[washingtonismoney]

ESPN Insider, in their latest offseason #content trawling clickbait well-reasoned examination, is ranking the power 5 jobs. The 59ers are up today, at #44. Here's the description:

When Sonny Dykes took the Cal job in 2013, he told Insider that he was seeking a place just like Berkeley: where, unlike the South, the culture was not so football-obsessed. He was correct, but he has found the flip side with that argument.

The challenge: Pressure is lower, sure; Dykes isn't receiving death threats for losing games, something he half-jokingly said deterred him from interest in an SEC job. But the commitment level is lower, as well. You have to fight to get resources, fight to figure out what the admissions standard is. Things that are rubber-stamped at many places become teeth-pulling, time-consuming exercises. Coaches aren't interested in those headaches. There are enough inside the football building. The school went more than a year without a permanent AD, eventually promoting interim Michael Williams to the post before this season. Other coaches have taken note of Dykes' gripes about the way this hire was handled. Does Cal's leadership have a desire to be a competitive Pac-12 team, or is it content in the middle of the pack?

[washingtonismoney]

ESPN Insider, in their latest offseason #content trawling clickbait well-reasoned examination, is ranking the power 5 jobs. The 59ers are up today, at #44. Here's the description:

When Sonny Dykes took the Cal job in 2013, he told Insider that he was seeking a place just like Berkeley: where, unlike the South, the culture was not so football-obsessed. He was correct, but he has found the flip side with that argument.

The challenge: Pressure is lower, sure; Dykes isn't receiving death threats for losing games, something he half-jokingly said deterred him from interest in an SEC job. But the commitment level is lower, as well. You have to fight to get resources, fight to figure out what the admissions standard is. Things that are rubber-stamped at many places become teeth-pulling, time-consuming exercises. Coaches aren't interested in those headaches. There are enough inside the football building. The school went more than a year without a permanent AD, eventually promoting interim Michael Williams to the post before this season. Other coaches have taken note of Dykes' gripes about the way this hire was handled. Does Cal's leadership have a desire to be a competitive Pac-12 team, or is it content in the middle of the pack?

[CTcard]

ESPN Insider, in their latest offseason #content trawling clickbait well-reasoned examination, is ranking the power 5 jobs. The 59ers are up today, at #44.

By my count there are 65 Power 5 programs (since und is always included). That would put c.a.l. at about the 32nd percentile. I guess that's probably roughly correct, though as the flagship state university for the largest state in the country, one would think they could be a bit of a sleeping giant. On the other hand, Dykes efforts this past off season would seem to indicate that he considers it somewhat worse than that.

Of course the desirability of a job depends a lot on what one values. Stanford is at least one place that sticks out pretty strongly on that score, mostly because Stanford has a lot of things that distinguish it from most other D1 programs.

If one values football being the driving force for most decisions, an avid fan base that views you as the King, and no difficulties getting the athletes you recruit into the school, then Stanford would be a fairly lousy job.
If one values working with impressive kids, generally not having to have a close relationship with the local police, and leveraging the recruiting advantage of offering kids a spot in the best university in the world (more or less), then Stanford would be the best job.

[CTcard]

ESPN Insider, in their latest offseason #content trawling clickbait well-reasoned examination, is ranking the power 5 jobs. The 59ers are up today, at #44.

By my count there are 65 Power 5 programs (since und is always included). That would put c.a.l. at about the 32nd percentile. I guess that's probably roughly correct, though as the flagship state university for the largest state in the country, one would think they could be a bit of a sleeping giant. On the other hand, Dykes efforts this past off season would seem to indicate that he considers it somewhat worse than that.

Of course the desirability of a job depends a lot on what one values. Stanford is at least one place that sticks out pretty strongly on that score, mostly because Stanford has a lot of things that distinguish it from most other D1 programs.

If one values football being the driving force for most decisions, an avid fan base that views you as the King, and no difficulties getting the athletes you recruit into the school, then Stanford would be a fairly lousy job.
If one values working with impressive kids, generally not having to have a close relationship with the local police, and leveraging the recruiting advantage of offering kids a spot in the best university in the world (more or less), then Stanford would be the best job.

