Hope this isn't a booth, but hmmm

Know for a fact those that liked him were in the very small minority. He did not have any real relationship with players. There are player's coaches/rah rah, there's something in between, then there's Dykes. The combination of outsider plus not being a former player himself in addition to the increasingly negative public perception of his system being soft/awful on defense did not endear him to players. But I wouldn't say it was toxic, more like mutually tolerable.

Also may have more to do with how the D is being coached/held accountable

Ironically Luke might be #1 on the depth chart at QB if he had been allowed to stay at that position.
Glad he finally has a coach on his side, if you know what I mean.

if he had been allowed? I seem to recall that Luke, behind Jared and wanting to play more consistently, chose to move.....

I thought it was mutual

socaliganbear;842842330 said:

---

Know for a fact those that liked him were in the very small minority. He did not have any real relationship with players. There are player's coaches/rah rah, there's something in between, then there's Dykes. The combination of outsider plus not being a former player himself in addition to the increasingly negative public perception of his system being soft/awful on defense did not endear him to players. But I wouldn't say it was toxic, more like mutually tolerable.

---

From input I had received, no surprise also. Wouldn't have done any good to spout about such here, for various reasons...

well certainly the coaches would have input since they had to figure out the needs from their perspective... but my take was he wanted to be on the field and realized he could move to safety and they blessed the move..... you are closer to the team than I so I'm just going from memory..

No surprise..

Dykes was the worst Cal coach since Gilby. His mistakes ranged from hiring a staff of incompetent assistants to failing to understand basic football concepts (blocking and tackling).

College players are smart - they can see through a fraud and Dykes was as phony as they come.

71Bear;842842395 said:

---

No surprise..

Dykes was the worst Cal coach since Gilby. His mistakes ranged from hiring a staff of incompetent assistants to failing to understand basic football concepts (blocking and tackling).

College players are smart - they can see through a fraud and Dykes was as phony as they come.

---

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]

okaydo;842842399 said:

---

.

he left the program in much better shape than what he inherited.

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

---

Hence why I don't see why people are giving Wilcox a flyer for this year

pingpong2;842842321 said:

---

Hope this isn't a booth, but hmmm

---

That guy is coming off being on some of the worst squads in the history of football (literally in some categories IIRC). The "culture" was obviously not going to be great regardless of their personal feelings about Dykes.

I am sure he likes a coach who's culture values defense as part of the team. It would be absurd if he didnt like it more...

I dont think that reflects on their feelings of Dykes at the time.

okaydo;842842399 said:

---

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

---

Players dont lose the feeling of winning just because the win is vacated by some bureaucracy after the year ends.

From a players perspective, vacated wins are wins, because on that day, they walked of the field with a win.

Also, that there is even a discussion between Dykes and Holmoe (where a major differentiation in records is a minor self reported violation by players who were already kicked off the team) says enough. Aside from APR (Praise Oski for that!) Dykes was pretty terrible, especially if you happened to play on the side that didnt have the ball. There is a debate on who was worse... thats enough for me to say Dykes was pretty Bad.

FWIW, I am sure Holmoe's teams were pretty excited about beating Oklahoma in their epic slump.

MoragaBear;842842394 said:

---

There weren't many players that actively disliked him.

Rubenzer's just making a comparison about how close the current staff is with the players vs. the previous staff, from the top down.

Dykes and some of the other coaches were fairly hands-off from a personal standpoint, while Wilcox's staff overall tends to emphasize investing in personal relationships more.

---

Interesting perspective on the relationship... I had thought it was more football culture (because of the defensive guy saying it).

I find it interesting that people would associate losing with disliking the coach. IIRC, guys liked Holmoe a lot, and he didnt win a lot...

71Bear;842842395 said:

---

No surprise..

Dykes was the worst Cal coach since Gilby. His mistakes ranged from hiring a staff of incompetent assistants to failing to understand basic football concepts (blocking and tackling).

College players are smart - they can see through a fraud and Dykes was as phony as they come.

---

Dudes, he swept Texas. I don't care if they were down or whatever(the second time they beat Texas hadn't they just beat Notre Dame the week before?). We all get to take that to our graves at least.

