[OutsiderFan]

I know asking this question risks not being taken at all seriously, but I'm hoping to get some serious responses...

Jeff Tedford's reign of error was long enough to give the UCB football team a 2013 roster akin to a team that received the Bush punishment.  It was no surprise the wheels came off in a 1-11 nadir.  Now, after a stable offseason underpinned by a first of its kind commitment to becoming tougher and more physical, and actually developing individual accountability to the team, the roster has been culled of bad apples and on to a much more healthy development curve.  However, UCB still has one of the youngest and most inexperienced teams in the PAC-12, which doesn't auger well for winning games in such a strong league. 

Now my question:  if Stanford were in similar shoes, coming off a 1-11 season, with the coach who went 1-11, would you be willing to give the coach another year, if this year was 3-9 with a clearly more competitive team, knowing there should be a big improvement in year three?  Or would you think another less than 5 win season and it's time to pull the plug so you can get "a real coach" in as fast as possible?

[OutsiderFan]

I know asking this question risks not being taken at all seriously, but I'm hoping to get some serious responses...

Jeff Tedford's reign of error was long enough to give the UCB football team a 2013 roster akin to a team that received the Bush punishment.  It was no surprise the wheels came off in a 1-11 nadir.  Now, after a stable offseason underpinned by a first of its kind commitment to becoming tougher and more physical, and actually developing individual accountability to the team, the roster has been culled of bad apples and on to a much more healthy development curve.  However, UCB still has one of the youngest and most inexperienced teams in the PAC-12, which doesn't auger well for winning games in such a strong league. 

Now my question:  if Stanford were in similar shoes, coming off a 1-11 season, with the coach who went 1-11, would you be willing to give the coach another year, if this year was 3-9 with a clearly more competitive team, knowing there should be a big improvement in year three?  Or would you think another less than 5 win season and it's time to pull the plug so you can get "a real coach" in as fast as possible?

[Farm93]

Stanford Basketball is probably the closest comparable.  And apparently Stanford would wait 5+ years to see if the ship could get turned around.

Stanford Football rarely has FCS teams on the schedule, so that 1 win does not really count.  UCB went 0-11.  And in 2014 I would guess 1 of the 3 would be against another FCS team.

So the question really needs to look like this...If Stanford came off a 0-11 season would Stanford fans then be content with a 2-9 season?  Those 2 wins had better be special, and the recruits in the next incoming class would need to be significantly be better.  I would guess that would not be good enough for Stanford.  I also would guess that would not be good enough for UofA, ASU, Colorado, Utah, USC, UCLA, UW and UofO.  It might be deemed barely acceptable at OSU or WSU.  And even then I doubt it.

I can't really comment on the benefit derived from clearing the bad apples and the low grad rates because Stanford simply does not have a good historical reference set there IHMO.  Even though Ted's buddies' teams were not great on the field, it was always clear the players were good apples. 

[Farm93]

Stanford Basketball is probably the closest comparable.  And apparently Stanford would wait 5+ years to see if the ship could get turned around.

Stanford Football rarely has FCS teams on the schedule, so that 1 win does not really count.  UCB went 0-11.  And in 2014 I would guess 1 of the 3 would be against another FCS team.

So the question really needs to look like this...If Stanford came off a 0-11 season would Stanford fans then be content with a 2-9 season?  Those 2 wins had better be special, and the recruits in the next incoming class would need to be significantly be better.  I would guess that would not be good enough for Stanford.  I also would guess that would not be good enough for UofA, ASU, Colorado, Utah, USC, UCLA, UW and UofO.  It might be deemed barely acceptable at OSU or WSU.  And even then I doubt it.

I can't really comment on the benefit derived from clearing the bad apples and the low grad rates because Stanford simply does not have a good historical reference set there IHMO.  Even though Ted's buddies' teams were not great on the field, it was always clear the players were good apples. 

[81alum]

and the recruits in the next incoming class would need to be significantly be better.

This. 

