After all he was bright, had NFL experience and superbowl rings with the local team and was perceived (correctly?) as having integrity. Yet he was a disaster as a coach. Why? One hint from a Cal offensive lineman I knew in the 98-01 period is that he didn't command respect letting players like Ainsworth and Davenport run over him. I don't know if this is true. Any thoughts?

Enough said and can we please drop the subject. Please. The guy is history (and a painful one too). There is no use bringing up the subject.

disagree, Letsroll. i think the subject is worth debating in this slow season, especially because it would seem he had the pedigree to be successful.

santacruz, it seems pretty obvious that he lost the respect of his players near the end of his tenure (if he ever had it). but i recall some solid defenses with serious talent during his time @ Cal (Sekou Sanyika, Jerry DeLoach, Andre Carter, Tugbenyo, Matt Beck, Deltha, etc). I also recall an anemic offense. Kind of backwards from what you would have expected Holmoe to bring to the table. I have no answer as to where the futlility came from, and that's what is so interesting to me.

One telling thing was when asked why He didn't change the defensive scheme when it wasn't working, Tom replied, "The defensive coach won't change it"

A fine man who was not a leader, couldn't manage his staff and couldn't seem to earn the respect of his staff or his players. Very nice, articulate, smart guy who was miscast. I still remember meeting Steve Gladstone at a Southern Seas event and asking him why Kasser hired Holmoe as HC. Gladstone said it was a disaster - why would you hire a defensive coordinator who was 110th in the nation at your school as HC the very next year? That says it all.
One sharp poster long ago labelled it the Holmocaust - that also says it all. Never again!

oskidunker;508417 said:

---

One telling thing was when asked why He didn't change the defensive scheme when it wasn't working, Tom replied, "The defensive coach won't change it"

---

Bob Toledo and Dameane Douglas got into a public ****ing match that went on for weeks after Cal beat UCLA on Vedder to Douglas passing and Toledo said his daughter could have made the catches Douglas made (to which Douglas responded, "Maybe he should have had her suit up then"). Bob Toledo made an ass of himself, yet Tom Holmoe publicly sided with the UCLA coach, apologized, scolded his own player in public and then punished him by having him give up his earring.

Type of leader you go to war for, right? There were also times he blamed the players for losses. People still talk about his "integrity" and that he was just being "honest," but I don't think that is integrity at all.

oskidunker;508417 said:

---

One telling thing was when asked why He didn't change the defensive scheme when it wasn't working, Tom replied, "The defensive coach won't change it"

---

Yes. There was also a stockpiling of talent on the defensive side and a lack of cooperation between the coaches. At one point we had our best playmaker/athlete, Deltha O'Neal, sitting on the bench as the backup cornerback. When asked why he did not let deltha play both ways, Holmoe responded that that defensive coach wouldn't let him.

There were many pieces that were involved making Holmoe's coaching career a disaster, mostly financial. There was not a lot of money being allocated to the football program so hiring the right people was not in the cards. But as for Holmoe specifically, he was simply not ready for the job. He should have never been put in the position and he received little help from the AD.

He had two years experience as a position coach, one year under Mariucci as DC, then given the head coaching position of a team needing a complete rebuild. Remember that the team was only one year removed from Gilbertson's demolition. Mariucci may have started a turnaround, but the team was still far from having the players and confidence to start the climb back to where Snyder left off.

Holmoe's performance in his one year at DC is often seriously maligned, but not totally fairly. I spoke to him at length at an event shortly after his arrival and asked him how the defense looked, expecting an optimistic, if not cautious response. His candor surprised me. He said, point blank, that it was going to take a couple or more years of very good recruiting before the defense would be where it needed to be. I remember him saying "We need to be patient, we're going to give up a lot of points in the next year or two." The defense did improve, the offense remained horrible.

Gilbertson left a pretty bare cupboard, and actually Holmoe left Tedford a better roster.

There's no question of Holmoe's failure as a coach, but he just didn't yet possess the tools he needed to do the job in terms of experience as well as funds.

