GivemTheAxe;842798239 said:

---

Give me a break. SD walked in to horrific situation and cleaned up the mess. Created a potent offense among the leaders of Div. 1. Discounting his first year, he was 5-7; 8-5; 5-7. Unfortunately he was as bad at Defense as he was good at offense and he gave up way way too many points and lost too many close games.
I agree he had to go.
Gilby and TH both inherited good teams and drove them down. Especially TH. There is no comparison with SD.

---

All the other stuff has been rehashed on this board a million times so I won't do it again. I'll just reiterate the thing that set me off - it is inconceivably incompetent to have local HS coaches that you've never even met. That is inexcusable.

UCBerkGrad;842797879 said:

---

wifeisafurd;842797837 said:

---

Maybe because Greenwood is considered the Dean of offensive line coaches in the Pac?/QUOTE]

Greenwood WIAF? lol

I'm sorry, but no one knows the names of position coaches (well, at least 99% of us). Frankly it doesn't matter what their names are to the average fan. What is important is do we know their accomplishments?

I didn't know Greatwood's name prior to Cal hiring him but I was fully aware of the performance of his linemen over the years. So yes, I was happy we landed him. Great(wood) hire!

As a self-proclaimed Sunshine Pumper, even I have serious concerns over this entire firing/hiring process. It has not gone well. I am trying to hold off making early judgement about the new coaching staff, but I find myself smh and being underwhelmed.

Great that Cal hired a defensive coach, but completely unknown as a guy who can lead a Power Five team. Everyone points out how he has been DC for some great defenses at some great football programs. This is absolutely true and he should be proud of his successes. However, there are some significant red flags that Cal fans seem willing to overlook.

- He was never at any of his DC gigs for any serious length of time. Boise was his longest at 4 seasons. Tennessee 2 seasons, Washington 2 seasons, USC 2 seasons, Wisconsin 1 season. That means the talent he worked with were, by and large, inherited from prior coaches. All of those programs are top-tier programs that almost always attract top talent anyway. How will he do inheriting a team that clearly does NOT have talent on the defensive side of the ball?

- Speaking of those programs he worked for...considering Wilcox worked as a DC for five elite college football programs, which means he has worked with some of the most established and well known coaches in the nation, and success breeds success. Why hasn't any other named program attempted to hire Wilcox as their head coach? The only other program that I am aware of that (possibly) made an offer was San Jose State. When Cal fired Dykes, 21 other FBS schools had already HIRED new head coaches for 2017. None of them (except maybe SJSU) even attempted to lure him to their schools. I would think that if I was an AD at a Power Five school, I would be making contact with established coaches across the country asking for recommendations. Did none of Wilcox's prior head coaches give him an endorsement?

- Which leads to recruiting. Everyone seems to be excited about Wilcox's west coast recruiting ties....which excited me. But who has he recruited over the years? I looked up recruiting stats for coaches using 24/7's database. I'm sure it isn't 100% accurate, but I will assume it is directionally correct. Over the decade-plus years of coaching, 24/7 attributes 3 players that Wilcox has recruited: 3-star ILB Sean Constantine (UW) in 2012, 4-star OT Clayton Johnston (USC) in 2014 & 3-star OC Cole Smith (USC) also in 2014. That's it. Only one defensive player. For comparison sake, Tosh has 30 players attributed to him including seven 5-star recruits and thirteen 4-star recruits. I hope Wilcox can close on high end talent at Cal, but not sure we see a track record. It doesn't make me feel any better to read headlines on ESPN that read "Cal recruits' reaction to Wilcox hiring: 'Who?'"

- The Baldwin hire seems solid, but not necessarily an upgrade over what we previously had with Spav. More alarming is that for a defensive minded coach, we have made no progress on the defensive coaching staff. We had two very solid names that seemed exciting (I really didn't want Tosh to return, but at least he would have been a splashy hire). Now who are we left with at this late stage of the game? The talent pool of available coaches is razor thin. Even true Cal insiders don't seem to know where we go from here.