C.al went so low that I think there will be patience so long as the APR goes up and the perceived quality of the recruits also goes up., even if the win record does not change much this year. 

If the APR should go down at all there will be an immediate dismissal of Dykes.  And if the defense looks equally incompetent as last year I also think Dykes will be gone.

It is important for Dykes to be able to point to a promising future as C.al suffers through another generally bad season.  There need to be some flashes of brilliance out of very young players.  For example, if Goff pulls off a couple of come-from-behind last minute miracles this year, and if one of the young defensive players becomes a known playmaker (sacks, interceptions, etc.), the fans could be encouraged even if the season was otherwise pretty miserable. 

Also militating against the dismissal of Dykes is the overhaul of the offense he has installed.  It was such a radical change from the past that 1) people probably understand that it takes time to "take," and 2) firing Dykes would now be hugely disruptive unless his replacement continued his offensive scheme.

[81alum]

and the recruits in the next incoming class would need to be significantly be better.

This. 

C.al went so low that I think there will be patience so long as the APR goes up and the perceived quality of the recruits also goes up., even if the win record does not change much this year. 

If the APR should go down at all there will be an immediate dismissal of Dykes.  And if the defense looks equally incompetent as last year I also think Dykes will be gone.

It is important for Dykes to be able to point to a promising future as C.al suffers through another generally bad season.  There need to be some flashes of brilliance out of very young players.  For example, if Goff pulls off a couple of come-from-behind last minute miracles this year, and if one of the young defensive players becomes a known playmaker (sacks, interceptions, etc.), the fans could be encouraged even if the season was otherwise pretty miserable. 

Also militating against the dismissal of Dykes is the overhaul of the offense he has installed.  It was such a radical change from the past that 1) people probably understand that it takes time to "take," and 2) firing Dykes would now be hugely disruptive unless his replacement continued his offensive scheme.

[71Bear]

Some thoughts...

CoachDykes will not be judged by the number of wins produced by the team.  He will be assessed by the progress the team is making, academically and athletically. 

The situation into which he came was far worse than most people thought.  The team was lacking in talent, had a number of guys who should never have been recruited for reasons other than football ability, and a terrible strength and conditioning situation. 

He has done a good job of righting the ship academically, has weeded out the malcontents and has a new strength and conditioning structure in place. 

Most BearBackers are realistically looking for process improvement.  While this may not lead to immediate tangible results, it should set the foundation for future success.  2014 is not about winning, it is about setting the table for a big step forward in 2015. 

In other words, Garvin nailed it - 2015 will be the year in which CoachDykes' fate is determined.

Three other thoughts - FCS wins are nothing to laugh at when you are down.  LSJU knows this only to well having lost to UCDavis during the dark days that preceded Harbaugh.

If Cal were to dump CoachDykes without making a very strong case, it would be difficult to find another coach who would want to work in an environment in which the boss has unrealistic expectations.  Who would want that job?

Lastly, Interim AD Williams is on record as having said that he is looking for progress this year (he used the word four times when asked a question about what he wanted from the football program).  What is progress, you might ask?  To quote Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it"...

[71Bear]

Some thoughts...

CoachDykes will not be judged by the number of wins produced by the team.  He will be assessed by the progress the team is making, academically and athletically. 

The situation into which he came was far worse than most people thought.  The team was lacking in talent, had a number of guys who should never have been recruited for reasons other than football ability, and a terrible strength and conditioning situation. 

He has done a good job of righting the ship academically, has weeded out the malcontents and has a new strength and conditioning structure in place. 

Most BearBackers are realistically looking for process improvement.  While this may not lead to immediate tangible results, it should set the foundation for future success.  2014 is not about winning, it is about setting the table for a big step forward in 2015. 

In other words, Garvin nailed it - 2015 will be the year in which CoachDykes' fate is determined.

Three other thoughts - FCS wins are nothing to laugh at when you are down.  LSJU knows this only to well having lost to UCDavis during the dark days that preceded Harbaugh.

If Cal were to dump CoachDykes without making a very strong case, it would be difficult to find another coach who would want to work in an environment in which the boss has unrealistic expectations.  Who would want that job?