I know many here still blame Holmoe for the condition of the program, but it wasn't ALL his fault and he didn't destroy it, thank Gilby and others for that. Holmoe just couldn't fix it.

Nice guys finish last comes to mind! He had some good players, I just don't think he knew how to motivate them into winners.

Valleyblue;508429 said:

---

There were many pieces that were involved making Holmoe's coaching career a disaster, mostly financial. There was not a lot of money being allocated to the football program so hiring the right people was not in the cards. But as for Holmoe specifically, he was simply not ready for the job. He should have never been put in the position and he received little help from the AD.

He had two years experience as a position coach, one year under Mariucci as DC, then given the head coaching position of a team needing a complete rebuild. Remember that the team was only one year removed from Gilbertson's demolition. Mariucci may have started a turnaround, but the team was still far from having the players and confidence to start the climb back to where Snyder left off.

Holmoe's performance in his one year at DC is often seriously maligned, but not totally fairly. I spoke to him at length at an event shortly after his arrival and asked him how the defense looked, expecting an optimistic, if not cautious response. His candor surprised me. He said, point blank, that it was going to take a couple or more years of very good recruiting before the defense would be where it needed to be. I remember him saying "We need to be patient, we're going to give up a lot of points in the next year or two." The defense did improve, the offense remained horrible.

Gilbertson left a pretty bare cupboard, and actually Holmoe left Tedford a better roster.

There's no question of Holmoe's failure as a coach, but he just didn't yet possess the tools he needed to do the job in terms of experience as well as funds.

I know many here still blame Holmoe for the condition of the program, but it wasn't ALL his fault and he didn't destroy it, thank Gilby and others for that. Holmoe just couldn't fix it.

---

I would never hire someone with Holmoe's "cander." He was constantly talking about how we had to recruit better (i.e. the players we have aren't good enough). The offense was good in '96 and if you look at the defensive players on the roster in '96 and '97, we had a ton of talent. Certainly better than #110 in the country. In fact when those guys graduated Holmoe talked about how hard it would be to replace them.

calumnus;508441 said:

---

I would never hire someone with Holmoe's "cander." He was constantly talking about how we had to recruit better (i.e. the players we have aren't good enough). The offense was good in '96 and if you look at the defensive players on the roster in '96 and '97, we had a ton of talent. Certainly better than #110 in the country. In fact when those guys graduated Holmoe talked about how hard it would be to replace them.

---

That's pretty much my point. He hadn't even learned how to talk to the public or alumni, what to say and not to say, he knew virtually nothing about how to be a head coach.

Nobody will ever know if he could have developed into a decent coach. It's like hiring a kid fresh out of school to be the CEO of a top Fortune 500 company, he'll probably tank it and then have the reputation of being incompetent. He'll probably never get another chance. But had he moved up through the ranks and had a chance to develop, he might have been a great CEO, but nobody will ever know.

That's what happens when you get in over your head. I remember Holmoe on more than one occasion saying he would resign, but Kasser talked him out of it.

lover not a fighter?

Don't forget to blame John Kasser, the AD who hired him....worse hire ever.

Quote:

---

"I was too idealistic about people, coaches and administrators at Cal," Holmoe said. "I was very, very naive. I understand that people are going to say, 'You fool.' I learned that some people are in it for the wrong reasons. I didn't recognize that soon enough." One reason he was slow to react had to do with his background. He always had been involved with successful football programs, having earned four Super Bowl rings with the 49ers -- three as a player, one as a coach -- following a standout playing career at BYU. "I knew what I was getting into (at Cal) and I thought there was no possible way I could fail," he said. "I had a great plan. If things didn't work, I would just turn the right levers and make the right moves." After one year as Cal's defensive coordinator under Steve Mariucci in 1996, Holmoe was promoted to head coach when Mariucci left after one season to take the 49ers' head coaching job. Then-Cal athletic director John Kasser wanted to keep continuity in the program, so he hired Holmoe, who never had been a head coach.