I don't want to be a downer...I really don't. I prefer to see the positive side of things in general and I really hope I am wrong with my concerns, but this entire process from the timing of firing Dykes to scrambling to patch a coaching staff together (with some BIG swings and misses) isn't giving me any comfort. It really doesn't matter what I think though. Only time will tell if these hires were good ones or not. If they are, I will happily eat crow (and you can hold me to it).

---

Here's the problem with you wanting to be positive but can't: you went and looked up facts. You can't do that and still be positive about Cal football. Remember this: facts = bad, blind belief = good. Yes, Cal football is a religion. Don't look behind the curtain

wifeisafurd;842798043 said:

---

UCBerkGrad;842797879 said:

---

This is weird post to respond to. We all know that there are no guarantees, and essentially every coach comes in with something that is not a perfect fit (the one guy who probably was I mention below and he failed miserably. I just don't think the post reflects how coaches are hired and needs a reality check.

Your admission that you don't know any assistants is noted, which makes your opining coaches are third tier amazingly uniformed. Your stated view that 99% of the posters have not heard of these assistants also is just as uniformed, especially guys with major west coast experience, and you clearly don't seem to get that despite all the posters calling you out. Don't attribute your ignorance to 99% of the people here. OTOH, you can insult my self-correcting program that continues to turn Greatwood into Greenwood all you want.

Wilcox was a well-known commodity to people at Cal, he was taken to new jobs by his head coaches, and there have been the usual number of tweets and commentary from past coaches, players and associates that give the Wilcox thumbs-up (that seems to happen with all hires these days), to respond to silly comment about calling-up established coaches across the nation for recommendations. If you can’t see why any coach is not going provide names (other than guys looking for a job already), and would likely have no idea what Cal is looking for anyway, I can’t help you. His last coach at Wisconsin has made a big effort to say what a great hire Cal made and that Wilcox is ready to be a head coach, but only after Wilcox was hired. That is the best your ever going to get.

Not to make this longer, but there are many articles on how prospective coaches are identified and contacted for interest. You can read them, but let me suggest to you the usual route is for a search committee to look at candidates and then contact the identified coach's agent (you can read why is not customary or perhaps not legal in some states to contact the coach directly). If the agent says he is not looking, the discussion end there. There may be many reasons a coach is not looking. That said, Wilcox has been mentioned for other jobs, including the Udub job that went to Petersen. As far as I know, he had expressed no interest in a HC job until this year, but candidly only Wilcox and his agent probably know.

There have been a number of changes already that people who follow Cal football like. The coaching staff will be way more experienced, heavy with Pac and west coast ties, a very motivated S&C coach, and those who deem to follow other teams, or in maybe one case Cal, will know. Wilcox is spending a great deal of time with players. One player, a starter, said he spent more time talking privately with Wilcox last week than he spent his entire career talking to Sonny. Wilcox has met with various high school coaches, including local coaches, that had never met with Sonny. This shows a desire to build the program the right way, from the ground. There is no guarantee any coach will be a successful hire, you have to look at what they do and evaluate. Resumes can be somewhat helpful, and Wilcox certainly had a good enough resume to be considered. But even that is no guaranty. Bill Walsh going into his second term at Furd, may have been the most qualified coach of all time, and he laid a turd. We all know there is no guaranty the Wilcox will succeed. At least I hope we all do.

But there is a general feeling, with Sonny having one foot out the door, and the defensive problems, there was need for a change. And so far, Wilcox as a defensive-oriented coach made sense, and most posters seem to like where he says the program is going, his actions so far, and the coaching staff he is recruiting. That Cal is having a tough time recruiting a DCs probably reflects on Sonny being undesirable as a head coach, and in Wilcox's case, to circumstances beyond Wilcox's control. Also, its probably a lot easier to sell coaches on inheriting the offense Sonny left, than the defense. All that said, Wilcox seems to know what he is doing on defense, so I’m less concerned about the “x's” and “o's” on defense and in the short run, and more concerned about recruiting better defensive talent.