[BostonCard]

I'm past bear schaddenfreude. I legitimately feel bad for their continuing futility and derive little joy from knowing that they truly suck.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm past bear schaddenfreude. I legitimately feel bad for their continuing futility and derive little joy from knowing that they truly suck.

BC

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I'm past 59er schaddenfreude. I legitimately feel bad for their continuing futility and derive little joy from knowing that they truly suck.

BC

I feel the same.  Then I go click on any BI thread and read 28 different accusations of PED usage on the Farm and all manner of argument for why Stanford football isn't actually any better than C.al football, and then the schadenfreude gets tasty.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I'm past 59er schaddenfreude. I legitimately feel bad for their continuing futility and derive little joy from knowing that they truly suck.

BC

I feel the same.  Then I go click on any BI thread and read 28 different accusations of PED usage on the Farm and all manner of argument for why Stanford football isn't actually any better than C.al football, and then the schadenfreude gets tasty.

[winflop]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14643.msg157148#msg157148 date=1456372574]
I'm past 59er schaddenfreude. I legitimately feel bad for their continuing futility and derive little joy from knowing that they truly suck.

BC

I feel the same.  Then I go click on any BI thread and read 28 different accusations of PED usage on the Farm and all manner of argument for why Stanford football isn't actually any better than C.al football, and then the schadenfreude gets tasty.
[/quote]

Exactly.  They reap what they sow.  If they had enough class to just admit that right now, our program is light years better, I'd have some pity.  But instead their fans continue to resort to cheap shots.

[winflop]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14643.msg157148#msg157148 date=1456372574]
I'm past 59er schaddenfreude. I legitimately feel bad for their continuing futility and derive little joy from knowing that they truly suck.

BC

I feel the same.  Then I go click on any BI thread and read 28 different accusations of PED usage on the Farm and all manner of argument for why Stanford football isn't actually any better than C.al football, and then the schadenfreude gets tasty.
[/quote]

Exactly.  They reap what they sow.  If they had enough class to just admit that right now, our program is light years better, I'd have some pity.  But instead their fans continue to resort to cheap shots.

[Treebound]

It always amazes me - the size of the chip on their shoulder.    I can walk through SF with a small Stanford emblem on my shirt and someone will say "Go Bares."    I don't say "Go Stanford" when I see someone with a UCB logo.  "What's their deal?"    If I do say something in retort it's usually "Rose Bowl!"  That pretty much shuts them down.

Their program is so down right now, they can't attract kids that are qualified that we can't get past Old Union.  I know one of their former coaches and he said that admissions was never a problem across the bay.  As long as a student was NCAA eligible, the "student" was admitted.  The program and the funding for it have become a farce.  It stinks to be a bitter bare backer right now as they can't stand on athletics or academic integrity.    If you want a public education and a great football program then Harb's and UM is your answer. 

[Treebound]

It always amazes me - the size of the chip on their shoulder.    I can walk through SF with a small Stanford emblem on my shirt and someone will say "Go Bares."    I don't say "Go Stanford" when I see someone with a UCB logo.  "What's their deal?"    If I do say something in retort it's usually "Rose Bowl!"  That pretty much shuts them down.

Their program is so down right now, they can't attract kids that are qualified that we can't get past Old Union.  I know one of their former coaches and he said that admissions was never a problem across the bay.  As long as a student was NCAA eligible, the "student" was admitted.  The program and the funding for it have become a farce.  It stinks to be a bitter bare backer right now as they can't stand on athletics or academic integrity.    If you want a public education and a great football program then Harb's and UM is your answer. 

[Redrum]

, in their latest offseason #content trawling clickbait well-reasoned examination, is ranking the power 5 jobs. The 59ers are up today, at #44.

I'm surprised Kal made it #44...or to 32 by CT Card's reckoning.  My first reaction on reading this: "There can't be that many teams suckier than Kal." ESPN's ranking must be an artifact of Jared Goff, not Dykes.  So this ranking of Kal/Dykes is like a stream of hourly stock reports-- down at the open, finishing with a slight recovery at the close.  Did the evaluation factor in that the coach tested the employment market...and there was zero demand for him?  Did the report factor in that
Kal initially didn't offer Dykes an extension,  tested the market for an interested replacement,  failed finding a successful coach interested in taking the job, and finally-- like a bad marriage, the parties decided to live with each other for a minimum amount of time because there was nothing better around.  Cripes.