---

http://calgoldenbearfootball.blogspot.com/2005/12/contra-costa-times-ex-cal-coach-holmoe.html

There was one game when we were playing UCLA. I was sitting next to my uncle and aunt. We had recovered a fumble and we were on the Bruins 1 yard line. Three plays into the middle of the line didn't work and before we could get off the next play, Holmoe called time out. After the time out, our Bears approach the ball and another time out is called. Holmoe takes 5'5" Vedder out of the game and puts in our back-up QB. Not one person in the entire freaking stadium is fooled as to what the play calling would be including UCLA which stacked the box with 11 defensive guys. Our backup QB tries to sneak it in and we get stopped. My uncle walked out of the stadium in disgust never to return again during the Holmoe era.

Another uncle attended the Cal vs Illinois game at Memorial. We got our @sses handed to us and he said more people were leaving the stadium than people who were in line for refreshments. He never saw another Cal game in person because he vowed never until Holmoe was canned but died of pancreatic cancer later in the season.

santacruzbear;508412 said:

---

After all he was bright, had NFL experience and superbowl rings with the local team and was perceived (correctly?) as having integrity. Yet he was a disaster as a coach. Why? One hint from a Cal offensive lineman I knew in the 98-01 period is that he didn't command respect letting players like Ainsworth and Davenport run over him. I don't know if this is true. Any thoughts?

---

A real nice guy with a strong pedigree...but I agree with some posters here.

Lack of leadership.

I had several members of Holmoe's team tell me that the assistant coaches fought bitterly amongst themselves. That negative atmosphere spread to the locker room. Our team never had a chance even with all that talent.

Holmoe just never had enough leadership to fix it.

Cal_Fan2;508465 said:

---

Don't forget to blame John Kasser, the AD who hired him....worse hire ever.



http://calgoldenbearfootball.blogspot.com/2005/12/contra-costa-times-ex-cal-coach-holmoe.html

---

And blame the Niners for firing a successful head coach after going 12-4 and losing in the second round of the playoffs and hiring Marriucci the week before LOI day leaving Kasser in that predicament. And also blame Bill Walsh who recommended hiring Holmoe.

I also don't think he had the mastery of Xs and Os (especially on offense) that a coach needs. The Coach-as-Chairman-of-the-Board model can work, but he wasn't very good at that, either.

As someone posted above, with an additional five years as an assistant -- under the right tutelage -- maybe he could have made it work. On the other hand, maybe it was just never meant to be, for him to be a good coach.

It was interesting how he came with a great recommendation from The Genius himself, Bill Walsh, but that later seemed to be a product of Walsh recommending ALL his proteges, either out of hubris, or maybe just to give them a break. That was around the time of Walsh's second go-round at Stanfurd, which wasn't too successful in itself.

bar20,

I agree with your post but remember, just b/c nice guys finish last doesn't mean A$$ Holes finish first.

some people just are not meant to lead but some can lead but it has to be at the right time they have to know when they can and are ready to assume the responsibilities that it takes to be a great leader of men. And some nice guys can finish first. Just like tony dungy he is the poster guy for nice guys.

He is a kind fellow with a generous heart. His stories to alums were gentle 'next door neighbor' type strolls through meaningless but pleasant pastoral landscapes. (You walked out shaking your head... great prospect if you need a trusty next door neighbor but hardly the kind of guy who could even imagine let alone display command presence.) That said, he was thoughtful and considerate of alums in his shy way. Once outside the Claremont, he spotted my then little son watching the team board the bus for a game. Holmoe came out of nowhere to pick him up in his arms and escort him on to the bus to meet some players. The little guy thought he had died and gone to heaven. I've since come to know some players on his last two teams. They confirm that Tom could not manage his assistants, who ran roughshod over him and that cost him respect from the players. Some guys just are not executives -- no matter how much they know about the game, when you have to kick some butts to get cohesion and can't do it, things can unwind on you.

Deutsch;508517 said:

---

I've since come to know some players on his last two teams. They confirm that Tom could not manage his assistants, who ran roughshod over him and that cost him respect from the players. Some guys just are not executives -- no matter how much they know about the game, when you have to kick some butts to get cohesion and can't do it, things can unwind on you.