As for eating crow, you may not know for a few years. Cal is a modified rebuild due to its defense, and Wilcox doesn’t seem to be into taking short cuts.

---

You may not agree with my concerns about how this process has unfolded (which actually does make me feel somewhat better), but do you at least not acknowledge that all of my points are valid risks? You have had a successful career and probably have hired/fired numerous people. Don't you attempt to identify these types of risks before making an offer?

UCBerkGrad;842798281 said:

---

wifeisafurd;842798043 said:

---

You may not agree with my concerns about how this process has unfolded (which actually does make me feel somewhat better), but do you at least not acknowledge that all of my points are valid risks? You have had a successful career and probably have hired/fired numerous people. Don't you attempt to identify these types of risks before making an offer?

---

Many of your risks are inherent in any hire. Some in any coordinator hire. Some are decent points. Some are uninformed and unfair.

Your concern that he hasn't gotten a head coaching job - If he had he wouldn't be a coordinator. It is the risk for EVERY young coaching hire and you make it sound peculiar to Wilcox. Despite all evidence that 40 is not at all old to be given your first head coaching job. And as my real estate agent told me, if you weren't willing to pay more for the house than anyone else on the market, you wouldn't have the house. Yes, we gave him his best opportunity. That is why he is here. Your "nobody else wants him" concern doesn't match what anyone who knows Wilcox's value in the coaching market knows to be true.

Your job hopping concern - complete lack of understanding of the profession and ignoring the details behind his resume. Again the unfounded nobody wants him concern.

Recruiting - sorry, but anyone informed would know that the 247 database is extremely spotty on the issue of who is the recruiter. And, in any case, frequently the first coach in a recruiting relationship is a position coach. To conclude he has only recruited 3 guys is ridiculous. Cal saw his recruiting first hand as LB coach here during our best era of recruiting. The guy can recruit.

So sorry, some of your concerns are based on a lack of knowledge and you refuse to listen to any counter where you clearly have holes in that knowledge.

I also think at some point you give the new coach a chance to actually perform on the job before judging his ability

tequila4kapp;842798001 said:

---

So we are back to bitching about the process again? I guess some people just can't be happy. Hell, even if you guys are right, so what? This class will have like 14 kids in it and it was yet another middling Dykes effort where we can brag about recruiting great students and point to the exceptions so we feel better about landing 2 and 3 star recruits, then bitch about not having good enough players when SDSU drops 50 on us the next fall.

---

How many two star recruits do we have? A:0 We don't play San Diego St this year,btw! You might want to study up:axe

Big C_Cal;842798106 said:

---

I'm not sure one game counts for much, but I think one season does. Gilby had 1993 (Alamo Bowl victory and just a really good season, all told) and it followed a disappointing first year (his first, 1992, w/senior Russell White), so he must've DONE SOMETHING to stop the bleeding.

Gilby's other three seasons pretty much sucked, but 1993 vaults him ahead of Holmoe... and maybe ahead of Dykes and maybe even Kapp.

---

Yes, but Gilby did it with Snyder's players. He couldn't maintain the cupboard let alone add to it.

GivemTheAxe;842798239 said:

---

Give me a break. SD walked in to horrific situation and cleaned up the mess. Created a potent offense among the leaders of Div. 1. Discounting his first year, he was 5-7; 8-5; 5-7. Unfortunately he was as bad at Defense as he was good at offense and he gave up way way too many points and lost too many close games.
I agree he had to go.
Gilby and TH both inherited good teams and drove them down. Especially TH. There is no comparison with SD.

---

No, especially Gilby who inherited the #7 team in the country and drove them into the ground, beginning with a huge upset by Purdue that set the stage for his four years.

southseasbear;842798337 said:

---

Yes, but Gilby did it with Snyder's players. He couldn't maintain the cupboard let alone add to it.



No, especially Gilby who inherited the #7 team in the country and drove them into the ground, beginning with a huge upset by Purdue that set the stage for his four years.