Wait until the Simpson Center and Memorial are built.

the whole thing with Dykes just sort of sounds like he wasnt too enthusiastic about his job. to me if i were to ever coach even youth league the part i would probably enjoy the most would be developing relationships with the team. doesn't sound like someone investing himself much emotionally, sounds like someone going through the motions. couple that with him trying to catch the first train out of town, i think its safe to say that he just didnt want to be here.

Phantomfan;842842404 said:

---

Players dont lose the feeling of winning just because the win is vacated by some bureaucracy after the year ends.

From a players perspective, vacated wins are wins, because on that day, they walked of the field with a win.

Also, that there is even a discussion between Dykes and Holmoe (where a major differentiation in records is a minor self reported violation by players who were already kicked off the team) says enough. Aside from APR (Praise Oski for that!) Dykes was pretty terrible, especially if you happened to play on the side that didnt have the ball. There is a debate on who was worse... thats enough for me to say Dykes was pretty Bad.

FWIW, I am sure Holmoe's teams were pretty excited about beating Oklahoma in their epic slump.

---

And beating USC three times.

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]

---

Holmoe was a bad coach but a decent guy. Dykes was a bad coach and a whining excuse maker.

Also, don't forget that Holmoe beat OK twice. If you credit Dykes for the TX wins, you gotta credit Holmoe for the OK wins (although OK was, similar to TX, in a tailspin at the time).

Holmoe was 5-5 v. SC and UCLA. Dykes was 1-7.

Holmoe recruited a first round QB (Boller).

Holmoe did not leave the program in a mess. His successor posted a winning record in his first season. Dykes left the program in a terrible state. The OL is thin, the D is thin, the QB's have little experience.

I'll take Tom H. over Dykes every time.

However, I would not take Gilby over Dykes.

MoragaBear;842842394 said:

---

There weren't many players that actively disliked him.

Rubenzer's just making a comparison about how close the current staff is with the players vs. the previous staff, from the top down.

Dykes and some of the other coaches were fairly hands-off from a personal standpoint, while Wilcox's staff overall tends to emphasize investing in personal relationships more.

---

How many players really like Urban Meyer or Nick Saban? Many top coaches are not particularly well liked personally. But they are respected. That may be the biggest disconnect. Winning is so important to team culture and chemistry. Losing makes everything less tolerable. Winning does the opposite. The S&C coach may have the closest relationship with many of the players. That the current staff is investing more in personal relationships is not necessarily unique to incoming staffs. This past season I am sure many of the defensive coaches saw the writing on the wall and became a little more self interested.

There are many posters on this board that were not fond of Dykes. I was ok with him the few times I met him personally. JT on the other hand is far and away my least liked coach on a personal basis. Found him distressingly aloof and not particularly friendly. I ran into him in Danville a few times and a bigger jerk would be hard to find.

Rubenzer is a veteran. If he says it's better, then I like it.

In the 25 years I've been following Cal fb, people are always saying things are getting better. Then they use rationale like we're building on last years success, players are getting more experienced, there's better buy in on the new system, the new coaching staff is taking us in a new and refreshing direction, key players now healthy, we've weeded out tired and unsuccessful players/coaches, we're bringing in new fresh players, there's a new attitude in the air-in fact players are now going to classes.

Basically, college football is the equivalent to a forest floor where things are always dying, decomposing, and regenerating new growth and life.

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.

---

What I find disingenuous are the people on this board who still trash Tedford at every opportunity. These are the same people, I'm guessing, that didn't give a rat's a** about APR when we had a legitimate shot at the Rose Bowl in 2004. My apologies to you Moraga if you posted your concern about this back then.

In contrast, our rival across the bay has been to the RB three times in the last the last five years while leading the conference in APR.

Why can't we seem to crack the code for having the same type of success in the classroom and on the field?

Go Bears!

When I heard how Dykes was allegedly treating walk-ons, I lost my enthusiasm for him as a person.

ncbears;842842431 said:

---

When I heard how Dykes was allegedly treating walk-ons, I lost my enthusiasm for him as a person.

---

Chad Hansen and Bug Rivera?

BearChemist;842842437 said:

---

Chad Hansen and Bug Rivera?

