I know Dykes was in part fired due to looking around at other positions, I get that. But just consider this:

He was fired after a season in which we went 5-7 (one year removed from going 8-5) where he lost his starting QB to be the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft. By the way, his 5-7 year was better than any of our recent ones: He beat #11 Texas and #18 Utah.

Wilcox has yet to post a winning conference record, the last 3 years have been 1-3, 5-7 and now looks like probably 5 or 6 wins this year. And yes, I understand the COVID restrictions on the program have been impactful, but considering where recruiting is right now, the trajectory of the program (the line is still a mess, the defense honestly does not look dominant, he refuses to make staffing changes) I really think the question has to be asked whether Cal's standards have simply dropped. Furthermore, consider that Wilcox has the benefit of a few things that his predecessors did not: Upgraded memorial/facilities (Tedford), APR situation figured out (Dykes), much more $ between Caliber and now CAlegends (donors, and yes I understand trailing indicator).

Tedford obviously experienced a high peak of success. Dykes won 8 games and got Goff to the #1 draft pick slot. Wilcox just seems so low-ceiling. We're at the point now where you can't sell recruits on an "upward trajectory" anymore because Wilcox is not new nor have we been improving in the win column.

And yet we granted him a massive extension. Pretty much solely for getting an Oregon offer.

So, do you think Cal simply has lowered the bar for what they consider success?

eastcoastcal said:

---

I know Dykes was in part fired due to looking around at other positions, I get that. But just consider this:

He was fired after a season in which we went 5-7 (one year removed from going 8-5) where he lost his starting QB to be the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft. By the way, his 5-7 year was better than any of our recent ones: He beat #11 Texas and #18 Utah.

Wilcox has yet to post a winning conference record, the last 3 years have been 1-3, 5-7 and now looks like probably 5 or 6 wins this year. And yes, I understand the COVID restrictions on the program have been impactful, but considering where recruiting is right now, the trajectory of the program (the line is still a mess, the defense honestly does not look dominant, he refuses to make staffing changes) I really think the question has to be asked whether Cal's standards have simply dropped. Furthermore, consider that Wilcox has the benefit of a few things that his predecessors did not: Upgraded memorial/facilities (Tedford), APR situation figured out (Dykes), much more $ between Caliber and now CAlegends (donors, and yes I understand trailing indicator).

Tedford obviously experienced a high peak of success. Dykes won 8 games and got Goff to the #1 draft pick slot. Wilcox just seems so low-ceiling. We're at the point now where you can't sell recruits on an "upward trajectory" anymore because Wilcox is not new nor have we been improving in the win column.

And yet we granted him a massive extension. Pretty much solely for getting an Oregon offer.

So, do you think Cal simply has lowered the bar for what they consider success?

---

The Cal bar for success has always been pretty low, but you correct that right now it is lower than ever. 6 wins to us is about the same as a Rose Bowl bid to most other Pac-12 schools. Our football program (and our men's basketball program) is at an historic low, and it will likely stay there as long as Wilcox is at the helm. He belongs to the Holmoe fraternity of coaches.

IMO, not so much lowered standards as much as giving him a pass for the last two seasons. Deserved or not. At some point, averaging six wins a year would cost him his job. It's a question of when. Also, how is recruiting going (Right now, don't ask!) and can a reasonable argument be made that things will improve.

I suspect that the powers that be met at the end of last season and asked, all things considered, are we better off rolling the dice on somebody new, or doubling down on the guy we got and giving him more support? (they answered the latter)

And assuming those powers chose the latter (give JW more time), will that hopefully extend to telling JW that he must dump Musgrave and bring in a Bona Fide offensive coaching staff?

Big C said:

---

IMO, not so much lowered standards as much as giving him a pass for the last two seasons. Deserved or not. At some point, averaging six wins a year would cost him his job. It's a question of when. Also, how is recruiting going (Right now, don't ask!) and can a reasonable argument be made that things will improve.

I suspect that the powers that be met at the end of last season and asked, all things considered, are we better off rolling the dice on somebody new, or doubling down on the guy we got and giving him more support? (they answered the latter)

---

Wilcox gets points with our fan base for being better looking and not having a southern accent. He also benefited from going up against Stanford after their BCS run, USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon at lows, the Pirate gone from WSU not having to play Utah and weak OOC scheduling, including 6 wins against FCS teams.

Statistical power rankings show Wilcox"s teams have been worse on average than any other coach in Cal history. Worse than Dykes, worse than Holmoe. And he has definitely produced the worst stretch of Cal offenses in school history.

Dykes got fired for talking to another school after going 5-7. Wilcox got a raise and a 5 year extension for talking to another school after going 5-7.

Dykes was a worse "fit" for our fan base, but he is clearly a better football coach. Both deserved to be fired after failing to have a winning record in conference after four (plus one COVID mulligan) full seasons.

There is still a chance Musgrave can remove his head from his posterior and we can start playing at a higher level. It isn't rocket science. It is a game. But listening to his interviews just makes me depressed. Compare to an interview with Mike Pawlawski or Troy Taylor. Are Cal QBs and players just smarter than Oregon's?