---

You're right and I'm no Gilby fan. However, if he were the "worst ever", the team would've continued to unravel after the 1992 season (transfers, more player dissension, etc.). Instead, they came back together and had a marvelous 1993. He's got to get some credit for that. True, the nucleus of the team was all Snyder recruits.

Regarding that 1992 season, they did have significant personnel losses after 1991. Pawlawski, Auzeene (sp?), Treggs... that's just off the top of my head. Again, I'm no Gilby apologist, believe me.

OaktownBear;842798293 said:

---

UCBerkGrad;842798281 said:

---

Many of your risks are inherent in any hire. Some in any coordinator hire. Some are decent points. Some are uninformed and unfair.

Your concern that he hasn't gotten a head coaching job - If he had he wouldn't be a coordinator. It is the risk for EVERY young coaching hire and you make it sound peculiar to Wilcox. Despite all evidence that 40 is not at all old to be given your first head coaching job. And as my real estate agent told me, if you weren't willing to pay more for the house than anyone else on the market, you wouldn't have the house. Yes, we gave him his best opportunity. That is why he is here. Your "nobody else wants him" concern doesn't match what anyone who knows Wilcox's value in the coaching market knows to be true.

Your job hopping concern - complete lack of understanding of the profession and ignoring the details behind his resume. Again the unfounded nobody wants him concern.

Recruiting - sorry, but anyone informed would know that the 247 database is extremely spotty on the issue of who is the recruiter. And, in any case, frequently the first coach in a recruiting relationship is a position coach. To conclude he has only recruited 3 guys is ridiculous. Cal saw his recruiting first hand as LB coach here during our best era of recruiting. The guy can recruit.

So sorry, some of your concerns are based on a lack of knowledge and you refuse to listen to any counter where you clearly have holes in that knowledge.

I also think at some point you give the new coach a chance to actually perform on the job before judging his ability

---

I would only add to this that by all accounts, Wilcox was a good recruiter both as a position coach and as a DC. When Tosh was still at Cal and recruiting Shaq Thompson, it was Wilcox at UW who was likely to lure Shaq to UW even if Tosh had stayed at Cal. More importantly, he understands the importance of having a staff of recruiters, as evidenced by the staff he is building now. There is risk with this hire - as is always the case - but Wilcox seems to understand that Cal will not improve unless it attracts better talent.

Holmoe's expertise on offense matched Sonny's expertise on defense. Those Hagen and Cosbie offenses were horrible.

I still can't forgive Gilby for burning Pat Barnes' redshirt year. Gilby's saving grace was that he at least won a few Big Games.

Hagen the Horrible

oskidunker;842798425 said:

---

Hagen the Horrible

---

I got to know a JC coach who knew Hagen. He told me at the time that he was shocked that Cal hired him. He turned out to be right. Other than being a nice guy I have no idea what qualities Holmoe possessed to go as far as he did in the coaching ranks. Everyone who hired him should be embarrassed

philbert;842798421 said:

---

Holmoe's expertise on offense matched Sonny's expertise on defense. Those Hagen and Cosbie offenses were horrible.

I still can't forgive Gilby for burning Pat Barnes' redshirt year. Gilby's saving grace was that he at least won a few Big Games.

---

Holmoe's expertise on defense was not much better than Sonny's expertise on defense.

southseasbear;842798499 said:

---

Holmoe's expertise on defense was not much better than Sonny's expertise on defense.

---

The difference is that Holmoe had two prominent bay area head coaches convinced that he could coach defense. Sonny's wife doesn't even think Sonny knows defense.

southseasbear;842798499 said:

---

Holmoe's expertise on defense was not much better than Sonny's expertise on defense.

---

His hit squad defenses under setencich were fun. Of course, setencich recommended Buh to Dykes....

philbert;842798548 said:

---

His hit squad defenses under setencich were fun. Of course, setencich recommended Buh to Dykes....

---

Learn something new everyday.