[Redrum]

, in their latest offseason #content trawling clickbait well-reasoned examination, is ranking the power 5 jobs. The 59ers are up today, at #44.

I'm surprised Kal made it #44...or to 32 by CT Card's reckoning.  My first reaction on reading this: "There can't be that many teams suckier than Kal." ESPN's ranking must be an artifact of Jared Goff, not Dykes.  So this ranking of Kal/Dykes is like a stream of hourly stock reports-- down at the open, finishing with a slight recovery at the close.  Did the evaluation factor in that the coach tested the employment market...and there was zero demand for him?  Did the report factor in that
Kal initially didn't offer Dykes an extension,  tested the market for an interested replacement,  failed finding a successful coach interested in taking the job, and finally-- like a bad marriage, the parties decided to live with each other for a minimum amount of time because there was nothing better around.  Cripes.

[Papa John]

Careful, friends. These things tend to go in cycles. I'm enjoying this ride for as long as it lasts, but I know it won't last forever.

[Papa John]

Careful, friends. These things tend to go in cycles. I'm enjoying this ride for as long as it lasts, but I know it won't last forever.

[Redrum]

That's why it's always right to enjoy the up cycle while it is the up cycle.

Believe me, I am always conscious of our previous cycles.  Maybe that's why I've enjoyed this cycle more than any since the Plunkett years.  Longer, too.

[Redrum]

That's why it's always right to enjoy the up cycle while it is the up cycle.

Believe me, I am always conscious of our previous cycles.  Maybe that's why I've enjoyed this cycle more than any since the Plunkett years.  Longer, too.

[FarmBoy]

Careful, friends. These things tend to go in cycles. I'm enjoying this ride for as long as it lasts, but I know it won't last forever.

I think this is exactly how some people enjoy it. Get it while the gettin's good.

[FarmBoy]

Careful, friends. These things tend to go in cycles. I'm enjoying this ride for as long as it lasts, but I know it won't last forever.

I think this is exactly how some people enjoy it. Get it while the gettin's good.

[washingtonismoney]

Some more Pac-12 programs in the latest update.

Washington checks in at #27, with this interesting tidbit:

Oregon and Stanford are the most obvious obstacles for the Huskies' return to prominence, but most coaches and agents believe there's room for them to get into the mix in the Pac-12 North. Oregon, many of them say, is trending down: "They've lost some of that swagger," an agent told Insider.

And then there's Stanford, at #21:

The bright side: The recent run is directly related to two things: a physical style of play and, more often than not, steady quarterback play. Any incoming staff would be wise not to change a whole lot, just as Shaw was when he was promoted to replace Jim Harbaugh. But credit Shaw and Harbaugh's guys with QB evaluations; remember that Texas passed on Andrew Luck. The San Francisco Bay Area is idyllic, and Palo Alto provides a posh home for the campus. Stanford is better than any other "high academic" school in terms of leveraging the value of a degree in the recruiting process. It's a coast-to-coast message that is becoming entrenched. "If Stanford goes after a kid that they really want, we couldn't beat them," a former USC coach told Insider. "He's thinking about being the CEO of IBM." With the success enjoyed in recent seasons, it's no wonder recruiting has improved dramatically. Since having the 40th-ranked class in 2013, it has twice had a top-15 finish (including No. 13 in 2016). Success is breeding more success.

The challenge: For coaches, particularly the assistants and support staff, it is a very expensive place to live. Rising salary pools have soothed some of those issues for the California schools. Stanford Stadium was updated about a decade ago, and it's still in outstanding shape. It's fair to wonder, though, how often the school's administration will approve facilities updates when it has so many other interests and focuses. If the arms race should happen to accelerate in the Pac-12 in the coming years, will Stanford be interested enough to take part?

UCLA is #18 but nothing of interest said in there.

http://insider.espn.go.com/college-footb...good-s-end

[washingtonismoney]

Some more Pac-12 programs in the latest update.

Washington checks in at #27, with this interesting tidbit:

Oregon and Stanford are the most obvious obstacles for the Huskies' return to prominence, but most coaches and agents believe there's room for them to get into the mix in the Pac-12 North. Oregon, many of them say, is trending down: "They've lost some of that swagger," an agent told Insider.