Lastly, Interim AD Williams is on record as having said that he is looking for progress this year (he used the word four times when asked a question about what he wanted from the football program).  What is progress, you might ask?  To quote Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it"...

[JohnR34231]

Actually Buddy did quite well in the first half of his third season, going 4-2 with a close loss to a U$C team that would go 13-0 on the year. I recall that it prompted some guy on the Bootboard to post (to much applause) "How could we have ever thought Buddy was a bad coach?" Well, Buddy proceeded to show us by losing the next five in a row to go 4-7, and that sealed his fate.

Interesting statistic. During Buddy's three year tenure, he was never able to beat a team that ended the year with a winning record.

[JohnR34231]

Actually Buddy did quite well in the first half of his third season, going 4-2 with a close loss to a U$C team that would go 13-0 on the year. I recall that it prompted some guy on the Bootboard to post (to much applause) "How could we have ever thought Buddy was a bad coach?" Well, Buddy proceeded to show us by losing the next five in a row to go 4-7, and that sealed his fate.

Interesting statistic. During Buddy's three year tenure, he was never able to beat a team that ended the year with a winning record.

[terry]

SonnyDykes won't be fired this year unless there's a scandal. He has a five-year contract at almost $2 million per year, so it would be pretty expensive to terminate him. C.al doesn't have a permanent athletic director. The interim A.D. isn't going to eat the remaining three years on that contract. He's going to pass the decision on to the permanent A.D.

[terry]

SonnyDykes won't be fired this year unless there's a scandal. He has a five-year contract at almost $2 million per year, so it would be pretty expensive to terminate him. C.al doesn't have a permanent athletic director. The interim A.D. isn't going to eat the remaining three years on that contract. He's going to pass the decision on to the permanent A.D.

[GoodGrief]

I thought Bob Bowlsby laid it out well when he announced Walt Harris's firing. He acknowledged that in some ways, it wasn't fair to Walt to fire him so soon, but he had to ask himself if he thought that the team was headed in the right direction. And because he didn't think the team was headed in the right direction, he fired  the worst football coach in my Stanford history and found Coach Harbaugh.

"Heading in the right direction" is a vague term, but I would imagine beyond the number of wins, it involves player development, a culture of hard work, and good game planning. Also an Enthusiasm Unknown To Man is helpful.

[GoodGrief]

I thought Bob Bowlsby laid it out well when he announced Walt Harris's firing. He acknowledged that in some ways, it wasn't fair to Walt to fire him so soon, but he had to ask himself if he thought that the team was headed in the right direction. And because he didn't think the team was headed in the right direction, he fired  the worst football coach in my Stanford history and found Coach Harbaugh.

"Heading in the right direction" is a vague term, but I would imagine beyond the number of wins, it involves player development, a culture of hard work, and good game planning. Also an Enthusiasm Unknown To Man is helpful.

[71Bear]

To put this conversation in context, the buyout after this season is $3 million.  The buyout after 2015 is $2.25 million, the buyout after 2016 is $1.5 million and the contract expires after the 2017 season. 

[71Bear]

To put this conversation in context, the buyout after this season is $3 million.  The buyout after 2015 is $2.25 million, the buyout after 2016 is $1.5 million and the contract expires after the 2017 season. 

[StanFan88]

if Stanford were in similar shoes, coming off a 1-11 season, with the coach who went 1-11, would you be willing to give the coach another year, if this year was 3-9 with a clearly more competitive team, knowing there should be a big improvement in year three?  Or would you think another less than 5 win season and it's time to pull the plug so you can get "a real coach" in as fast as possible?

If Dykes can get 3 wins he could keep his job and point to progress.  But given all the injuries on top of the continued lack of talent and you have to start thinking CSU East Bay (North Campus) will win only 2 and maybe only 1 - at which point you pretty much have to can him.