Set up ?

bearsandgiants;842797792 said:

---

Yep. I remember "let's just say you won't need a google search to recognize these guys." Outside of Wilcox, I've needed google for nearly every one. I'm not that savvy though. Not looking good. They promised to make football great again! Is it possible we've all been duped? Maybe we can make a change in four years.

---

You didnt recognize the guy who beat OSU and WSU with they were ranked as a D1AA?

BearGoggles;842798407 said:

---

I would only add to this that by all accounts, Wilcox was a good recruiter both as a position coach and as a DC. When Tosh was still at Cal and recruiting Shaq Thompson, it was Wilcox at UW who was likely to lure Shaq to UW even if Tosh had stayed at Cal.

---

This is news to me. You are saying if Tosh never left Cal, Shaq still would have decommitted to UW because of Wilcox? I was under the impression that the ONLY reason Shaq had a last minute change of heart was because of Tosh.

BearGoggles;842798407 said:

---

More importantly, he understands the importance of having a staff of recruiters, as evidenced by the staff he is building now. There is risk with this hire - as is always the case - but Wilcox seems to understand that Cal will not improve unless it attracts better talent.

---

This is a strategy I can get behind. I like having a head coach hiring a staff where everyone recruits.

going4roses;842798552 said:

---

Learn something new everyday.

Set up ?

---

Dykes and Setencich worked together at Texas Tech. It was that connection that lead Dykes to ask Setencich for advice, not Setencich's Cal connection. There was a big article about this at the time.

Setencich's defenses were massively overrated. He blitzed constantly, to the point of being easily predictable, so he overwhelmed inferior opponents and got burned by decent ones. Never got along with OC's in large part by grabbing all the athletes and depriving a depleted offense. What the defense did with the incredible personnel was underachieving. The putrid offense went a long way to distract fans from defensive problems. Seeking his advice was red flag #1. Hiring two coaches from Holmoe's staff, including the worst DB coach I've ever seen, were red flags 2 and 3.

Thx for the history.

going4roses;842798610 said:

---

Thx for the revisionist history.

---

fify

UCBerkGrad;842798594 said:

---

This is news to me. You are saying if Tosh never left Cal, Shaq still would have decommitted to UW because of Wilcox? I was under the impression that the ONLY reason Shaq had a last minute change of heart was because of Tosh.

---

The memory is a little foggy, but IIRC the only reason Shaq was considering Cal was because of Tosh (and Ms Thompson).

I have to laugh out loud a little bit that roughly half of this thread is people arguing about who was the worst Cal coach in 30 years. Throwing my own vote into the ring, Dykes is not close to in the running, it's definitely Holmoe vs Gilby. 1-10 with the win vacated and team put on academic probation gives Holmoe the win for me.

More on topic for this thread, I will reserve judgment until a coordinator is hired and a staff is in place as to my assessment of the process. But so far I am cautiously optimistic, with the caveat that the blow to this recruiting class with how things have worked out is going to be painful.

elpbear;842798635 said:

---

The memory is a little foggy, but IIRC the only reason Shaq was considering Cal was because of Tosh (and Ms Thompson).

I have to laugh out loud a little bit that roughly half of this thread is people arguing about who was the worst Cal coach in 30 years. Throwing my own vote into the ring, Dykes is not close to in the running, it's definitely Holmoe vs Gilby. 1-10 with the win vacated and team put on academic probation gives Holmoe the win for me.

More on topic for this thread, I will reserve judgment until a coordinator is hired and a staff is in place as to my assessment of the process. But so far I am cautiously optimistic, with the caveat that the blow to this recruiting class with how things have worked out is going to be painful.

---

Holmoe is not the worst football coach at Cal because to be so, he has to rise to the level of being classified a football coach. He couldn't coach football at any level. Wouldn't have him coach 10 year olds. He is the worst man who held the title as coach at Cal.

As between Gilby and Dykes, they are both guys that had some success at other levels. Their positives and negatives are different. Not sure I really care about the conclusion. Would rather be able to talk about who the best coach is.