And then there's Stanford, at #21:

The bright side: The recent run is directly related to two things: a physical style of play and, more often than not, steady quarterback play. Any incoming staff would be wise not to change a whole lot, just as Shaw was when he was promoted to replace Jim Harbaugh. But credit Shaw and Harbaugh's guys with QB evaluations; remember that Texas passed on Andrew Luck. The San Francisco Bay Area is idyllic, and Palo Alto provides a posh home for the campus. Stanford is better than any other "high academic" school in terms of leveraging the value of a degree in the recruiting process. It's a coast-to-coast message that is becoming entrenched. "If Stanford goes after a kid that they really want, we couldn't beat them," a former USC coach told Insider. "He's thinking about being the CEO of IBM." With the success enjoyed in recent seasons, it's no wonder recruiting has improved dramatically. Since having the 40th-ranked class in 2013, it has twice had a top-15 finish (including No. 13 in 2016). Success is breeding more success.

The challenge: For coaches, particularly the assistants and support staff, it is a very expensive place to live. Rising salary pools have soothed some of those issues for the California schools. Stanford Stadium was updated about a decade ago, and it's still in outstanding shape. It's fair to wonder, though, how often the school's administration will approve facilities updates when it has so many other interests and focuses. If the arms race should happen to accelerate in the Pac-12 in the coming years, will Stanford be interested enough to take part?

UCLA is #18 but nothing of interest said in there.

http://insider.espn.go.com/college-footb...good-s-end

[CTcard]

Some more Pac-12 programs in the latest update.

Washington checks in at #27, with this interesting tidbit:

Oregon and Stanford are the most obvious obstacles for the Huskies' return to prominence, but most coaches and agents believe there's room for them to get into the mix in the Pac-12 North. Oregon, many of them say, is trending down: "They've lost some of that swagger," an agent told Insider.

And then there's Stanford, at #21:

...

The challenge: ... If the arms race should happen to accelerate in the Pac-12 in the coming years, will Stanford be interested enough to take part?

Hmmm.

First of all, somehow it bothers me that their key source of information seems to be agents. Though I am not sure that is any less valid than the opinions of the ESPN writers themselves.

For Stanford, I find it surprising that they don't note even in passing the challenge of not being able to get lots of guys into the school. That's a very real issue and for a lot of football guys would be a substantial negative. They did mention the positive side of the same coin - for those who can get in Stanford has a built in recruiting edge by being the best university that plays big time football.

The arms race stuff is pure speculation, and depends strongly on the details - what are the strategies (costs) on the table - how are things going in the football program - who is running the program. In a round-about way it does touch on the issue that football is not the driver of decisions at Stanford in the same way it is at many places. Presumably that is a negative for many guys.

I think that Stanford has more "if you have the right guy" issues than most.

[CTcard]

Some more Pac-12 programs in the latest update.

Washington checks in at #27, with this interesting tidbit:

Oregon and Stanford are the most obvious obstacles for the Huskies' return to prominence, but most coaches and agents believe there's room for them to get into the mix in the Pac-12 North. Oregon, many of them say, is trending down: "They've lost some of that swagger," an agent told Insider.

And then there's Stanford, at #21:

...

The challenge: ... If the arms race should happen to accelerate in the Pac-12 in the coming years, will Stanford be interested enough to take part?

Hmmm.

First of all, somehow it bothers me that their key source of information seems to be agents. Though I am not sure that is any less valid than the opinions of the ESPN writers themselves.

For Stanford, I find it surprising that they don't note even in passing the challenge of not being able to get lots of guys into the school. That's a very real issue and for a lot of football guys would be a substantial negative. They did mention the positive side of the same coin - for those who can get in Stanford has a built in recruiting edge by being the best university that plays big time football.

The arms race stuff is pure speculation, and depends strongly on the details - what are the strategies (costs) on the table - how are things going in the football program - who is running the program. In a round-about way it does touch on the issue that football is not the driver of decisions at Stanford in the same way it is at many places. Presumably that is a negative for many guys.

I think that Stanford has more "if you have the right guy" issues than most.

[Robbie]

...for those who can get in Stanford has a built in recruiting edge by being the best university that plays big time football.

Fixed.