The real problem is Knowlton and his 8 year extension.

Big C said:

---

IMO, not so much lowered standards as much as giving him a pass for the last two seasons. Deserved or not. At some point, averaging six wins a year would cost him his job. It's a question of when. Also, how is recruiting going (Right now, don't ask!) and can a reasonable argument be made that things will improve.

I suspect that the powers that be met at the end of last season and asked, all things considered, are we better off rolling the dice on somebody new, or doubling down on the guy we got and giving him more support? (they answered the latter)

---

Yup, that's it. He's getting a mulligan for the COVID years.

I do think if we can't show results this year (say, at least 8 wins including the bowl game) Wilcox's seat will start to get hot.

eastcoastcal said:

---

I know Dykes was in part fired due to looking around at other positions, I get that. But just consider this:

He was fired after a season in which we went 5-7 (one year removed from going 8-5) where he lost his starting QB to be the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft. By the way, his 5-7 year was better than any of our recent ones: He beat #11 Texas and #18 Utah.

Wilcox has yet to post a winning conference record, the last 3 years have been 1-3, 5-7 and now looks like probably 5 or 6 wins this year. And yes, I understand the COVID restrictions on the program have been impactful, but considering where recruiting is right now, the trajectory of the program (the line is still a mess, the defense honestly does not look dominant, he refuses to make staffing changes) I really think the question has to be asked whether Cal's standards have simply dropped. Furthermore, consider that Wilcox has the benefit of a few things that his predecessors did not: Upgraded memorial/facilities (Tedford), APR situation figured out (Dykes), much more $ between Caliber and now CAlegends (donors, and yes I understand trailing indicator).

Tedford obviously experienced a high peak of success. Dykes won 8 games and got Goff to the #1 draft pick slot. Wilcox just seems so low-ceiling. We're at the point now where you can't sell recruits on an "upward trajectory" anymore because Wilcox is not new nor have we been improving in the win column.

And yet we granted him a massive extension. Pretty much solely for getting an Oregon offer.

So, do you think Cal simply has lowered the bar for what they consider success?

---

Dykes was pretty low ceiling at Cal. Besides Utah in 2016, which was a really inexplicable win (goal line stand), I don't think he beat a single team that finished the season ranked. He had the best QB in the country and could only manage a 7 regular season wins beating up on the worst teams on our schedule. It was pretty much a given that we would drop 50 on bad teams and then get boatraced by the good ones.

I fully believe we would've seen a 3 win season if Dykes stayed on in 2017. His defenses always sucked and the offensive talent level was the lowest it had ever been during his 4 years here. Once Demetris Robertson got hurt it was literally Patrick Laird (who hadn't been discovered yet), a G5 level QB, 6 possession receivers, and bodies at TEs.

concernedparent said:

---

Dykes was pretty low ceiling at Cal. Besides Utah in 2016, which was a really inexplicable win (goal line stand), I don't think he beat a single team that finished the season ranked. He had the best QB in the country and could only manage a 7 regular season wins beating up on the worst teams on our schedule. It was pretty much a given that we would drop 50 on bad teams and then get boatraced by the good ones.

---

Pretty much. Saying we beat "#11 Texas" is a little bit misleading. They were ranked high AT THE TIME, but crashed to a 5-7 record by end of year. More like we beat a typically overrated Texas team.

Generally speaking, a coach at Cal can have a nice, cool, comfy seat if he can manage about a 0.500 winning percentage. If Wilcox consistently went 6-6, and the team's APR was in good standing, I'm sure he'd be absolutely fine.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

IMO, not so much lowered standards as much as giving him a pass for the last two seasons. Deserved or not. At some point, averaging six wins a year would cost him his job. It's a question of when. Also, how is recruiting going (Right now, don't ask!) and can a reasonable argument be made that things will improve.

I suspect that the powers that be met at the end of last season and asked, all things considered, are we better off rolling the dice on somebody new, or doubling down on the guy we got and giving him more support? (they answered the latter)

---

Wilcox gets points with our fan base for being better looking and not having a southern accent. He also benefited from going up against Stanford after their BCS run, USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon at lows, the Pirate gone from WSU not having to play Utah and weak OOC scheduling, including 6 wins against FCS teams.

Statistical power rankings show Wilcox"s teams have been worse on average than any other coach in Cal history. Worse than Dykes, worse than Holmoe. And he has definitely produced the worst stretch of Cal offenses in school history.

Dykes got fired for talking to another school after going 5-7. Wilcox got a raise and a 5 year extension for talking to another school after going 5-7.

Dykes was a worse "fit" for our fan base, but he is clearly a better football coach. Both deserved to be fired after failing to have a winning record in conference after four (plus one COVID mulligan) full seasons.

There is still a chance Musgrave can remove his head from his posterior and we can start playing at a higher level. It isn't rocket science. It is a game. But listening to his interviews just makes me depressed. Compare to an interview with Mike Pawlawski or Troy Taylor. Are Cal QBs and players just smarter than Oregon's?

The real problem is Knowlton and his 8 year extension.