I wish people would stop comparing what's happening to their Chip Kelly fantasy, and start comparing what is happening to what mostly likely was going to happen. Williams was going to do nothing!!! He would have very happily just written off next year in order to get Dykes' buyout down. From his own statement, it's obvious that only the tanking ticket sales and donations forced him to do something. Yes, it would have been better to have hired Wilcox, or whomever the next coach was going to be, in December. But it's better to have a new coach now than wait an entire additional year. Had Dykes stayed, this recruiting class would have mostly been a write-off anyway, particularly given my supposition that no decent DC at this point was willing to work for him. At least now we have a coach with a defensive pedigree, and we can start trying to move forward again, instead of lingering in the five- to eight-win horse latitudes where we were stick with Dykes. I'm withholding judgment on Wilcox until I see what his team does on the field. But it's better than waiting out the string with Sonny.

Big C_Cal;842798399 said:

---

You're right and I'm no Gilby fan. However, if he were the "worst ever", the team would've continued to unravel after the 1992 season (transfers, more player dissension, etc.). Instead, they came back together and had a marvelous 1993. He's got to get some credit for that. True, the nucleus of the team was all Snyder recruits.

Regarding that 1992 season, they did have significant personnel losses after 1991. Pawlawski, Auzeene (sp?), Treggs... that's just off the top of my head. Again, I'm no Gilby apologist, believe me.

---

Arguing who is the worst coach between Kapp, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Bad Jeff Tedford and Dykes overlooks the fact that we have had exactly *two* good coaches during that span of time that covers all those bad one. One of those two coaches went on to take not-Cal to the Rose bowl; the other ended up leaving the program in worse shape than he found it and thus ends up on both the good coach AND bad coach list.

Meanwhile we argue over which ugly stepsister is the ugliest. They're all ugly, no further discussion needed. The past 30+ years have been one ugly mess, save for a few shining seasons and a decent stretch of good-but-not-great above-.500 ball during the Tedford Era before things tanked.

Jeff82;842798669 said:

---

I wish people would stop comparing what's happening to their Chip Kelly fantasy, and start comparing what is happening to what mostly likely was going to happen. Williams was going to do nothing!!! He would have very happily just written off next year in order to get Dykes' buyout down. From his own statement, it's obvious that only the tanking ticket sales and donations forced him to do something. Yes, it would have been better to have hired Wilcox, or whomever the next coach was going to be, in December. But it's better to have a new coach now than wait an entire additional year. Had Dykes stayed, this recruiting class would have mostly been a write-off anyway, particularly given my supposition that no decent DC at this point was willing to work for him. At least now we have a coach with a defensive pedigree, and we can start trying to move forward again, instead of lingering in the five- to eight-win horse latitudes where we were stick with Dykes. I'm withholding judgment on Wilcox until I see what his team does on the field. But it's better than waiting out the string with Sonny.

---

You are so right about this. Every change needs to be measured against what might have taken place if Sonny were still here. Namely, everything in the rebuilding process would be pushed back another year. It takes at least a full year to evaluate how a new staff is doing on recruiting. Even if a new staff came in at the end of November, that still is not enough time to overhaul an entire recruiting class. Tedford's first class in 2002 is a great example of this. It was small and lacking big names, just like this year's will. It took a full year until the 2003 class to assemble what was the backbone of his early success.

Uthaithani;842798672 said:

---

Arguing who is the worst coach between Kapp, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Bad Jeff Tedford and Dykes overlooks the fact that we have had exactly *two* good coaches during that span of time that covers all those bad one. One of those two coaches went on to take not-Cal to the Rose bowl; the other ended up leaving the program in worse shape than he found it and thus ends up on both the good coach AND bad coach list.

Meanwhile we argue over which ugly stepsister is the ugliest. They're all ugly, no further discussion needed. The past 30+ years have been one ugly mess, save for a few shining seasons and a decent stretch of good-but-not-great above-.500 ball during the Tedford Era before things tanked.