---

Most likely the reason those assistants ran roughshod over Holmoe is not just because he is a nice guy but because he wasn't confident in his ability to coach a team. If he had the confidence the rest of the coaches would have complied rather than being a pain in the @ss.

What made Holmoe such a lousy coach? Let us count the ways...


Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/Playoffs
California Golden Bears (Pacific-10 Conference) (1997–2001)
1997 California 3-8 1-7 9th
1998 California 5-6 3-5 7th
1999 California 0-11* 0-8* T-6th
2000 California 3-8 2-6 T-8th
2001 California 1-10 0-8 10th
California: 12-43 6-34
Total: 12-43

*ineligible players caused the forfeitures..

6-34 in ****ing conference play...wowza...in 5 yrs..

The thing is, I can understand taking a chance and hiring Holmoe in 1997 when trying to keep a great recruiting class together after both Mooch and our other coordinator, Hue Jackson had left, but I can never understand the contract extensions and widespread alumni support he received after demonstrating he was over his head and did not have the requisite leadership skills. Give him the initial contract and then start a short list of replacements in case the experiment doesn't work.

Holmoe would never have been the head coach if Mooch & the forty whiners had not done their last minute deal the week of letters of intent. The AD at the time-Kasser,really had no other choice but to promote Holmoe.

Sorry, but I think you are too easy on Holmoe. According to him we were a couple or more very good recruiting classes away from having the defense where it needed to be, and yet, the next year it was good. (because he hired a DC who told him to shut up, get out of the way, and give him every player on the roster he wanted.) No one expected miracles out of Holmoe's defense. But there is a middle ground between miracle and 110. He was awful. And then when he decided to take over special teams, it immediately became the worst unit on the team.

Holmoe would never have developed into a good coach. Maybe he could have after years of intense study learned something about X's and O's. (maybe) But bottom line he was weak. Weak character, weak everything. He seemed to have a huge inferiority complex and was constantly giving us reasons why things can't be done and why Cal was a place that sucked to recruit to because, well, basically Cal sucked. He never took responsibility for anything.

I dispute that Holmoe was a good man. Nice man, maybe. Well intentioned, maybe. But good men don't let their players get abused by their assistant coaches like that. When I read later Holmoe being quoted as saying that he knew after his 2nd to last season that he wasn't going to be able to make it work, I was done with him in terms of the whole upstanding thing. Apparently Kasser wouldn't let him quit, the last in a long line of people, many of whom he had the ability to fire, who wouldn't let him do things.

Basically he stood in front of alumni and parents of players and said "I'm a nice man and I care about my players and I will teach them to be upstanding citizens" and some people bought it. Then he sat and watched their football careers wasted and meanwhile did nothing to help his players to get through academically and had a horrible grad rate.

You are right that Gilby tanked the program and Holmoe did not. (well, sorta, Gilby took us from top ten to bad, but Holmoe took us from bad to atrocious - how many Cal coaches have lost 10 games in a season?) That was merely because Holmoe did not have the opportunity. If Holmoe took over for Snyder it would have been tanked far faster and I don't see any way Holmoe takes a team to 9-3 like Gilby did, even if the roster was handed to him.

As for the rosters both guys left, well, Gilby left Cal with Tony Gonzalez, Pat Barnes, Bobby Shaw, Dameane Douglas, Ryan Longwell, Matt Beck, Tarik Glenn, Brandon Whiting, Jeremy Newberry, John Welbourn. All of those guys except Beck had at least a couple years in the league, some long careers. So it wasn't completely bare (though there were certainly issues). Holmoe left some good players too (though some of them he didn't realize were good or didn't know where to play them.) But there were large holes as well. Remember Tedford filling up the two deeps with JC guys? Rodgers, Makonnen, Arrington, Giordano, Riddle, Maningo, Blay-Miezeh, Cross? By 2004, which should have been filled with Holmoe's upperclassmen, 12 of 22 starters were Tedford recruits. Holmoe had recruiting classes where you'd look later and see like 4 guys still on the team. They'd be a good 4, but there'd be nothing else left.

organizational, tactical, etc. His biggest failing, however, was that he never got the difference between pro and college football. He was an overachieving self-motivator and believed that all athletes were essentially like him. Thus, his philosophy was "if you treat them like responsible professionals, they will behave like responsible professionals." That may work in the NFL where players are motivated by a paycheck, but not in college. As a result, you got the Ainsworth and Davenport situation, you got the lack of discipline on and off the field, and you got in-fighting between position coaches because there wasn't top-down leadership.