[StanFan88]

if Stanford were in similar shoes, coming off a 1-11 season, with the coach who went 1-11, would you be willing to give the coach another year, if this year was 3-9 with a clearly more competitive team, knowing there should be a big improvement in year three?  Or would you think another less than 5 win season and it's time to pull the plug so you can get "a real coach" in as fast as possible?

If Dykes can get 3 wins he could keep his job and point to progress.  But given all the injuries on top of the continued lack of talent and you have to start thinking CSU East Bay (North Campus) will win only 2 and maybe only 1 - at which point you pretty much have to can him.

[terry]

I thought Bob Bowlsby laid it out well when he announced Wlat Idiotface's firing. He acknowledged that in some ways, it wasn't fair to Walt to fire him so soon, but he had to ask himself if he thought that the team was headed in the right direction. And because he didn't think the team was headed in the right direction, he fired  the worst football coach in my Stanford history and found Coach Harbaugh.

"Heading in the right direction" is a vague term, but I would imagine beyond the number of wins, it involves player development, a culture of hard work, and good game planning. Also an Enthusiasm Unknown To Man is helpful.

I think Bowlsby fired H.arris not only because of the atrocious results and the lack of progress, but also because H.arris had lost the team. I got the feeling that the players no longer believed in H.arris. I suppose if D.ykes gets to that point this season, the interim A.D. might consider firing him. But I doubt it. I'm guessing that the expense of eating D.ykes' contract and the fact that Williams is merely the interim A.D. probably will lead him to leave the decision for the permanent A.D.

[terry]

I thought Bob Bowlsby laid it out well when he announced Wlat Idiotface's firing. He acknowledged that in some ways, it wasn't fair to Walt to fire him so soon, but he had to ask himself if he thought that the team was headed in the right direction. And because he didn't think the team was headed in the right direction, he fired  the worst football coach in my Stanford history and found Coach Harbaugh.

"Heading in the right direction" is a vague term, but I would imagine beyond the number of wins, it involves player development, a culture of hard work, and good game planning. Also an Enthusiasm Unknown To Man is helpful.

I think Bowlsby fired H.arris not only because of the atrocious results and the lack of progress, but also because H.arris had lost the team. I got the feeling that the players no longer believed in H.arris. I suppose if D.ykes gets to that point this season, the interim A.D. might consider firing him. But I doubt it. I'm guessing that the expense of eating D.ykes' contract and the fact that Williams is merely the interim A.D. probably will lead him to leave the decision for the permanent A.D.

[Leftcoast]

In "Rags to Roses" the authors describe a players only locker room meeting prior to Big Game and a follow-up meeting at Bowlsby 's house led by Junior Alex Fletcher and Sophomore Chris Marinelli.  The message given to the brand new athletic director was that Coach Harr.is had lost the respect of the team and key returning players would be uncomfortable playing for him if he remained the coach.

Bowlsby made no promises to the delegation but they believed their message was heard when Harris was fired in the week following the loss to Ca.l.

The chapter "Rock Bottom" that begins the book is mostly about Harr.is' last year and his poor relationship with Stanford's players.

[Leftcoast]

In "Rags to Roses" the authors describe a players only locker room meeting prior to Big Game and a follow-up meeting at Bowlsby 's house led by Junior Alex Fletcher and Sophomore Chris Marinelli.  The message given to the brand new athletic director was that Coach Harr.is had lost the respect of the team and key returning players would be uncomfortable playing for him if he remained the coach.

Bowlsby made no promises to the delegation but they believed their message was heard when Harris was fired in the week following the loss to Ca.l.

The chapter "Rock Bottom" that begins the book is mostly about Harr.is' last year and his poor relationship with Stanford's players.

[Nan3cy]

I thought at the time that the H.arris regime was defined by his (non)actions when a player - a fullback from  New Orleans, I think - had to leave football because of an injury that could have threatened his life had it been aggravated, and H.arris didn't even call his parents to express concern/condolences/appreciation until  three weeks later. What a dork, I thought and still think.