---

1. I agree with you that arguing over the worst coach is really silly (a point I was making as well)
2. If we are going to argue who is the best, I don't see that it is close. I love Bruce Snyder, but his first few seasons sucked and only partially because he was building. The squib against SJSU, the blocked field goal against LSJU - there were some major coaching blunders. And the offense we were running pre-Mooch sucked. I will always maintain that without Shea leaving and Mooch taking over OC, we don't go that far. Bottom line is that Snyder left on a high note after one really good year. I do believe that had he stayed, he would have rivaled Tedford in success, but the other fact is that he built up ASU, got to a Rose Bowl and tanked there. No reason to think the trajectory would have been different. Bill Walsh always said coaches shouldn't stay in one place more than 10 years. I think that is a ludicrous rule, but I think there is truth that MANY coaches shouldn't stay in one place more than 10 years. Things get stale. Tedford's window closed at Cal. Snyder's at ASU. But Tedford's first several seasons, including two 10 win seasons and a conference co-championship and all winning seasons are about what I think you can reasonably hope for. I believe Snyder would have matched that, but would have doesn't equal did.

Uthaithani;842798672 said:

---

Arguing who is the worst coach between Kapp, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Bad Jeff Tedford and Dykes overlooks the fact that we have had exactly *two* good coaches during that span of time that covers all those bad one. One of those two coaches went on to take not-Cal to the Rose bowl; the other ended up leaving the program in worse shape than he found it and thus ends up on both the good coach AND bad coach list.

Meanwhile we argue over which ugly stepsister is the ugliest. They're all ugly, no further discussion needed. The past 30+ years have been one ugly mess, save for a few shining seasons and a decent stretch of good-but-not-great above-.500 ball during the Tedford Era before things tanked.

---

You're posting on this thread, presumably for fun, but now you declare it's time to stop? No, the fun continues...

I never got the Mooch hatred. Nominating him for "worst coach" is crazy. Had he stayed a few years longer, he'd be on the "best coach" list of candidates.

He had a rare combination of charisma/communication/people skills and Xs-and-Os expertise. He loved being at Cal and would've taken us (IMO, obviously) to a Rose Bowl within five years. He had no way of knowing that he would be offered the 49ers HC job after only one year: Who could've predicted that? That he was offered the position is testimony to how highly thought of he was (and he did decent work there, too). No way you can blame somebody for taking that job. It was one of the top coaching spots in all of sports back then. (Wow, how the mighty have fallen in the ensuing two decades, eh?)

Now, there were rumors, right before he left, that he might leave to take the 49ers OC job. That would be a different story. Even if it put him as 49ers heir apparent, that would've amounted to him not honoring his Cal commitment.

elpbear;842798635 said:

---

The memory is a little foggy, but IIRC the only reason Shaq was considering Cal was because of Tosh (and Ms Thompson).

I have to laugh out loud a little bit that roughly half of this thread is people arguing about who was the worst Cal coach in 30 years. Throwing my own vote into the ring, Dykes is not close to in the running, it's definitely Holmoe vs Gilby. 1-10 with the win vacated and team put on academic probation gives Holmoe the win for me.

More on topic for this thread, I will reserve judgment until a coordinator is hired and a staff is in place as to my assessment of the process. But so far I am cautiously optimistic, with the caveat that the blow to this recruiting class with how things have worked out is going to be painful.

---

Not exactly. Shaq committed to Cal early - then was waivering well BEFORE Tosh left. As I recall it, Wilcox had a strong relationship with Shaq's family that had a lot of traction and when Tosh left, that sealed the deal.

Big C_Cal;842798682 said:

---

You're posting on this thread, presumably for fun, but now you declare it's time to stop? No, the fun continues...

I never got the Mooch hatred. Nominating him for "worst coach" is crazy. Had he stayed a few years longer, he'd be on the "best coach" list of candidates.

He had a rare combination of charisma/communication/people skills and Xs-and-Os expertise. He loved being at Cal and would've taken us (IMO, obviously) to a Rose Bowl within five years. He had no way of knowing that he would be offered the 49ers HC job after only one year: Who could've predicted that? That he was offered the position is testimony to how highly thought of he was (and he did decent work there, too). No way you can blame somebody for taking that job. It was one of the top coaching spots in all of sports back then. (Wow, how the mighty have fallen in the ensuing two decades, eh?)