---

He is the common denominator. Despite your excellent comparison, other than the extension issue I see little difference between Wilcox and Dykes. One has an offense/WR bias and the other has a defense/LB bias. I will say that Wilcox has generated probably the best morale in recent memory. It seems that players are more heavily bonded together and there is a true family atmosphere that I thought could help recruiting. I also thought that Wilcox's level of commitment Cal would bode well for the team both on the field and off. I may have over-rated that but clearly it is Knowlton, or the Cal Admin. in general that is a problem.

Why is it that so many ex-Cal coaches excel after failing at Cal? It seems that the administration is unwilling to foot the bill to hire, fire and/or retain the necessary coaching talent. One question I have is, if Wilcox wanted to fire a coach mid-season, would Knowlton let him do it and vice versa? Who has the authority? Does it have to be agreed upon by both?

I used to argue that coaching turnover de-stabilizes the program and hurts recruiting. But that is only the case if you replace mediocrity with more mediocrity.

The reason why Knowlton is the problem is that he clearly can't be trusted to avoid that treadmill and actually upgrade his coaches. If we have an AD that can't be trusted to do that, why does he have job security? Focusing on Wilcox, Musgrave and McClure is like wasting energy cleaning sh*t from your riverfront property when there is a manure factory illegally dumping upstream.

And yet it probably makes up about 25% of the overall posts on this board.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

IMO, not so much lowered standards as much as giving him a pass for the last two seasons. Deserved or not. At some point, averaging six wins a year would cost him his job. It's a question of when. Also, how is recruiting going (Right now, don't ask!) and can a reasonable argument be made that things will improve.

I suspect that the powers that be met at the end of last season and asked, all things considered, are we better off rolling the dice on somebody new, or doubling down on the guy we got and giving him more support? (they answered the latter)

---

Wilcox gets points with our fan base for being better looking and not having a southern accent. He also benefited from going up against Stanford after their BCS run, USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon at lows, the Pirate gone from WSU not having to play Utah and weak OOC scheduling, including 6 wins against FCS teams.

Statistical power rankings show Wilcox"s teams have been worse on average than any other coach in Cal history. Worse than Dykes, worse than Holmoe. And he has definitely produced the worst stretch of Cal offenses in school history.

Dykes got fired for talking to another school after going 5-7. Wilcox got a raise and a 5 year extension for talking to another school after going 5-7.

Dykes was a worse "fit" for our fan base, but he is clearly a better football coach. Both deserved to be fired after failing to have a winning record in conference after four (plus one COVID mulligan) full seasons.

There is still a chance Musgrave can remove his head from his posterior and we can start playing at a higher level. It isn't rocket science. It is a game. But listening to his interviews just makes me depressed. Compare to an interview with Mike Pawlawski or Troy Taylor. Are Cal QBs and players just smarter than Oregon's?

The real problem is Knowlton and his 8 year extension.

---

Emboldened parts above are Hall of Fame worthy.

I'm just hoping the people grousing about Wilcox being too docile with the refs at Notre Dame are a completely different group from the ones that groused about Sonny constantly b_ _ _ _ ing to the refs.

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

IMO, not so much lowered standards as much as giving him a pass for the last two seasons. Deserved or not. At some point, averaging six wins a year would cost him his job. It's a question of when. Also, how is recruiting going (Right now, don't ask!) and can a reasonable argument be made that things will improve.

I suspect that the powers that be met at the end of last season and asked, all things considered, are we better off rolling the dice on somebody new, or doubling down on the guy we got and giving him more support? (they answered the latter)

---

Wilcox gets points with our fan base for being better looking and not having a southern accent. He also benefited from going up against Stanford after their BCS run, USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon at lows, the Pirate gone from WSU not having to play Utah and weak OOC scheduling, including 6 wins against FCS teams.

Statistical power rankings show Wilcox"s teams have been worse on average than any other coach in Cal history. Worse than Dykes, worse than Holmoe. And he has definitely produced the worst stretch of Cal offenses in school history.

Dykes got fired for talking to another school after going 5-7. Wilcox got a raise and a 5 year extension for talking to another school after going 5-7.

Dykes was a worse "fit" for our fan base, but he is clearly a better football coach. Both deserved to be fired after failing to have a winning record in conference after four (plus one COVID mulligan) full seasons.

There is still a chance Musgrave can remove his head from his posterior and we can start playing at a higher level. It isn't rocket science. It is a game. But listening to his interviews just makes me depressed. Compare to an interview with Mike Pawlawski or Troy Taylor. Are Cal QBs and players just smarter than Oregon's?

The real problem is Knowlton and his 8 year extension.

---

He is the common denominator. Despite your excellent comparison, other than the extension issue I see little difference between Wilcox and Dykes. One has an offense/WR bias and the other has a defense/LB bias. I will say that Wilcox has generated probably the best morale in recent memory. It seems that players are more heavily bonded together and there is a true family atmosphere that I thought could help recruiting. I also thought that Wilcox's level of commitment Cal would bode well for the team both on the field and off. I may have over-rated that but clearly it is Knowlton, or the Cal Admin. in general that is a problem.