[Nan3cy]

I thought at the time that the H.arris regime was defined by his (non)actions when a player - a fullback from  New Orleans, I think - had to leave football because of an injury that could have threatened his life had it been aggravated, and H.arris didn't even call his parents to express concern/condolences/appreciation until  three weeks later. What a dork, I thought and still think.

[OutsiderFan]

The thing about SD is he really seems to know the right questions and what the important issues are for building a successful football team.  He underscores as important similar things David Shaw does; toughness and competitiveness, team before self, and though not a UC grad he holds the education UC offers in high regard and believes it is a strength that should be embraced.

Cal stuck with Tedford so much longer than any other school would allow, so things were so bad that Tedford's incompetence carried over into the new coach's first year.  Usually you see the coach who goes 1-11 get fired, but the rot was so deep in 2013 that the whole program had to be razed and started from scratch essentially.  But this went on SD's resume, not Tedford's.

The players now seem to be bigger and stronger, there does seem to be a team before self mindset, and all the bad apples have been removed.  Though he did make a big mistake with Buh as DC to start, it's not like the team was going to win many more games with even Derek Mason as DC.  Recruiting has not yet suggested improvement, buthis really can't until on-field results improve.  So essentially this is really the first year of SD's regime, but he's got that ugly 0-11 against FBS teams on his resume that will be used against him, and if he goes 3-9 in 2014 there could be a groundswell to remove him. 

Like 71Bear said, the buyout (Cal did learn a lesson and include one) is relatively small, so it could happen, but it seems likely 2015 will be the year major improvement is seen, so it could be a mistake to can him after this year if he wins at least 2 games, provided the team is more competitive and shows improvement.  It's still the youngest team in the conference with one of the toughest schedules in the country.

[OutsiderFan]

The thing about SD is he really seems to know the right questions and what the important issues are for building a successful football team.  He underscores as important similar things David Shaw does; toughness and competitiveness, team before self, and though not a UC grad he holds the education UC offers in high regard and believes it is a strength that should be embraced.

Cal stuck with Tedford so much longer than any other school would allow, so things were so bad that Tedford's incompetence carried over into the new coach's first year.  Usually you see the coach who goes 1-11 get fired, but the rot was so deep in 2013 that the whole program had to be razed and started from scratch essentially.  But this went on SD's resume, not Tedford's.

The players now seem to be bigger and stronger, there does seem to be a team before self mindset, and all the bad apples have been removed.  Though he did make a big mistake with Buh as DC to start, it's not like the team was going to win many more games with even Derek Mason as DC.  Recruiting has not yet suggested improvement, buthis really can't until on-field results improve.  So essentially this is really the first year of SD's regime, but he's got that ugly 0-11 against FBS teams on his resume that will be used against him, and if he goes 3-9 in 2014 there could be a groundswell to remove him. 

Like 71Bear said, the buyout (Cal did learn a lesson and include one) is relatively small, so it could happen, but it seems likely 2015 will be the year major improvement is seen, so it could be a mistake to can him after this year if he wins at least 2 games, provided the team is more competitive and shows improvement.  It's still the youngest team in the conference with one of the toughest schedules in the country.

[terry]

C.al stuck with Tedford so much longer than any other school would allow, so things were so bad that Tedford's incompetence carried over into the new coach's first year.  Usually you see the coach who goes 1-11 get fired, but the rot was so deep in 2013 that the whole program had to be razed and started from scratch essentially.

I think maybe there's some revisionist thinking among C.al fans about how bad Tedford supposedly was.

Tedford's year by year record:

2002    7-5  (not eligible for bowl game due to NCAA penalties)
2003    8-6  Insight Bowl
2004  10-2  Holiday Bowl
2005    8-4  Las Vegas Bowl
2006  10-3  Holiday Bowl
2007    7-6  Armed Forces Bowl
2008    9-4  Emerald Bowl
2009    8-5  Poinsettia Bowl
2010    5-7
2011    7-6  Holiday Bowl
2012    3-9
Total  82-57 (.590)

Tedford had a winning record in 9 of his 11 seasons. Tedford was C.al's most successful coach since Pappy Waldorf in the 1940s and 1950s, by far.