I Bear;508563 said:

---

Holmoe would never have been the head coach if Mooch & the forty whiners had not done their last minute deal the week of letters of intent. The AD at the time-Kasser,really had no other choice but to promote Holmoe.

---

He had a choice, but took the gamble and it didn't work out. That is understandable. What was inexcusable is that Holmoe received contract extensions and widespread alumni support after proving he was not the man for the job.

Not hard enough on Kasser. Everyone says Jackson had left. So? He left for an OC spot. Offer him the HC job. Wouldn't have been thrilled with the hire, but at least if you buy the continuity thing (vs. "I'm too lazy to do a damned coach search again") why was that not the obvious move?

Even if Jackson is gone, hiring one of the worst DC's in America for the sake of continuity, well, I can understand it the same way I can understand someone believing the earth is flat. It kinda makes sense if you look at it a certain way and ignore about 1000 other obvious facts.

OaktownBear;508567 said:

---

Sorry, but I think you are too easy on Holmoe. According to him we were a couple or more very good recruiting classes away from having the defense where it needed to be, and yet, the next year it was good. (because he hired a DC who told him to shut up, get out of the way, and give him every player on the roster he wanted.) No one expected miracles out of Holmoe's defense. But there is a middle ground between miracle and 110. He was awful. And then when he decided to take over special teams, it immediately became the worst unit on the team.

Holmoe would never have developed into a good coach. Maybe he could have after years of intense study learned something about X's and O's. (maybe) But bottom line he was weak. Weak character, weak everything. He seemed to have a huge inferiority complex and was constantly giving us reasons why things can't be done and why Cal was a place that sucked to recruit to because, well, basically Cal sucked. He never took responsibility for anything.

I dispute that Holmoe was a good man. Nice man, maybe. Well intentioned, maybe. But good men don't let their players get abused by their assistant coaches like that. When I read later Holmoe being quoted as saying that he knew after his 2nd to last season that he wasn't going to be able to make it work, I was done with him in terms of the whole upstanding thing. Apparently Kasser wouldn't let him quit, the last in a long line of people, many of whom he had the ability to fire, who wouldn't let him do things.

Basically he stood in front of alumni and parents of players and said "I'm a nice man and I care about my players and I will teach them to be upstanding citizens" and some people bought it. Then he sat and watched their football careers wasted and meanwhile did nothing to help his players to get through academically and had a horrible grad rate.

You are right that Gilby tanked the program and Holmoe did not. (well, sorta, Gilby took us from top ten to bad, but Holmoe took us from bad to atrocious - how many Cal coaches have lost 10 games in a season?) That was merely because Holmoe did not have the opportunity. If Holmoe took over for Snyder it would have been tanked far faster and I don't see any way Holmoe takes a team to 9-3 like Gilby did, even if the roster was handed to him.

As for the rosters both guys left, well, Gilby left Cal with Tony Gonzalez, Pat Barnes, Bobby Shaw, Dameane Douglas, Ryan Longwell, Matt Beck, Tarik Glenn, Brandon Whiting, Jeremy Newberry, John Welbourn. All of those guys except Beck had at least a couple years in the league, some long careers. So it wasn't completely bare (though there were certainly issues). Holmoe left some good players too (though some of them he didn't realize were good or didn't know where to play them.) But there were large holes as well. Remember Tedford filling up the two deeps with JC guys? Rodgers, Makonnen, Arrington, Giordano, Riddle, Maningo, Blay-Miezeh, Cross? By 2004, which should have been filled with Holmoe's upperclassmen, 12 of 22 starters were Tedford recruits. Holmoe had recruiting classes where you'd look later and see like 4 guys still on the team. They'd be a good 4, but there'd be nothing else left.