---

And Ooms and McMorris.

burritos;842842421 said:

---

In the 25 years I've been following Cal fb, people are always saying things are getting better. Then they use rationale like we're building on last years success, players are getting more experienced, there's better buy in on the new system, the new coaching staff is taking us in a new and refreshing direction, key players now healthy, we've weeded out tired and unsuccessful players/coaches, we're bringing in new fresh players, there's a new attitude in the air-in fact players are now going to classes.

Basically, college football is the equivalent to a forest floor where things are always dying, decomposing, and regenerating new growth and life.

---

Profoundly true and accurately describes why I have not jumped back on the bandwagon thinking things will be better this time.
I am hopeful that the competent of the overall coaching staff is better than ever. But Cal has to show that they are willing to keep it at that level long term for me to regain significant interest as a ticket holder. I suspect that 2018 may be a decent year for Cal. And 2019 might be also decent. Then coaches will want more money. Will Cal pony up? Not historically.

To which I would say...

I had quite a number of interactions with JT and I found him to be friendly. He was never aloof with me. In fact, at one meeting with Greybear and me, JT took us to a whiteboard and diagrammed a play to illustrate a point he was making.

He was a winner who lost his way late in the tenure at Cal by recruiting guys who did not belong there. At the end of his Cal career, he did acknowledge that was a big mistake.

I'll never forget the fun times at Memorial early in hs career. He rocked the place in a way that had not been seen for a long time and has not been seen since.

71Bear;842842445 said:

---

To which I would say...

I had quite a number of interactions with JT and I found him to be friendly. He was never aloof with me. In fact, at one meeting with Greybear and me, JT took us to a whiteboard and diagrammed a play to illustrate a point he was making.

He was a winner who lost his way late in the tenure at Cal by recruiting guys who did not belong there. At the end of his Cal career, he did acknowledge that was a big mistake.

I'll never forget the fun times at Memorial early in hs career. He rocked the place in a way that had not been seen for a long time and has not been seen since.

---

Having had numerous interactions with JT, I concur he was friendly and engaging for the the first 7 years or so. He obviously had a period of depression and was never the same while at Cal. He became defensive and grumpy. He never learned to work smarter, not harder. I wish him the best but think his Fresneck tenure will be difficult.

XXXBEAR;842842419 said:

---

Rubenzer is a veteran. If he says it's better, then I like it.

---

it didn't appear to be a vindictive post... not something he'd say on a whim. if its legitimately better, great.

hopefully it stays that way when the team hits some adversity. its easy for things to be 'better' now.

Yogi86;842842423 said:

---

What I find disingenuous are the people on this board who still trash Tedford at every opportunity. These are the same people, I’m guessing, that didn’t give a rat’s a** about APR when we had a legitimate shot at the Rose Bowl in 2004. My apologies to you Moraga if you posted your concern about this back then.

In contrast, our rival across the bay has been to the RB three times in the last the last five years while leading the conference in APR.

Why can’t we seem to crack the code for having the same type of success in the classroom and on the field?

Go Bears!

---

I think its rare that people trash Tedford unequivocally.

He did great things early. Made mistakes late, due to some personal problems, which I won't diagnose but it was clear they were there. Cal fans are better suited than most to understand the nuance.

I'd be the first to give him a standing ovation when he comes back to memorial as an opposing HC.

71Bear;842842395 said:

---

No surprise..

Dykes was the worst Cal coach since Gilby. His mistakes ranged from hiring a staff of incompetent assistants to failing to understand basic football concepts (blocking and tackling).

College players are smart - they can see through a fraud and Dykes was as phony as they come.

---

Complete slander and humorous as well. To say Dykes was as bad as Holmoe is borderline psychotic. To remind you, Holmoe went 4-25 in years 4 and 5 in his tenure. That's likely bottom 1% all time for a Power 5 football coach. Dykes went 13-12 in his last two seasons.

Dykes was not beloved by his players. He was a very CEO style HC who was distant intentionally. Not judging whether that's good or bad as many successful college coaches have done so to great ends while others have failed. Every single player who I asked the year after Tedford left said privately to me that the culture had improved radically for the better once Dykes arrived.

Where Dykes really went wrong was in his choice of assistants on defense. Art Kaufman was not liked nor respected nor trusted by the players in the end. His predecessor was an all time failure. I believe Dykes knew going into last year that his DC was a major problem and that defensive recruiting was a big issue yet he failed to rectify it.