I don't see much basis for the idea that C.al stuck with Tedford's "incompetence" far longer than any other school would have. Tedford had a winning record just one season before he was fired. Yes, his last season was pretty bad. But that was his first really bad season. Tedford never came close to the multi-year Teevens/Harris level of futility. It seems to me that Tedford's "incompetence" probably has been exaggerated in hindsight because it's convenient to blame the last administration.

[terry]

C.al stuck with Tedford so much longer than any other school would allow, so things were so bad that Tedford's incompetence carried over into the new coach's first year.  Usually you see the coach who goes 1-11 get fired, but the rot was so deep in 2013 that the whole program had to be razed and started from scratch essentially.

I think maybe there's some revisionist thinking among C.al fans about how bad Tedford supposedly was.

Tedford's year by year record:

2002    7-5  (not eligible for bowl game due to NCAA penalties)
2003    8-6  Insight Bowl
2004  10-2  Holiday Bowl
2005    8-4  Las Vegas Bowl
2006  10-3  Holiday Bowl
2007    7-6  Armed Forces Bowl
2008    9-4  Emerald Bowl
2009    8-5  Poinsettia Bowl
2010    5-7
2011    7-6  Holiday Bowl
2012    3-9
Total  82-57 (.590)

Tedford had a winning record in 9 of his 11 seasons. Tedford was C.al's most successful coach since Pappy Waldorf in the 1940s and 1950s, by far.

I don't see much basis for the idea that C.al stuck with Tedford's "incompetence" far longer than any other school would have. Tedford had a winning record just one season before he was fired. Yes, his last season was pretty bad. But that was his first really bad season. Tedford never came close to the multi-year Teevens/Harris level of futility. It seems to me that Tedford's "incompetence" probably has been exaggerated in hindsight because it's convenient to blame the last administration.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm also less than convinced Teddy left the 59ers with such an awful roster, as has been claimed. There were a couple draft picks on there, plus Harper, Treggs, etc. Seems to me the ignominy was one part injury and two parts Yikes bungling. (Buh hire, really?)

Now, some of the damage is reversible -- see Buh being kicked to another job -- but some of it isn't. QBs that play too early on bad teams (e.g. David Carr) sometimes develop bad habits for the rest of their career. That's one risk. The other risk is recruiting: if you use recruiting rankings as a rough guide, the 59ers' has been terrible.

So Yikes might do a perfectly competent job going forward and still get buried under.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm also less than convinced Teddy left the 59ers with such an awful roster, as has been claimed. There were a couple draft picks on there, plus Harper, Treggs, etc. Seems to me the ignominy was one part injury and two parts Yikes bungling. (Buh hire, really?)

Now, some of the damage is reversible -- see Buh being kicked to another job -- but some of it isn't. QBs that play too early on bad teams (e.g. David Carr) sometimes develop bad habits for the rest of their career. That's one risk. The other risk is recruiting: if you use recruiting rankings as a rough guide, the 59ers' has been terrible.

So Yikes might do a perfectly competent job going forward and still get buried under.

[Mick]

[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=10375.msg94476#msg94476 date=1408220254]
I thought Bob Bowlsby laid it out well when he announced Wlat Idiotface's firing. He acknowledged that in some ways, it wasn't fair to Walt to fire him so soon, but he had to ask himself if he thought that the team was headed in the right direction. And because he didn't think the team was headed in the right direction, he fired  the worst football coach in my Stanford history and found Coach Harbaugh.

"Heading in the right direction" is a vague term, but I would imagine beyond the number of wins, it involves player development, a culture of hard work, and good game planning. Also an Enthusiasm Unknown To Man is helpful.

