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.

---

and that's great that we beat them 2 years in a row and are 2-1 against them since Sonny's hiring. but am i supposed to think Sonny deserves more to be paid more than Leach on that basis?

so if you're not going to compare their records against the same opponents, how are you going to assess them then? average GPAs?

oski003;842613664 said:

---

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.

---

well, unlike WSU which is perceived to be a lower-tier program, UCLA and its performance to date have been well-documented. but, sure, head-to-head, we're 0-3 against UCLA since Dykes was hired. and if you want to compare performances, here are our point margins against the California schools since Sonny has been hired compared to Mora:

[U]UCLA[/U]
USC: +20 (2-1)
Stanford: -56 (0-3)
Cal: +45 (3-0)

[U]Cal[/U]
USC: -48 (0-3)
Stanfurd: -74 (0-3)
UCLA: -45 (0-3)

Nice to see both our schools like to get creamed by Stanfurd, though we tend it do it in a more spectacular function--we lose by an average of 24 a game compared to their 18! But that's nothing to brag about. They've beaten their superiorly loaded rivals twice already.

I claim a big gap with UCLA because I don't look singularly at the total wins as signs of progress. I say that because most of our position units have regressed since last season. Or that we are still getting dominated on the OL for most of the season. And that we still haven't had consistent pass rush, outside of a strong Kragen game here and there. Or maybe that Tommerdahl has still kept his job despite coming in highly touted.

Mora may have hit his peak at LA, but he's still achieved a lot more for that program than we have with ours. At least he's recruited well, and has delivered two 10-win seasons. He's assembled a staff that competes with the best in the country, and has gotten them rewarded as such; went from 5th highest paid in conference to 1st in 2014.

All we have to show for in 3 years is an improved APR, 13-23 overall record, an Armed Forces Bowl, and another assistant coaching carousel of an offseason.

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.

---

at some point, with all the "luck" other teams get, you'd think Cal would eventually luck its way into beating U$C once in the last 12 seasons, right? WSU, Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah all have in the last few years.

beeasyed;842613697 said:

---

at some point, with all the "luck" other teams get, you'd think Cal would eventually luck its way into beating U$C once in the last 12 seasons, right? WSU, Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah all have in the last few years.

---

So has Oregon State. Pretty much we're the only one, which is really sad.

OaktownBear;842613667 said:

---

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.

---

Have you (or has anyone) ever seen a list of actual major-college HC buyout terms, ranging the gamut from employee-friendly to employer-friendly? I'd be curious what the range is and what is "typical". During the Tedford era, my take was that what we gave him, in terms of buyout, was fairly typical.

As far as what we will need to pay Sonny, or anybody else, bottom line, it's going to need to be "market value". We just paid him "entry level", as he hadn't yet proven himself. If he establishes himself as "Seven Win Sonny", we will be needing to pay him something in the mid-range for the Pac 12. If he were to prove himself as a nine-win guy (don't laugh, hypothetical only), he'd be able to command something in the conference's top third. Of course, the problem is that the jury is still out. His agent can say he's Seven Win Sonny, but that was just this season. (And, obviously, we're striving for something greater than that.)

KoreAmBear;842613703 said:

---

So has Oregon State. Pretty much we're the only one, which is really sad.

---

haha i wasn't trying to go THAT far back. think it was 2008.

UW beat them this year, as did Oregon. Colorado has not yet, since they joined the conference in 2011, though this year they only lost by 3! i suppose you could say they're "closing the gap with USC."

beeasyed;842613696 said:

---

and that's great that we beat them 2 years in a row and are 2-1 against them since Sonny's hiring. but am i supposed to think Sonny deserves more to be paid more than Leach on that basis?

so if you're not going to compare their records against the same opponents, how are you going to assess them then? average GPAs?

well, unlike WSU which is perceived to be a lower-tier program, UCLA and its performance to date have been well-documented. but, sure, head-to-head, we're 0-3 against UCLA since Dykes was hired. and if you want to compare performances, here are our point margins against the California schools since Sonny has been hired compared to Mora:

[U]UCLA[/U]
USC: +20 (2-1)
Stanford: -56 (0-3)
Cal: +45 (3-0)

[U]Cal[/U]
USC: -48 (0-3)
Stanfurd: -74 (0-3)
UCLA: -45 (0-3)

Nice to see both our schools like to get creamed by Stanfurd, though we tend it do it in a more spectacular function--we lose by an average of 24 a game compared to their 18! But that's nothing to brag about. They've beaten their superiorly loaded rivals twice already.

I claim a big gap with UCLA because I don't look singularly at the total wins as signs of progress. I say that because most of our position units have regressed since last season. Or that we are still getting dominated on the OL for most of the season. And that we still haven't had consistent pass rush, outside of a strong Kragen game here and there. Or maybe that Tommerdahl has still kept his job despite coming in highly touted.

Mora may have hit his peak at LA, but he's still achieved a lot more for that program than we have with ours. At least he's recruited well, and has delivered two 10-win seasons. He's assembled a staff that competes with the best in the country, and has gotten them rewarded as such; went from 5th highest paid in conference to 1st in 2014.

All we have to show for in 3 years is an improved APR, 13-23 overall record, an Armed Forces Bowl, and another assistant coaching carousel of an offseason.

---

Our trend is upward. 5 wins to 7 wins with a tougher schedule. Pretty crazy with all that regression that you cite. Keep including 2013 in all stats. It did happen, but you can't ignore trends.

Throw out 2013 and those stats DRASTICALLY change. That shows progress.

