiting-jobs-1-65

Just to bring ed's lunacy full circle, Dykes is better coach than Mora because of UCLA vs ASU compared to Cal vs ASU. It doesn't matter that UCLA has beat Cal 2 years in a row.

oski003;842613641 said:

---

Just to bring ed's lunacy full circle, Dykes is better coach than Mora because of UCLA vs ASU compared to Cal vs ASU. It doesn't matter that UCLA has beat Cal 2 years in a row.

---

when did i ever advocate for the transitive property of coaching? the 4-game point margins just goes to show that we have been far less competitive against the same opponents. do you actually have any points to make as to why Leach is NOT a better coach than Dykes?

and many on this board will claim the gap between Mora and Dykes isn't that big.

SRBear;842613630 said:

---

I just wonder how much of the recruiting pool has been cut off due to the new academic restrictions.

---

Lost our two initial 4* safeties because of it ...
Athletes who are real students have their "jock" status downgraded, even among their teammates, if there's a hint that their GPA is a 3.0+.

kaplanfx;842613598 said:

---

I'm no expert in these contracts but wouldn't an extension also result in a larger buyout? So if he really wanted to bolt after next year it might be in his interest not to get a big extension now (although he can of course use that in negotiations for his next job)? The fact that he is seemingly (not confirmed) trying to improve his extension terms means he might actually be thinking long term if he gets a reasonable contract. On the other hand, the sticking point for the bargaining might be the buyout...

-kap

---

There is no automatic relationship between an extension of years, a salary increase, and the amount of the buyout on either side. There are all subject to negotiation, there is nothing "standard in the industry" regarding the buyout amount, except that there is usually a correlation between the amount the school has to pay to terminate early and the amount the coach has to pay to leave early.

More than any salary bump, and WAY more than the number of years, and even more than what Sonny has to pay to get out early, Cal cares about how much it has to pay to fire Sonny early. Cal would probably be happy to give Sonny a ten year extension if, after the 2016, the buyout for terminating Sonny early without cause is $500,000 and drops by $50K per year. This won't fool recruits or opposing coaches recruiting against Cal, since the contract is public, they will know that if Sonny is on the hot seat, his long term contract doesn't mean squat. And Sonny would know it doesn't mean squat.

To protect Cal in the way you are suggesting, what is important is the amount that Sonny has to pay to get out of the contract early (as well as the overall salary level). Cal cares somewhat about that, but not nearly as much as Cal cares about how much it has to pay to terminate Sonny early.

There is still a lot of distress about how it worked out with Tedford. Right now, Cal is going to be very shy about taking a guy who hasn't demonstrated anything beyond getting to the middle of the Pac, where the jury is still out on how successful he can be on the field, and making it very expensive to fire him if Cal decides he needs to be fired in the next year or two or three. Realistically, the only way Cal can avoid making it really expensive to fire him is to also keep it cheap for Sonny to leave, whether that is through a negotiated extension with relatively low buyouts on both sides or by having no extension right now.

Cal absolutely could negotiate an extension that would help prevent Sonny from leaving if he is successful, but Sonny won't agree to it unless Cal also makes it expensive to fire him early if he is a failure, and I really don't think Cal wants to make that trade off right now.

Isn't the purpose of a buyout to effectively give something approximating present dollar value for the amount of the contract remaining? Otherwise the employer would just be on the hook for the full remaining contract cost (minus presumed offsets for compensation obtained through subsequent employment).

beeasyed;842613644 said:

---

when did i ever advocate for the transitive property of coaching? the 4-game point margins just goes to show that we have been far less competitive against the same opponents. do you actually have any points to make as to why Leach is NOT a better coach than Dykes?

and many on this board will claim the gap between Mora and Dykes isn't that big.

---

Yes, we beat Leach 2 years in a row. Something you are minimizing by ignoring such and emphasizing transitive properties (results against same opponents). You also emphasize WSU's recruiting difficulties.

In the same token, you do the opposite when comparing Cal to UCLA. You emphasize head to head results and claim a huge gap despite them having only one more win than us, losing to opponents we beat, and being in a better recruiting area. See your opinions in Max Gilliam thread.