I think Bowlsby fired H.arris not only because of the atrocious results and the lack of progress, but also because H.arris had lost the team. I got the feeling that the players no longer believed in H.arris. I suppose if D.ykes gets to that point this season, the interim A.D. might consider firing him. But I doubt it. I'm guessing that the expense of eating D.ykes' contract and the fact that Williams is merely the interim A.D. probably will lead him to leave the decision for the permanent A.D.
[/quote]


I met H.arris early in his tenure.  Couldn't stand the guy, for a variety of reasons, and thought he would be a short-termer.  I just didn't see how he could "play" at Stanford.  I was concerned because he had some success at Pitt, remember he had gone to minor bowls in six of eight years there (though he lost four of the six bowls).  I still shudder to think what would have happened if the ref makes the right call in the Dav.is game, Stanford beats Navy, goes 6-5 and gets into a minor bowl.  Harris probably gets another year, but do we miss out on Harbaugh?

[Mick]

[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=10375.msg94476#msg94476 date=1408220254]
I thought Bob Bowlsby laid it out well when he announced Wlat Idiotface's firing. He acknowledged that in some ways, it wasn't fair to Walt to fire him so soon, but he had to ask himself if he thought that the team was headed in the right direction. And because he didn't think the team was headed in the right direction, he fired  the worst football coach in my Stanford history and found Coach Harbaugh.

"Heading in the right direction" is a vague term, but I would imagine beyond the number of wins, it involves player development, a culture of hard work, and good game planning. Also an Enthusiasm Unknown To Man is helpful.

I think Bowlsby fired H.arris not only because of the atrocious results and the lack of progress, but also because H.arris had lost the team. I got the feeling that the players no longer believed in H.arris. I suppose if D.ykes gets to that point this season, the interim A.D. might consider firing him. But I doubt it. I'm guessing that the expense of eating D.ykes' contract and the fact that Williams is merely the interim A.D. probably will lead him to leave the decision for the permanent A.D.
[/quote]


I met H.arris early in his tenure.  Couldn't stand the guy, for a variety of reasons, and thought he would be a short-termer.  I just didn't see how he could "play" at Stanford.  I was concerned because he had some success at Pitt, remember he had gone to minor bowls in six of eight years there (though he lost four of the six bowls).  I still shudder to think what would have happened if the ref makes the right call in the Dav.is game, Stanford beats Navy, goes 6-5 and gets into a minor bowl.  Harris probably gets another year, but do we miss out on Harbaugh?

[GoodGrief]

I thought at the time that the H.arris regime was defined by his (non)actions when a player - a fullback from  New Orleans, I think - had to leave football because of an injury that could have threatened his life had it been aggravated, and H.arris didn't even call his parents to express concern/condolences/appreciation until  three weeks later. What a dork, I thought and still think.

I'm such a broken record on the subject of Walt Harris, but there are few subjects that can set me off more than how much I hate that guy. Buddy Teevens seemed like good-hearted incompetence; Walt Harris was just an asshole. When we had players who pulled hamstrings, Harris told the press something like, "I thought pulled hamstrings happened to fast players! How did that happen us?" That was what first raised my eyebrow--what coach insults his players after injuries? Rags To Roses illustrates more of Walt's asshole tendencies, most notably the Bear Crawls across the field. Because players were punished with Bear Crawls for in-game penalties, turnovers etc. the very next day after a game, players began playing games to not do Bear Crawls.

Have I mentioned how much I hate that guy? Haven't even started on quick-kicking...

Just checked Walt Harris's wikipedia. Pisses me off, because it refers to him as a "disciplinarian." He wasn't a disciplinarian, he was just an asshole.

[GoodGrief]

I thought at the time that the H.arris regime was defined by his (non)actions when a player - a fullback from  New Orleans, I think - had to leave football because of an injury that could have threatened his life had it been aggravated, and H.arris didn't even call his parents to express concern/condolences/appreciation until  three weeks later. What a dork, I thought and still think.

I'm such a broken record on the subject of Walt Harris, but there are few subjects that can set me off more than how much I hate that guy. Buddy Teevens seemed like good-hearted incompetence; Walt Harris was just an asshole. When we had players who pulled hamstrings, Harris told the press something like, "I thought pulled hamstrings happened to fast players! How did that happen us?" That was what first raised my eyebrow--what coach insults his players after injuries? Rags To Roses illustrates more of Walt's asshole tendencies, most notably the Bear Crawls across the field. Because players were punished with Bear Crawls for in-game penalties, turnovers etc. the very next day after a game, players began playing games to not do Bear Crawls.