Now, there were rumors, right before he left, that he might leave to take the 49ers OC job. That would be a different story. Even if it put him as 49ers heir apparent, that would've amounted to him not honoring his Cal commitment.

---

Why do we know for sure that Mooch was all that good. He didn't even achieve a .500 record at Cal with the likes of Pat Barnes, Tony G, Damean Douglas, Deltha Oneal, Matt Beck, Bobby Shaw, Ryan Longwell on his team. I don't recall his winning a lot of playoff games in the NFL either. I heard he gave a lot of motivating speeches though. He was charismatic, that's for sure. That gets you far in this world even if that's all you have.

Uthaithani;842798672 said:

---

Arguing who is the worst coach between Kapp, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Bad Jeff Tedford and Dykes overlooks the fact that we have had exactly *two* good coaches during that span of time that covers all those bad one. One of those two coaches went on to take not-Cal to the Rose bowl; the other ended up leaving the program in worse shape than he found it and thus ends up on both the good coach AND bad coach list.

Meanwhile we argue over which ugly stepsister is the ugliest. They're all ugly, no further discussion needed. The past 30+ years have been one ugly mess, save for a few shining seasons and a decent stretch of good-but-not-great above-.500 ball during the Tedford Era before things tanked.

---

Tedford did not leave Cal in worse shape than he found it. That's nonsense imo. Tedford took over the worst team in school history AND inherited sanctions. His players were ashamed of showing their faces on campus. That was a monumental rebuild that he did overnight. He left on the downward trajectory certainly but he won 3 games his last year and had enough talent on that team to nearly beat undefeated Ohio State at the horseshoe. The academic status he left behind was a mess. The team chemistry/morale was not in good shape but in better shape than what he inherited. And he didn't leave us under sanctions.

boredom;842798697 said:

---

Tedford did not leave Cal in worse shape than he found it. That's nonsense imo. Tedford took over the worst team in school history AND inherited sanctions. His players were ashamed of showing their faces on campus. That was a monumental rebuild that he did overnight. He left on the downward trajectory certainly but he won 3 games his last year and had enough talent on that team to nearly beat undefeated Ohio State at the horseshoe. The academic status he left behind was a mess. The team chemistry/morale was not in good shape but in better shape than what he inherited. And he didn't leave us under sanctions.

---

The team was way worse that that. We had like 23 players on academic probation and were so close to sanctions due to academics. Not to mention some of the good players we had left early for the NFL or transferred. Players were a nightmare to coach. A lot were failing out. We were a mess when he left. Look at the last few years roster and see how many players that actually played for Tedford were still here.

The worst team in school history was the 2013 team that Tedford left for Sonny! At least Tom Holmoe left a roster full of players that would dominate Tedford's most successful teams. Homoe also left Tedford a team that would raise Cal's APR to second in the PAC-10 along with avg SAT scores second only to furd. JT will take zero responsibility for the freefall of the Cal program. It's tragic how all the equity that Cal built in its football program is gone due to JT's unraveling mental health and inability to adapt and recognize what was happening to the program.
Ps: Cal's lone win was v Portland St in '13, a game which we were outplayed and very fortunate to win.

Kind of amazing that a lot of fans sit in the stadium that was renovated largely on the back of Tedford's success say the program was left in worse shape than he found it. While the cost and execution of the stadium is less than ideal, the facilities will benefit the program for decades.

Without the facilties, Cal literally would not be able to compete in the future.

gobears725;842798733 said:

---

Kind of amazing that a lot of fans sit in the stadium that was renovated largely on the back of Tedford's success say the program was left in worse shape than he found it. While the cost and execution of the stadium is less than ideal, the facilities will benefit the program for decades.

Without the facilties, Cal literally would not be able to compete in the future.

---

Oh I didn't say it was worse than when he found it. Just worse than what was described.