Why is it that so many ex-Cal coaches excel after failing at Cal? It seems that the administration is unwilling to foot the bill to hire, fire and/or retain the necessary coaching talent. One question I have is, if Wilcox wanted to fire a coach mid-season, would Knowlton let him do it and vice versa? Who has the authority? Does it have to be agreed upon by both?

I used to argue that coaching turnover de-stabilizes the program and hurts recruiting. But that is only the case if you replace mediocrity with more mediocrity.

The reason why Knowlton is the problem is that he clearly can't be trusted to avoid that treadmill and actually upgrade his coaches. If we have an AD that can't be trusted to do that, why does he have job security? Focusing on Wilcox, Musgrave and McClure is like wasting energy cleaning sh*t from your riverfront property when there is a manure factory illegally dumping upstream.

And yet it probably makes up about 25% of the overall posts on this board.

---

Because cleaning sh*t from your property is doable in the short run. But yes, getting rid of the manure factory is the long term solution.

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

Generally speaking, a coach at Cal can have a nice, cool, comfy seat if he can manage about a 0.500 winning percentage. If Wilcox consistently went 6-6, and the team's APR was in good standing, I'm sure he'd be absolutely fine.

---

That's an interesting hypothetical: Let's say Wilcox starts to string together consecutive 6-6 seasons, how long would he last? I'm guessing he would be let go in late 2023 or 2024, though that might depend on how we did in the bowl games.

But it sounds like you think he would last even longer?

Big C said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

Generally speaking, a coach at Cal can have a nice, cool, comfy seat if he can manage about a 0.500 winning percentage. If Wilcox consistently went 6-6, and the team's APR was in good standing, I'm sure he'd be absolutely fine.

---

That's an interesting hypothetical: Let's say Wilcox starts to string together consecutive 6-6 seasons, how long would he last? I'm guessing he would be let go in 2023 or 2024, though that might depend on how we did in the bowl games.

But it sounds like you think he would last even longer?

---

Ray Willsey's records for his final four (of eight) years at Cal were: 7-3-1, 5-5, 6-5, 6-5. I don't recall if he resigned or was fired. Interesting that those records (or their 12-game equivalent) would have gotten him to bowl games today.

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

Generally speaking, a coach at Cal can have a nice, cool, comfy seat if he can manage about a 0.500 winning percentage. If Wilcox consistently went 6-6, and the team's APR was in good standing, I'm sure he'd be absolutely fine.

---

That's an interesting hypothetical: Let's say Wilcox starts to string together consecutive 6-6 seasons, how long would he last? I'm guessing he would be let go in 2023 or 2024, though that might depend on how we did in the bowl games.

But it sounds like you think he would last even longer?

---

Ray Willsey's records for his final four (of eight) years at Cal were: 7-3-1, 5-5, 6-5, 6-5. I don't recall if he resigned or was fired. Interesting that those records (or their 12-game equivalent) would have gotten him to bowl games today.

---

Was the Wilsey Program tarnished by whatever got us on probation in the early '70s?

This is all 20/20 hindsight, but I think we ended up with Dykes (hired by Sandy Barbour) because it would have been unfathomable, in the wake of the facilities upgrade, to end up with someone that didn't have head coach experience. Also in hindsight, I think most agree that Dykes was only here as a stepping stone to his next job, and decided the best way to do that was focus only on scoring, basically ignoring defense entirely in recruiting. It's not clear to me, in the wake of his departure, if he was successful because he went back to a lower level of competition, or because he matured as a coach.

Hiring Wilcox was an attempt to get Tedford 2.0, an up-and-coming assistant ready to try the head job. It hasn't worked, mostly because the OL has been a disaster during most of his tenure. I have a feeling that if Sandy was still the AD, she might have pulled the plug on Wilcox by now, even allowing for the COVID issues.

IMHO, Wilcox is out of excuses, because he's got the money, as I understand it, to get the assistants he needs, and he has the facilities to recruit decent players. What continues to be a problem is the perception that Cal is a hard place to win. I'm guessing, as a result, unless even more coaching money is made available, the next coach if a change is made will be Troy Taylor, who is coming from what would be perceived as a similar situation to Dykes (La. Tech), or another Power 5 assistant.

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

Generally speaking, a coach at Cal can have a nice, cool, comfy seat if he can manage about a 0.500 winning percentage. If Wilcox consistently went 6-6, and the team's APR was in good standing, I'm sure he'd be absolutely fine.

---

That's an interesting hypothetical: Let's say Wilcox starts to string together consecutive 6-6 seasons, how long would he last? I'm guessing he would be let go in 2023 or 2024, though that might depend on how we did in the bowl games.

But it sounds like you think he would last even longer?

---

Ray Willsey's records for his final four (of eight) years at Cal were: 7-3-1, 5-5, 6-5, 6-5. I don't recall if he resigned or was fired. Interesting that those records (or their 12-game equivalent) would have gotten him to bowl games today.

---

Was the Wilsey Program tarnished by whatever got us on probation in the early '70s?