Have I mentioned how much I hate that guy? Haven't even started on quick-kicking...

Just checked Walt Harris's wikipedia. Pisses me off, because it refers to him as a "disciplinarian." He wasn't a disciplinarian, he was just an asshole.

[OutsiderFan]

Tedford was pretty good until he signed his undeserved, and mind-bendingly irresponsible (for UC) contract extension at the end of the 2008 season that guaranteed seven years at nearly $3 million per.  He was like a an MLB or NBA player signing the windfall deal and getting fat.

WIM, the roster was a disaster.  Sure there were some talented guys like Chris Harper and Bryce Treggs, but how much are WRs going to help when the OL is impotent?  It was too small inexperienced if talented, and too big and slow if experienced.  OC Tony Franklin admitted he was afraid to call runs last year because he knew they wouldn't work.  At least with a pass, there was a chance something good could happen. 

Many guys quit and the injuries were crushing.  I know one guy who quit mid-season because he just really didn't care about football much.  He's not alone.  Then there were guys who did have passion for football but don't have it for school.  Guys who were into both football and school had a terrible S&C program and bad practice habits.  The roster might not have been that bad in terms of recruiting rankings, but the players simply weren't developed, so the roster was a lot worse than it might have appeared from the outside.

Stanford doesn't have all these problems because the vetting process that tough admissions standards creates, prevents all of them from materializing.

[OutsiderFan]

Tedford was pretty good until he signed his undeserved, and mind-bendingly irresponsible (for UC) contract extension at the end of the 2008 season that guaranteed seven years at nearly $3 million per.  He was like a an MLB or NBA player signing the windfall deal and getting fat.

WIM, the roster was a disaster.  Sure there were some talented guys like Chris Harper and Bryce Treggs, but how much are WRs going to help when the OL is impotent?  It was too small inexperienced if talented, and too big and slow if experienced.  OC Tony Franklin admitted he was afraid to call runs last year because he knew they wouldn't work.  At least with a pass, there was a chance something good could happen. 

Many guys quit and the injuries were crushing.  I know one guy who quit mid-season because he just really didn't care about football much.  He's not alone.  Then there were guys who did have passion for football but don't have it for school.  Guys who were into both football and school had a terrible S&C program and bad practice habits.  The roster might not have been that bad in terms of recruiting rankings, but the players simply weren't developed, so the roster was a lot worse than it might have appeared from the outside.

Stanford doesn't have all these problems because the vetting process that tough admissions standards creates, prevents all of them from materializing.

[71Bear]

Terry is right and WIM is wrong.

Tedford was the most successful UC coach since the Pappy era.  In particular, his Big Game record was remarkable.  He simply burned out (primarily because he tried to do everything himself).  Anyone who suggests that the Tedford era was anything less than a success (when everything is taken into account) is wrong.  Heck, he even had one season in which the APR was 100%. 

As for the roster last year, it was the least talented since the Marv Levy years.  There is simply no disputing that fact.  I said it before the 2013 season started and was roundly criticized by BearBackers.  Anyone who has followed the team closely over the years and has a modicum of good sense could see the gaping holes in the lineup.

[71Bear]

Terry is right and WIM is wrong.

Tedford was the most successful UC coach since the Pappy era.  In particular, his Big Game record was remarkable.  He simply burned out (primarily because he tried to do everything himself).  Anyone who suggests that the Tedford era was anything less than a success (when everything is taken into account) is wrong.  Heck, he even had one season in which the APR was 100%. 

As for the roster last year, it was the least talented since the Marv Levy years.  There is simply no disputing that fact.  I said it before the 2013 season started and was roundly criticized by BearBackers.  Anyone who has followed the team closely over the years and has a modicum of good sense could see the gaping holes in the lineup.