[Robbie]

...for those who can get in Stanford has a built in recruiting edge by being the best university that plays big time football.

Fixed.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=14643.msg157174#msg157174 date=1456441304]
...for those who can get in Stanford has a built in recruiting edge by being the best university that plays big time football.

Fixed.
[/quote]

Well, I did put it that way in my first post in this thread.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=14643.msg157174#msg157174 date=1456441304]
...for those who can get in Stanford has a built in recruiting edge by being the best university that plays big time football.

Fixed.
[/quote]

Well, I did put it that way in my first post in this thread.

[terry]

The doubt in the quoted piece about whether Stanford is willing to update facilities seems odd. Within the last couple years, Stanford finished a major expansion of the football offices / meeting rooms / locker room, and also finished the new field house / locker room down at the stadium. And the stadium is just 10 years old. I'm not sure why there is an issue with facilities.

[terry]

The doubt in the quoted piece about whether Stanford is willing to update facilities seems odd. Within the last couple years, Stanford finished a major expansion of the football offices / meeting rooms / locker room, and also finished the new field house / locker room down at the stadium. And the stadium is just 10 years old. I'm not sure why there is an issue with facilities.

[stupac2]

The doubt in the quoted piece about whether Stanford is willing to update facilities seems odd. Within the last couple years, Stanford finished a major expansion of the football offices / meeting rooms / locker room, and also finished the new field house / locker room down at the stadium. And the stadium is just 10 years old. I'm not sure why there is an issue with facilities.

I had that same thought. I think the only conceivable amenity we're missing is an indoor practice field, and it's possible we have one and I just forgot (but it hardly seems like we really need one).

[stupac2]

The doubt in the quoted piece about whether Stanford is willing to update facilities seems odd. Within the last couple years, Stanford finished a major expansion of the football offices / meeting rooms / locker room, and also finished the new field house / locker room down at the stadium. And the stadium is just 10 years old. I'm not sure why there is an issue with facilities.

I had that same thought. I think the only conceivable amenity we're missing is an indoor practice field, and it's possible we have one and I just forgot (but it hardly seems like we really need one).

[Stymie]

[quote author=terry link=topic=14643.msg157178#msg157178 date=1456445268]
The doubt in the quoted piece about whether Stanford is willing to update facilities seems odd. Within the last couple years, Stanford finished a major expansion of the football offices / meeting rooms / locker room, and also finished the new field house / locker room down at the stadium. And the stadium is just 10 years old. I'm not sure why there is an issue with facilities.

en and Women)I had that same thought. I think the only conceivable amenity we're missing is an indoor practice field, and it's possible we have one and I just forgot (but it hardly seems like we really need one).
[/quote]

We do in fact have an indoor practice facility, which accommodates not only the football team but also two soccer fields (Mens and Womens), lacrosse, field hockey, golf, T&F, Ultimate Frisbee and Quidditch.  Most people have not noticed this because it is sited between the radio telescope and SLAC in an Area 51-like Stealth-enhanced protected area (Props to our Physics boffins, WOOHOO!!!).

[Stymie]

[quote author=terry link=topic=14643.msg157178#msg157178 date=1456445268]
The doubt in the quoted piece about whether Stanford is willing to update facilities seems odd. Within the last couple years, Stanford finished a major expansion of the football offices / meeting rooms / locker room, and also finished the new field house / locker room down at the stadium. And the stadium is just 10 years old. I'm not sure why there is an issue with facilities.

en and Women)I had that same thought. I think the only conceivable amenity we're missing is an indoor practice field, and it's possible we have one and I just forgot (but it hardly seems like we really need one).
[/quote]

We do in fact have an indoor practice facility, which accommodates not only the football team but also two soccer fields (Mens and Womens), lacrosse, field hockey, golf, T&F, Ultimate Frisbee and Quidditch.  Most people have not noticed this because it is sited between the radio telescope and SLAC in an Area 51-like Stealth-enhanced protected area (Props to our Physics boffins, WOOHOO!!!).

[winflop]

the radio telescope

I smell a spy!  Why?  Because anybody with a real Stanford affiliation would never call it anything other than THE DISH :P

[winflop]

the radio telescope

I smell a spy!  Why?  Because anybody with a real Stanford affiliation would never call it anything other than THE DISH :P