Your conclusion drives your analysis.

tequila4kapp;842613659 said:

---

Isn't the purpose of a buyout to effectively give something approximating present dollar value for the amount of the contract remaining? Otherwise the employer would just be on the hook for the full remaining contract cost (minus presumed offsets for compensation obtained through subsequent employment).

---

No, the point of a buyout is to give an agreed upon amount of compensation for an early termination of the contract. That is it. It can be any amount. Most coaches do not have anything approaching present value. Dykes can be fired on January 1 for $1.5M which is not nearly present value for the remaining $4M on the contract.

Cal stupidly gave Tedford a guaranteed contract. Lesson learned.

txwharfrat;842613592 said:

---

Why do you say that about Dykes not deserving to get what Leach gets? Dykes is a better coach and you don't get the lunacy that comes with Leach. I don't know how many times I have to say it. WSU didn't play $C or Utah this year - and instead played Arizona and Colorado. You switch those teams in Cal's and WSU's schedules and Leach goes 6-6 instead of 8-4 and Cal goes 9-3 instead of 7-5.

Leach .... Coach Of The Year. OMG! How stupid are people? Stop that is a rhetorical question - I KNOW how stupid people are....

---

Good point about the scheduling. It didn't seem like WSU was as good as their record.

GATC;842613671 said:

---

Good point about the scheduling. It didn't seem like WSU was as good as their record.

---

It's a valid point, and they did luck into playing Oregon without Adams. But they did beat UCLA, and they played Stanfurd way better than we did (Furd was so lucky to win), so it's not like that they didn't do anything. They're about where we're at, but they've beaten UCLA, $C and Oregon within the last 5 years. No matter what the recruiting, there should be some years we just beat some of these guys on certain days. 0-12 the last 3 years just doesn't work for me.

oski003;842613664 said:

---

Yes, we beat Leach 2 years in a row. Something you are minimizing by ignoring such and emphasizing transitive properties (results against same opponents). You also emphasize WSU's recruiting difficulties.

In the same token, you do the opposite when comparing Cal to UCLA. You emphasize head to head results and claim a huge gap despite them having only one more win than us, losing to opponents we beat, and being in a better recruiting area. See your opinions in Max Gilliam thread.

Your conclusion drives your analysis.

---

You do not seem to understand what the transitive property is. Transitive property is Portland State beat WSU. WSU beat Oregon. Therefore, Portland State is better than Oregon. Comparing results against like opponents is not transitive property, it is one perfectly reasonable data point in judging two teams. As are things like overall record and head to head competition. Comparing our results against a common opponent with UCLA is valid too, just doesn't have much weight that we did better against one opponent when they trounced us and had a better record.

KoreAmBear;842613678 said:

---

It's a valid point, and they did luck into playing Oregon without Adams. But they did beat UCLA, and they played Stanfurd way better than we did (Furd was so lucky to win), so it's not like that they didn't do anything. They're about where we're at, but they've beaten UCLA, $C and Oregon within the last 5 years. No matter what the recruiting, there should be some years we just beat some of these guys on certain days. 0-12 the last 3 years just doesn't work for me.

---

Good points. Their defense looked pretty good at times and they are definitely better than before. But they did not seem like an 8-4 team. IIRC they got really screwed in the Stanford game. Agree that 0-12 is a bummer. Improvement to both lines will be required to break that.

KoreAmBear;842613678 said:

---

It's a valid point, and they did luck into playing Oregon without Adams. But they did beat UCLA, and they played Stanfurd way better than we did (Furd was so lucky to win), so it's not like that they didn't do anything. They're about where we're at, but they've beaten UCLA, $C and Oregon within the last 5 years. No matter what the recruiting, there should be some years we just beat some of these guys on certain days. 0-12 the last 3 years just doesn't work for me.

---

And WSU is doing it while being at a much larger recruiting disadvantage than Cal is. If they are roughly equal to Cal, then that is a point in favor of Leach's ability to coach up his players.