OaktownBear;842842574 said:

---

The buy-in chart says "you will respect me because you are supposed to, not because I've earned it. And if you don't, I'll publicly humiliate you." What should have also been a warning sign to people is the players who were at the bottom of that chart.

Logically it is the same as "the beatings will continue until morale improves"

---

Big C_Cal;842842593 said:

---

Disagree somewhat. It wasn't about respect and loyalty to the leader. It was about quantifiable, demonstrable actions that show buy-in to team success, which had become a huge challenge in 2012-2013.

It actually kind of sums up what this thread is all about: Dykes' leadership style was very... what's the word I'm looking for... dispassionate? But he did show the players what they had to do to become more of a team and to succeed academically. And it sounded like he stuck to his guns, unlike Holmoe and late-Tedford. So, though he wasn't exactly popular, he wasn't despised and he was somewhat respected by the players who stuck it out.

Not saying he was a good coach, obviously, just analyzing what his strengths and weaknesses were.

---

Sebastabear;842842591 said:

---

His principal failing IMHO was making it so clear he didn't want to be here. Hard for the players to get too pumped about "buying in" when the coach hasn't done the same.

---

CalHoopFan;842842598 said:

---

The buy in chart was about accountability to teammates

---

Sebastabear;842842591 said:

---

Dykes had a certain style of management and I think we need to separate that from the atrocious defensive results on the field. Had Dykes won 9 or 10 games a year, he would have been hailed as the greatest coach in history given the fractured locker room he inherited and the APR debacle. I think his buy in approach or whatever seemed to have worked to some extent with the kids. His principal failing IMHO was making it so clear he didn't want to be here. Hard for the players to get too pumped about "buying in" when the coach hasn't done the same.

---

Sebastabear;842842526 said:

---

Pretty much spot on. Dykes was incredibly gracious with fans and donors one on one. Far more so than JT. JT was a football guy first, second and last. He was just obsessive about the game. For what it's worth, I've also heard that Wilcox is far more in the JT mode. Doesn't understand why he has to sacrifice time he could be spending on X's and O's to go and do anything with donors (frankly I'll be shocked if the current arrangement with the grid club lasts far into his tenure). And you know what? If Wilcox can replicate the first part of JT's tenure at Cal no one will give a flying fig if he never leaves his office to do a single fan/donor event. You go Justin.

Of course it would be great if we had a coach who could do it all, but I'll settle for winning a boatload of games and keeping the axe in Berkeley for the next decade.

---

going4roses;842842609 said:

---

I would say some shid but at this point why bother

---

wifeisafurd;842842607 said:

---

Wilcox is one of the planning types (he literally has every day planned for the first six months after he was hired). Next week he starts meeting with donors one on one. The best way to evaluate Justin is to review his body of work after a couple years, because everything is done in a progression. It is interesting to see leadership and personal styles in football coaches. Could be a case study class for Haas students I suspect.

I thought Sonny handled donors and fans well. His downfall was his very public lack of commitment to Cal (and not being able to get a handle on the defense), rather than necessarily his management style. I will say that the graduating players input was probably the last straw. That Saban, for example, isn't particularly loved by players isn't that relevant since i'm sure he is respected. I just don't think Sonny garnered the same respect for various reasons, foremost what was perceived as his lack of commitment to the players and their program.

---

turkey02;842842611 said:

---

because it's fun!

---

okaydo;842842399 said:

---

Tom Holmoe: 29% winning percentage (counting the games that were later disqualified).

Sonny Dykes: 39% winning percentage.

Holmoe won 16 games in 5 seasons.

Dykes won 19 games in 4 seasons.

Holmoe got us bowl banned.

Dykes didn't get us bowl banned.

Dykes was also responsible for a dramatic APR turnaround after the Tedford disaster.

APR APR APR -- he deserves a lot of credit for that. Imagine if he sucked in that regard.

He also was responsible for the No. 1 overall pick in the NFL draft, plus another QB getting drafted.

Dykes also beat the powerhouse Texas twice. Yes, Texas was down. But we were even downer. We were 1-11. We were 3-9. We were bottom of the barrel, and yet we became built up enough to beat freakin Texas. On their turf. And ours.

Yes, Dykes wasn't a great coach. But at least he left the program in much better shape than what he inherited.

[video=youtube;5fpXFLQ7o4I][/video]

---

MoragaBear;842842398 said:

---

Dykes essentially went .500 for three seasons after poorly dealing with the steaming pile he was left in 2013.

He was the wrong coach for Cal to hire from Day 1. He was not a people person, though Tedford was far more prickly in later years. He did not bring in the right people to turn the D around, both from a coaching and recruiting standpoint. But to ignore both the academic and cultural turnaround during his time and say the players saw through him as a fraud and phony is disingenuous.

There were quite a few seasons under Tedford where the team atmosphere, culture and academics where toxic, plus his last 3 seasons were very comparable to Dykes' teams, though the defense was at least semi-competent. There were some really bad years under Holmoe, too.

Just don't see the point of continually taking shots at the guy with sweeping indictments. He did some things well and did some things poorly.

Bad decision. Move on. It's a new era.

---

MoragaBear;842842398 said:

---

Dykes essentially went .500 for three seasons after poorly dealing with the steaming pile he was left in 2013.

He was the wrong coach for Cal to hire from Day 1. He was not a people person, though Tedford was far more prickly in later years. He did not bring in the right people to turn the D around, both from a coaching and recruiting standpoint. But to ignore both the academic and cultural turnaround during his time and say the players saw through him as a fraud and phony is disingenuous.

There were quite a few seasons under Tedford where the team atmosphere, culture and academics where toxic, plus his last 3 seasons were very comparable to Dykes' teams, though the defense was at least semi-competent. There were some really bad years under Holmoe, too.

Just don't see the point of continually taking shots at the guy with sweeping indictments. He did some things well and did some things poorly.

Bad decision. Move on. It's a new era.

---

bearent;842842627 said:

---

Dykes played a game of trust the DC and lost.players did not trust DC and did not believe anything the position coaches said.some players that had been doing well were pushed to the back of the depth chart but,when the 2 deeps did not perform others did not get a shot.no development of players,no one really got better red shirting,players playing out of position,even playing players that are now 3rd and 4th on the current depth chart just saying

---

MoragaBear;842842662 said:

---

There was always a lot of criticism and very little of it was ridiculed. That was reserved for the harshest and least informed of the shots at him, not the garden variety, well-deserved criticisms.

---

CalHoopFan;842842598 said:

---

The buy in chart was about accountability to teammates

---

MoragaBear;842842687 said:

---

Come on, Oaktown. I could put together a 100 page thread of critical posts that weren't attacked. Easily.

Expressing disagreement in itself isn't an attack.

---

MoragaBear;842842687 said:

---

Come on, Oaktown. I could put together a 100 page thread of critical posts that weren't attacked. Easily.

Expressing disagreement in itself isn't an attack.

---

going4roses;842842698 said:

---

do you feel better now? (Serious tone)
No bullshit

---

chazzed;842842706 said:

---

Both sides are unreasonable at times but, to me, it seems that the board is moderated relatively fairly.

---

OaktownBear;842842689 said:

---

yeah, and Treggs and Harper were clearly lousy teammates who didn't take accountability seriously.

---

wifeisafurd;842842621 said:

---

Despite everything said here, I agree Sonny left a better program behind.

---