---

Great post.

OaktownBear;508571 said:

---

Not hard enough on Kasser. Everyone says Jackson had left. So? He left for an OC spot. Offer him the HC job. Wouldn't have been thrilled with the hire, but at least if you buy the continuity thing (vs. "I'm too lazy to do a damned coach search again") why was that not the obvious move?

Even if Jackson is gone, hiring one of the worst DC's in America for the sake of continuity, well, I can understand it the same way I can understand someone believing the earth is flat. It kinda makes sense if you look at it a certain way and ignore about 1000 other obvious facts.

---

True, but I can even excuse that--clearly Holmoe was a bad bet, but sometimes people take chances and make bad decisions under time pressure and the advice of "The Genius" --what I can't excuse is that Holmoe was our head coach for 5 years with contract extensions and left with a big payout because he had years left on his contract (and had just received another extension that he "needed" for "recruiting"?). When he got it, all the Holmoe supporters said "Tom needs this extension for recruiting purposes, but he is such a good and honorable man that he would not take the money if he was asked to step down next year." He took the money.

Yeah, well, circa 2000, I was (one of) the drunkoski's on this board. (there were a lot more of us at that time). Had I started posting in 1997 I would have been then as well.

LOL. halfway through your post I was going to respond "big payout? I thought Tom was so honorable he quit without taking the payout", but you got there on your own.

(1) Inadequate leadership skills
(2) Didn't command the respect of his players or assistant coaches
(3) Poor understanding of offensive schemes and systems
(4) Lackluster personality
(5) Poor communication skills
(6) Inadequate organizational knowleldge
(7) Too meek and soft-spoken
(8) Poor motivator

In 99 I was still busy working and living in LA, so I had little personal knowledge, of what was essentially the behind the scenes situation. But I loved my Bears, was discouraged, and turned on Tom at the UCLA game in the Rose Bowl that year. I was sitting next to a middle aged Bear fan whose son had been a pretty good high school ball player. At Cal he was doing the academic thing, and supplying his sporting needs by being a student football manager.

The father explained how his son couldn't stand it, and had dropped football and was now involved with another sport as a manager. The son's story was that Tom was a nice caring man who had near zero charisma or leadership ability. He talked in nice friendly parables, had little control over his assistant coaches and not much more over the players, and couldn't issue a tough direct order if his life depended on it.

I had no trouble believing the story at the time and the next two years, as I watched with a bit more insight, proved it to me without any doubt. This tread is on its third page and several have expressed similar thoughts. I have quoted Deutsch's response, because it best captures the situation as I see it.

Deutsch;508517 said:

---

He is a kind fellow with a generous heart. His stories to alums were gentle 'next door neighbor' type strolls through meaningless but pleasant pastoral landscapes. (You walked out shaking your head... great prospect if you need a trusty next door neighbor but hardly the kind of guy who could even imagine let alone display command presence.) That said, he was thoughtful and considerate of alums in his shy way. Once outside the Claremont, he spotted my then little son watching the team board the bus for a game. Holmoe came out of nowhere to pick him up in his arms and escort him on to the bus to meet some players. The little guy thought he had died and gone to heaven. I've since come to know some players on his last two teams. They confirm that Tom could not manage his assistants, who ran roughshod over him and that cost him respect from the players. Some guys just are not executives -- no matter how much they know about the game, when you have to kick some butts to get cohesion and can't do it, things can unwind on you.

---

Not sure if I agree with this one. You have to remember the context - we had screwed up in 1992 by passing over Mooch for Gilbey even though the program was on the right track and we had an EXCELLENT chance at continuity by going with Mooch. We got Mooch back for 1 year and we could all see that he was better than Gilbey by a lot. We knew the defense under Tom was crap but we thought that continuity was important (keeping those recruits from bolting). And TH's defenses with Setencich (sp?) were entertaining - high risk, in your face. It was TH's offenses that really sucked. The Cosbie/Vedder offense and Toledo/Boller offense couldn't get points on the board. And everybody in the conference knew what plays we were running on offense. It was a miracle that we won any games at all with TH as coach.