---

Yep, the Isaac Curtis recruitment. Something about arranging a special day for him to take the SAT, if I recall. And ironically, Curtis' college career didn't blossom until he transferred to SD State and switched to wide receiver. Willsey was responsible for recruiting Bartkowski, but by the time Bart was eligible as a sophomore, Mike White was the coach.

Jeff82 said:

---

This is all 20/20 hindsight, but I think we ended up with Dykes (hired by Sandy Barbour) because it would have been unfathomable, in the wake of the facilities upgrade, to end up with someone that didn't have head coach experience. Also in hindsight, I think most agree that Dykes was only here as a stepping stone to his next job, and decided the best way to do that was focus only on scoring, basically ignoring defense entirely in recruiting. It's not clear to me, in the wake of his departure, if he was successful because he went back to a lower level of competition, or because he matured as a coach.

Hiring Wilcox was an attempt to get Tedford 2.0, an up-and-coming assistant ready to try the head job. It hasn't worked, mostly because the OL has been a disaster during most of his tenure. I have a feeling that if Sandy was still the AD, she might have pulled the plug on Wilcox by now, even allowing for the COVID issues.

IMHO, Wilcox is out of excuses, because he's got the money, as I understand it, to get the assistants he needs, and he has the facilities to recruit decent players. What continues to be a problem is the perception that Cal is a hard place to win. I'm guessing, as a result, unless even more coaching money is made available, the next coach if a change is made will be Troy Taylor, who is coming from what would be perceived as a similar situation to Dykes (La. Tech), or another Power 5 assistant.

---

I recall reading a comment from Sandy that Dykes teams played an exciting style of football that was fan-friendly, or something like that. In other words, getting fans into the seats of this newly rebuilt stadium maybe was as big a motivator as winning.

That's possible. My point really was that both the Dykes and the Wilcox hires were driven by perceptions of the fan base at those junctures. People were really surprised, given the new facilities, that there wasn't more interest in the job by P5 coaches to replace Tedford. But I think the perception in the football fraternity was that Tedford had been run out of town unjustly, given what he had brought to the program. As is well known here, I would have given him a one-year sabbatical to get healthy, but kept him as head coach. Other than the disaster caused by the North Carolina recruits, he's been successful everywhere he's coached.

The differences between Wilcox and Dykes relate to character. To the extent they both interacted with others schools Dykes pursued numerous suitors, Wilcox rebuffed a big money offer from his alma mater. BIG difference.

I do not think our standards have lowered. I think we are seeing the continuation of the mentality that mediocre sports results with good academic performance is acceptable to the university, maybe preferred. Especially in light of the P12 being on life support and the B1G being a life raft, not to mention key donors supposedly FINALLY getting through to the admin that football is king, this continued acceptance of mediocrity is absurdly horrific.

eastcoastcal said:

---

I know Dykes was in part fired due to looking around at other positions, I get that. But just consider this:

He was fired after a season in which we went 5-7 (one year removed from going 8-5) where he lost his starting QB to be the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft. By the way, his 5-7 year was better than any of our recent ones: He beat #11 Texas and #18 Utah.

Wilcox has yet to post a winning conference record, the last 3 years have been 1-3, 5-7 and now looks like probably 5 or 6 wins this year. And yes, I understand the COVID restrictions on the program have been impactful, but considering where recruiting is right now, the trajectory of the program (the line is still a mess, the defense honestly does not look dominant, he refuses to make staffing changes) I really think the question has to be asked whether Cal's standards have simply dropped. Furthermore, consider that Wilcox has the benefit of a few things that his predecessors did not: Upgraded memorial/facilities (Tedford), APR situation figured out (Dykes), much more $ between Caliber and now CAlegends (donors, and yes I understand trailing indicator).

Tedford obviously experienced a high peak of success. Dykes won 8 games and got Goff to the #1 draft pick slot. Wilcox just seems so low-ceiling. We're at the point now where you can't sell recruits on an "upward trajectory" anymore because Wilcox is not new nor have we been improving in the win column.

And yet we granted him a massive extension. Pretty much solely for getting an Oregon offer.

So, do you think Cal simply has lowered the bar for what they consider success?

---

Carol Christ does NOT wan't to play in the sports world like everyone else! She feels she can dictate how much of a commitment ( what she's comfortable with) we need to be successful. She will not get into the Arms race or NIL race like other schools have. What we have now is the extent of her commitment to winning. She is fine with 6-7 win seasons, and see's Justin as a perfect representative of the University. He will not embarrass us ( Drunk driving, aggressive behavior, women, etc), is well spoken and fits her narrative of how our Football Coach should. be. She was aggressively involved in extending him. So to answer your question, YES, the bar has been lowered from an administrative viewpoint. That is why he does not feel pressure to fire coaches.

sycasey said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Dykes was pretty low ceiling at Cal. Besides Utah in 2016, which was a really inexplicable win (goal line stand), I don't think he beat a single team that finished the season ranked. He had the best QB in the country and could only manage a 7 regular season wins beating up on the worst teams on our schedule. It was pretty much a given that we would drop 50 on bad teams and then get boatraced by the good ones.

---

Pretty much. Saying we beat "#11 Texas" is a little bit misleading. They were ranked high AT THE TIME, but crashed to a 5-7 record by end of year. More like we beat a typically overrated Texas team.