Also, you only cite Dykes' record against California schools. That is absolutely the biggest, most legitimate argument against an extension. That is why he is not worth 3m and should still make in the 2's with a bump in assistant pay.

oski003;842613721 said:

---

Our trend is upward. 5 wins to 7 wins with a tougher schedule.

---

really? didn't Washington, WSU, UCLA, USC, and Oregon all regress this season? UCLA with their injuries & true frosh, U$C with their HC liability, Oregon w/o Mariota and a defense, UW and WSU with young QBs. the only 2 teams that did not turn out to be much worse is Utah and Stanfurd.

are we still tooting the strength of schedule card?

oski003;842613721 said:

---

Pretty crazy with all that regression that you cite. Keep including 2013 in all stats. It did happen, but you can't ignore trends.

Throw out 2013 and those stats DRASTICALLY change. That shows progress.

Also, you only cite Dykes' record against California schools. That is absolutely the biggest, most legitimate argument against an extension. That is why he is not worth 3m and should still make in the 2's with a bump in assistant pay.

---

well i'd have included Oregon, too, except UCLA didn't play them this year. but, sure, throw the 2013 season out:

[U]Cal[/U] in 2014-15
USC: -14
Furd: -34
UCLA: -18
Oregon: -34

But if you want to talk about "trends" and the specific issues of 2013 and whatnot, then you have to acknowledge a bunch of other things in 2014 and 2015. like the fact that we played some of the worst U$C teams in over a decade, presided over by a nonfunctional alcoholic who let us backdoor cover 2014. or that UCLA had significant injury issues coming into our game, and after we were coming off a bye week. or that Oregon's awful DBs would match up well against Cal's WRs (progress when WRs and other units got worse this year?)

Here's another "trend": The fact that we've complained about injuries & experience every season since Dykes has been hired--yet with our healthiest and most experienced roster yet + Goff, we're looking at an Armed Forces Bowl.

excuses for everybody!

beeasyed;842613741 said:

---

really? didn't Washington, WSU, UCLA, USC, and Oregon all regress this season? UCLA with their injuries & true frosh, U$C with their HC liability, Oregon w/o Mariota and a defense, UW and WSU with young QBs. the only 2 teams that did not turn out to be much worse is Utah and Stanfurd.

are we still tooting the strength of schedule card?




well i'd have included Oregon, too, except UCLA didn't play them this year. but, sure, throw the 2013 season out:

[U]Cal[/U] in 2014-15
USC: -14
Furd: -34
UCLA: -18
Oregon: -34

But if you want to talk about "trends" and the specific issues of 2013 and whatnot, then you have to acknowledge a bunch of other things in 2014 and 2015. like the fact that we played some of the worst U$C teams in over a decade, presided over by a nonfunctional alcoholic who let us backdoor cover 2014. or that UCLA had significant injury issues coming into our game, and after we were coming off a bye week. or that Oregon's awful DBs would match up well against Cal's WRs (progress when WRs and other units got worse this year?)

Here's another "trend": The fact that we've complained about injuries & experience every season since Dykes has been hired--yet with our healthiest and most experienced roster yet + Goff, we're looking at an Armed Forces Bowl.

excuses for everybody!

---

I do not see too many people complaining about injuries and experience this year. I'm sorry this season is not meeting your expectations. Rally on. And, no, Washington, WSU, UCLA, USC, and Oregon did not all regress this season.

oski003;842613757 said:

---

I do not see too many people complaining about injuries and experience this year. I'm sorry this season is not meeting your expectations. Rally on. And, no, Washington, WSU, UCLA, USC, and Oregon did not all regress this season.

---

i predicted 7 wins this season; we got 7 wins. so it about met my expectation for what this staff can do. i don't like Sonny; i don't dislike Sonny. but I certainly don't think he deserves a significant raise and extension.

as far as you not being able to see that many of our conference opponents have regressed...too bad. seems pretty obvious to the rest of the country and analysts.

1) Oregon is pretty damn good when their math remedial QB is healthy.
2) USC is about the same. They have had great talent but questionable coaching since Pete left
3) UCLA regressed a little bit
4) WSU is having its best season in a long time
5) Washington has regressed a little bit.

oski003;842613773 said:

---

1) Oregon is pretty damn good when their math remedial QB is healthy.
2) USC is about the same. They have had great talent but questionable coaching since Pete left
3) UCLA regressed a little bit
4) WSU is having its best season in a long time
5) Washington has regressed a little bit.

---

Going forward:

I think that with Petersen, talented young QB in Browning and a great D, UW's prospects are looking good. That may be the worst we see of them in a while. I think Petersen will take them to a higher level than Sark ever did.

I see both ASU and AZ going sideways or trending down.

We'll have to see what Oregon does without Adams.

CU and Oregon State will get incrementally better but still BDWs.

Wazzu's year may be the best that they can do.

USC and UCLA will both have great recruits and underachieve. I'm not a big believer in Mora or Helton.

Utah may regress with Booker gone and a new QB too.

Furd still seems too solid. Can we please give Shaw a little credit? I know we can't bear to do that, but it just sucks that he's this good.

beeasyed;842613741 said:

---

really? didn't Washington, WSU, UCLA, USC, and Oregon all regress this season? UCLA with their injuries & true frosh, U$C with their HC liability, Oregon w/o Mariota and a defense, UW and WSU with young QBs. the only 2 teams that did not turn out to be much worse is Utah and Stanfurd.

are we still tooting the strength of schedule card?

---

If Sagarin is any kind of authority, then he says our schedule was tougher this year than last year, at least relative to other teams across the country.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

This year we have the 7th toughest schedule per him, last year the 38th.