I see it cited here in posts and even in community members signatures.
Do folks believe it's a good measure of Dykes performance to date? Personally, I don't get it.
If I hire a CEO to run my company that used to make $100M a year yet has gone the wrong way to the point that we were losing $30M a year in 2012 ( leading to the former CEO being fired) then I'm evaluating the new CEO on his ability to turn things around and get back to $100M+. You never see a CEO in a turnaround situation being evaluated by aggregate results but rather what he's done lately and whether that reflects continued growth in profitability and value creation under their leadership.
I'd realize that a new leader has to clean house and turn around a losing culture (and in Cal's case that was both academically and on the field). Given the downward trend line with Tedford, the academic disaster and the # of recruits he left behind who were vastly overrated (Moala, Bigelow, Tagaloa) and/or outmatched in the classroom, this was a complete and total rebuild. Add in having to start a true frosh QB because the 5 star RS frosh that was left behind was not good enough to start for Idaho State and then more injuries than Cal had ever experienced in 100 years of football and you had a complete and total turnaround. Don't give me Tedford in 2002 with a 1st round draft pick as a senior QB and a very solid and experienced talent base (18 returning starters, most in the Pac 10). And let's not forget that the Pac 12 in 2013 was as deep and strong as the conference has ever been while in 2002, the opposing coaches names included Buddy Teevans, Dirk Koetter, John Mackovic and Bob Toledo.
Given the complete turnaround at Cal, the losses under our new CEO get worse in year one as changes are made - we lose $60M, an all time low. At that point, the needle starts pointing the right direction, losses come down to $15M and this year we finally make money - $30M in profit. That's good news, is it not? Now shareholders expect the company to make $100M+ a year so he's not being hailed as the next Jack Welch just yet. However, he's got the company back to profitability and it's all about trend lines in business, sports and life.
So, are those that cite Sonny's record at Cal doing so because they truly believe it reflects his performance or because they believe his work to date isn't going to lead beyond mediocrity and are simply looking for any argument to build support for his immediate ouster?
If it's the former, is your view that 2013 could have or would have been a 6+ win season with a good coach? That injuries were Dykes fault? True QB starter was Dykes fault and that had he been a better coach, Kline would have been a star? That Moala, Bigelow, Tagaloa et al just needed better coaching? I would bet a lot of money that if we asked Urban Meyer while under truth serum how many games he thinks he would have won after inheriting Tedford's mess and with the subsequent injuries, he would tell us that he might have gotten to 3 wins (after he spent an hour telling you that he would NEVER have taken the job given the disaster that was Cal football after 2012). I do believe Meyer would have said that he would have won 7 games in 2014 and 9+ this year (Sorry Sonny but you're no Urban Meyer).
To be clear, I don't think Dykes has shown that he has what it takes to be a great coach at Cal. He's got a lot to prove if he wants the support of donors, season ticket holders and casual fans. I'd just love to not constantly read data that is IMO silly and irrelevant to any objective evaluation of Dykes. Folks on here are far too intelligent and thoughtful to have that level of selective bias. You can feel strongly that Dykes is not the guy and recognize that the trend line is good and that if the trend line continues you might reevaluate your view.
Do folks believe it's a good measure of Dykes performance to date? Personally, I don't get it.
If I hire a CEO to run my company that used to make $100M a year yet has gone the wrong way to the point that we were losing $30M a year in 2012 ( leading to the former CEO being fired) then I'm evaluating the new CEO on his ability to turn things around and get back to $100M+. You never see a CEO in a turnaround situation being evaluated by aggregate results but rather what he's done lately and whether that reflects continued growth in profitability and value creation under their leadership.
I'd realize that a new leader has to clean house and turn around a losing culture (and in Cal's case that was both academically and on the field). Given the downward trend line with Tedford, the academic disaster and the # of recruits he left behind who were vastly overrated (Moala, Bigelow, Tagaloa) and/or outmatched in the classroom, this was a complete and total rebuild. Add in having to start a true frosh QB because the 5 star RS frosh that was left behind was not good enough to start for Idaho State and then more injuries than Cal had ever experienced in 100 years of football and you had a complete and total turnaround. Don't give me Tedford in 2002 with a 1st round draft pick as a senior QB and a very solid and experienced talent base (18 returning starters, most in the Pac 10). And let's not forget that the Pac 12 in 2013 was as deep and strong as the conference has ever been while in 2002, the opposing coaches names included Buddy Teevans, Dirk Koetter, John Mackovic and Bob Toledo.
Given the complete turnaround at Cal, the losses under our new CEO get worse in year one as changes are made - we lose $60M, an all time low. At that point, the needle starts pointing the right direction, losses come down to $15M and this year we finally make money - $30M in profit. That's good news, is it not? Now shareholders expect the company to make $100M+ a year so he's not being hailed as the next Jack Welch just yet. However, he's got the company back to profitability and it's all about trend lines in business, sports and life.
So, are those that cite Sonny's record at Cal doing so because they truly believe it reflects his performance or because they believe his work to date isn't going to lead beyond mediocrity and are simply looking for any argument to build support for his immediate ouster?
If it's the former, is your view that 2013 could have or would have been a 6+ win season with a good coach? That injuries were Dykes fault? True QB starter was Dykes fault and that had he been a better coach, Kline would have been a star? That Moala, Bigelow, Tagaloa et al just needed better coaching? I would bet a lot of money that if we asked Urban Meyer while under truth serum how many games he thinks he would have won after inheriting Tedford's mess and with the subsequent injuries, he would tell us that he might have gotten to 3 wins (after he spent an hour telling you that he would NEVER have taken the job given the disaster that was Cal football after 2012). I do believe Meyer would have said that he would have won 7 games in 2014 and 9+ this year (Sorry Sonny but you're no Urban Meyer).
To be clear, I don't think Dykes has shown that he has what it takes to be a great coach at Cal. He's got a lot to prove if he wants the support of donors, season ticket holders and casual fans. I'd just love to not constantly read data that is IMO silly and irrelevant to any objective evaluation of Dykes. Folks on here are far too intelligent and thoughtful to have that level of selective bias. You can feel strongly that Dykes is not the guy and recognize that the trend line is good and that if the trend line continues you might reevaluate your view.