---

Tedford gets a lot of credit for going to Lansing and beating a #15 Michigan State team. (yeah, yeah, yeah, it was after a 1-10 season).

Dykes should get the same kind of credit.

Jeff82 said:

---

This is all 20/20 hindsight, but I think we ended up with Dykes (hired by Sandy Barbour) because it would have been unfathomable, in the wake of the facilities upgrade, to end up with someone that didn't have head coach experience. Also in hindsight, I think most agree that Dykes was only here as a stepping stone to his next job, and decided the best way to do that was focus only on scoring, basically ignoring defense entirely in recruiting. It's not clear to me, in the wake of his departure, if he was successful because he went back to a lower level of competition, or because he matured as a coach.

Hiring Wilcox was an attempt to get Tedford 2.0, an up-and-coming assistant ready to try the head job. It hasn't worked, mostly because the OL has been a disaster during most of his tenure. I have a feeling that if Sandy was still the AD, she might have pulled the plug on Wilcox by now, even allowing for the COVID issues.

IMHO, Wilcox is out of excuses, because he's got the money, as I understand it, to get the assistants he needs, and he has the facilities to recruit decent players. What continues to be a problem is the perception that Cal is a hard place to win. I'm guessing, as a result, unless even more coaching money is made available, the next coach if a change is made will be Troy Taylor, who is coming from what would be perceived as a similar situation to Dykes (La. Tech), or another Power 5 assistant.

---

I read in another thread that Wilcox's defensive success early on was thanks to Dykes' defensive recruits.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

IMO, not so much lowered standards as much as giving him a pass for the last two seasons. Deserved or not. At some point, averaging six wins a year would cost him his job. It's a question of when. Also, how is recruiting going (Right now, don't ask!) and can a reasonable argument be made that things will improve.

I suspect that the powers that be met at the end of last season and asked, all things considered, are we better off rolling the dice on somebody new, or doubling down on the guy we got and giving him more support? (they answered the latter)

---

Wilcox gets points with our fan base for being better looking and not having a southern accent. He also benefited from going up against Stanford after their BCS run, USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon at lows, the Pirate gone from WSU not having to play Utah and weak OOC scheduling, including 6 wins against FCS teams.

Statistical power rankings show Wilcox"s teams have been worse on average than any other coach in Cal history. Worse than Dykes, worse than Holmoe. And he has definitely produced the worst stretch of Cal offenses in school history.

Dykes got fired for talking to another school after going 5-7. Wilcox got a raise and a 5 year extension for talking to another school after going 5-7.

Dykes was a worse "fit" for our fan base, but he is clearly a better football coach. Both deserved to be fired after failing to have a winning record in conference after four (plus one COVID mulligan) full seasons.

There is still a chance Musgrave can remove his head from his posterior and we can start playing at a higher level. It isn't rocket science. It is a game. But listening to his interviews just makes me depressed. Compare to an interview with Mike Pawlawski or Troy Taylor. Are Cal QBs and players just smarter than Oregon's?

The real problem is Knowlton and his 8 year extension.

---

Yes, yes, Dykes had his faults, particularly with his hires. But I wonder if there was some alternate history where it could've worked out with Dykes. Yeah, he was looking elsewhere. But I'm not sure the general fanbase wanted him thanks to the way he looks and his accent. (He wasn't as fat as he seemed.) And he was absolutely raked over the coals over the 1-win season, even though he produced an 8-win season just 2 years later. Some seriously think Dykes in 2013 is worse than 2001 Holmoe.

I don't really buy the "he's really more comfortable in Texas" argument. Albeit, the homes are cheaper.

On the other hand, Dykes may not have had the success he's had now without having stumbled at Cal.

Just to address one thing, Dykes was clearly not worse than Holmoe. Under Holmoe, we would get delay-of-game penalties because the coaching staff couldn't get the play into the huddle on time. Holmoe was a nice guy who didn't know what he was doing as a coach. I would equate him to Wyking Jones.

The best evidence of that was Tedford being able to take Holmoe's players and immediately turn the program around.

To be honest, Holmoe lost me in one of his interviews where he said one of his concerns was making sure his coaches had enough time with their families. The contrast to Tedford sleeping in his office was marked. That said, I don't think Tedford should have wrecked his health either. There has to be a balance. I expected Wilcox to succeed, and I'm surprised he hasn't. I hope we can still turn things around.

In response to your question earlier if Wilcox was fired or if he resigned - he was fired. Pressure from the newly formed Golden Bear Athletic Fund (GBAF) now known as the Bear Backers combined w/the Isaac Curtis recruiting
violation that put us on probation. I actually thought he did well considering all the political BS he had to put up with during his time (the '60's) But because his offenses lacked the creativity needed to succeed, I was in favor of replacing him - and ecstatic when they hired Mike White! I followed coach White closely when he was stanfurd's play caller - especially after he was instrumental in recruiting Jim Plunkett. When we hired him, I anticipated him doing an excellent job in coaching Steve Bartkowski & in developing the passing game. And he was. I was a student then and oh what FUN it was watching our offense!! Wilcox is, to me, actually worse than Willsey. He's brought our program to the lowest it's been Since the Marv Levy days. But .. sadly we're going to have to put up w/having him around & watch nothing but mediocre football - unless he resigns. Because, as most of us here agree, Knowlton's the problem.

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

Generally speaking, a coach at Cal can have a nice, cool, comfy seat if he can manage about a 0.500 winning percentage. If Wilcox consistently went 6-6, and the team's APR was in good standing, I'm sure he'd be absolutely fine.

---

That's an interesting hypothetical: Let's say Wilcox starts to string together consecutive 6-6 seasons, how long would he last? I'm guessing he would be let go in 2023 or 2024, though that might depend on how we did in the bowl games.

But it sounds like you think he would last even longer?

---

Ray Willsey's records for his final four (of eight) years at Cal were: 7-3-1, 5-5, 6-5, 6-5. I don't recall if he resigned or was fired. Interesting that those records (or their 12-game equivalent) would have gotten him to bowl games today.

---

Especially if for each year you added a game against an FCS team it would be: 8-3-1, 6-5, 7-5, 7-5 ie a "bowl" every year.

Typo above. In first sentence, meant Willsey, not Wilcox.

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

IMO, not so much lowered standards as much as giving him a pass for the last two seasons. Deserved or not. At some point, averaging six wins a year would cost him his job. It's a question of when. Also, how is recruiting going (Right now, don't ask!) and can a reasonable argument be made that things will improve.

I suspect that the powers that be met at the end of last season and asked, all things considered, are we better off rolling the dice on somebody new, or doubling down on the guy we got and giving him more support? (they answered the latter)

---

Wilcox gets points with our fan base for being better looking and not having a southern accent. He also benefited from going up against Stanford after their BCS run, USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon at lows, the Pirate gone from WSU not having to play Utah and weak OOC scheduling, including 6 wins against FCS teams.

Statistical power rankings show Wilcox"s teams have been worse on average than any other coach in Cal history. Worse than Dykes, worse than Holmoe. And he has definitely produced the worst stretch of Cal offenses in school history.

Dykes got fired for talking to another school after going 5-7. Wilcox got a raise and a 5 year extension for talking to another school after going 5-7.

Dykes was a worse "fit" for our fan base, but he is clearly a better football coach. Both deserved to be fired after failing to have a winning record in conference after four (plus one COVID mulligan) full seasons.

There is still a chance Musgrave can remove his head from his posterior and we can start playing at a higher level. It isn't rocket science. It is a game. But listening to his interviews just makes me depressed. Compare to an interview with Mike Pawlawski or Troy Taylor. Are Cal QBs and players just smarter than Oregon's?

The real problem is Knowlton and his 8 year extension.

---

He is the common denominator. Despite your excellent comparison, other than the extension issue I see little difference between Wilcox and Dykes. One has an offense/WR bias and the other has a defense/LB bias. I will say that Wilcox has generated probably the best morale in recent memory. It seems that players are more heavily bonded together and there is a true family atmosphere that I thought could help recruiting. I also thought that Wilcox's level of commitment Cal would bode well for the team both on the field and off. I may have over-rated that but clearly it is Knowlton, or the Cal Admin. in general that is a problem.

Why is it that so many ex-Cal coaches excel after failing at Cal? It seems that the administration is unwilling to foot the bill to hire, fire and/or retain the necessary coaching talent. One question I have is, if Wilcox wanted to fire a coach mid-season, would Knowlton let him do it and vice versa? Who has the authority? Does it have to be agreed upon by both?

I used to argue that coaching turnover de-stabilizes the program and hurts recruiting. But that is only the case if you replace mediocrity with more mediocrity.

The reason why Knowlton is the problem is that he clearly can't be trusted to avoid that treadmill and actually upgrade his coaches. If we have an AD that can't be trusted to do that, why does he have job security? Focusing on Wilcox, Musgrave and McClure is like wasting energy cleaning sh*t from your riverfront property when there is a manure factory illegally dumping upstream.

And yet it probably makes up about 25% of the overall posts on this board.

---

Because cleaning sh*t from your property is doable in the short run. But yes, getting rid of the manure factory is the long term solution.

---

It's a short term solution if your definition of short term is "every single minute until long term goal is reached". The point is we get rid of Wilcox et. al only to have more of the same.

Jeff82 said:

---

Just to address one thing, Dykes was clearly not worse than Holmoe. Under Holmoe, we would get delay-of-game penalties because the coaching staff couldn't get the play into the huddle on time. Holmoe was a nice guy who didn't know what he was doing as a coach. I would equate him to Wyking Jones.

The best evidence of that was Tedford being able to take Holmoe's players and immediately turn the program around.

To be honest, Holmoe lost me in one of his interviews where he said one of his concerns was making sure his coaches had enough time with their families. The contrast to Tedford sleeping in his office was marked. That said, I don't think Tedford should have wrecked his health either. There has to be a balance. I expected Wilcox to succeed, and I'm surprised he hasn't. I hope we can still turn things around.

---

I think Cal fans are pretty much in agreement that Holmoe was worse than Dykes.

My point is that I think a substantial number of Cal fans view Dykes' 1-win season as worse than Holmoe's 1-win season. And thus that season was always a taint on him.

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Dykes was pretty low ceiling at Cal. Besides Utah in 2016, which was a really inexplicable win (goal line stand), I don't think he beat a single team that finished the season ranked. He had the best QB in the country and could only manage a 7 regular season wins beating up on the worst teams on our schedule. It was pretty much a given that we would drop 50 on bad teams and then get boatraced by the good ones.

---

Pretty much. Saying we beat "#11 Texas" is a little bit misleading. They were ranked high AT THE TIME, but crashed to a 5-7 record by end of year. More like we beat a typically overrated Texas team.

---

Tedford gets a lot of credit for going to Lansing and beating a #15 Michigan State team. (yeah, yeah, yeah, it was after a 1-10 season).

Dykes should get the same kind of credit.

---

I will give them both the same credit for those wins: they both beat a team that was thought to be good but was actually overrated.

However, I give Tedford a lot of credit for turning a 1-10 team into a 7-5 team immediately, which is what was truly exciting about that season.

Jeff82 said:

---

Just to address one thing, Dykes was clearly not worse than Holmoe. Under Holmoe, we would get delay-of-game penalties because the coaching staff couldn't get the play into the huddle on time. Holmoe was a nice guy who didn't know what he was doing as a coach. I would equate him to Wyking Jones.

The best evidence of that was Tedford being able to take Holmoe's players and immediately turn the program around.

To be honest, Holmoe lost me in one of his interviews where he said one of his concerns was making sure his coaches had enough time with their families. The contrast to Tedford sleeping in his office was marked. That said, I don't think Tedford should have wrecked his health either. There has to be a balance. I expected Wilcox to succeed, and I'm surprised he hasn't. I hope we can still turn things around.

---

Holmoe lost me when he was the DC of the worst defense in the country. He further lost me when he told the players not to wear earrings or get tattoos.

However, there is one incident early on where Holmoe pissed me off. WR Dameame Douglas had gotten into a public back and forth with UCLA head coach Bob Toledo after Douglas set a receptions record on a win over UCLA and Toledo disparaged Douglas's talent telling reporters "My daughter could catch those passes." Douglas told reporters "Well then his daughter should be playing for UCLA." The two exchanged public barbs for a few weeks. A reporter asked Holmoe about it. Holmoe sided with Toledo and said Douglas needed to be "more respectful" and "less cocky" (Or something to that effect). The reporter then read Holmoe's statement to Douglas on camera. You could just see the impact. The smile gone. The joy depart. Crestfallen, thrown under the bus in public. Douglas just glumly said "No comment." But Holmoe's supporters and excuse makers just kept saying what a good person he was and how honorable he was.

Jeff82 said:

---

Just to address one thing, Dykes was clearly not worse than Holmoe. Under Holmoe, we would get delay-of-game penalties because the coaching staff couldn't get the play into the huddle on time. Holmoe was a nice guy who didn't know what he was doing as a coach. I would equate him to Wyking Jones.

---

Wyking Jones was a tremendous ******* who also didn't know what he was doing as a coach.

tequila4kapp said:

---

The differences between Wilcox and Dykes relate to character. To the extent they both interacted with others schools Dykes pursued numerous suitors, Wilcox rebuffed a big money offer from his alma mater. BIG difference.

I do not think our standards have lowered. I think we are seeing the continuation of the mentality that mediocre sports results with good academic performance is acceptable to the university, maybe preferred. Especially in light of the P12 being on life support and the B1G being a life raft, not to mention key donors supposedly FINALLY getting through to the admin that football is king, this continued acceptance of mediocrity is absurdly horrific.

---

Not only do I agree with this but it is also one of the reasons I started backing and defending Wilcox at that point and well into this season. But I am able to review opposing positions and, seeing the performance of the team this year, particularly the lackluster efforts against UNLV and WSU (OL in particular), along with discovering on my own some major roster imbalanced that are inexcusable and I am really clear now that things won't get better. In Wilcox and Musgrave interviews this week they sell the idea that Cal will get better. Instead, I predict that Cal will not cover the spread and will get a bit of scare in Boulder from a team that is without an HC and is rated one of the worst teams in the NCAA.

Since fixing the APR has helped our program so much, can we fix it further by requiring 4.0 averages for football recruits? That way Wilcox can benefit even further from APR improvement, one of the OPs three major points why it is easier to coach at Cal now.

As for much more money, we have much less money than our competition. How much does UCLA spend on team meals per year compared to Cal? We have low donations and use football to fund other sports. Other schools have high donations and canned those sports. I do agree that, as we did with the SHPAC, that we are making efforts to catch up with our competition. Hopefully, we can do this soon.

Utah, WSU, UCLA, UW, and USC are loaded with players recruited via the transfer portal. We don't play this game well, except for finding the occasional grad transfer QB. When are we going to have academic programs that cater to star football players? If we are going to make them work their butt off (which they don't have to do 95% of other places), can they at least study sports / entertainment related fields?