The culture was good because Dykes brought in good kids. But he still was not a well liked guy. Most were not sad to see him go.

SadbutTrue999;842842469 said:

---

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.

---

Exactly. I'd build JT a statue given what he did here at Cal. JT was an all time great for Cal football. At the same time, I thought he needed to be fired a year before he was. He lost it so completely there was no solving for it or turning it around. And for the record, I got to personally interact with him at least 8 times during his tenure. He was always intense as well as an introvert. Did not like the public speaking part of his job and could be irascible and aloof even when things were going well for him. He could also be friendly and kind. Dykes social skills were off the charts. So direct and honest. Very transparent and open and just a genuinely warm person. Not sure that's a critical skill in a college football coach. Never saw the edge I think ALL the great ones have in Dykes. Wilcox has the edginess and IMO is more reminiscent of JTs personality albeit with less stressful anxiety. Wilcox has a nice calm to him.

Personal Perspective

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.

---

Let me say this a different way. From what I heard, Sonny separated himself from the players, in almost a chain of command type environment. The players were close to their position coaches, and to go above the position coach, you then went to the coordinator. You only saw Sonny for something really bad or good. For example, one player, a starter, said he spoke to Wilcox more in the first week Wilcox was hired, than he spoke to Sonny his entire time at Cal. It is if Sonny was sin play tolerated because the was the HC. Just a difference in style. Wilcox being so much more accessible to players undoubtedly makes him more popular. We will see if it wins more games.

CalHoopFan;842842480 said:

---

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.

---

i think that its illogical to mange things from a CEO type style this day in age at least in team sports dealing with young people. all we hear about is how kids are soft or snowflakes and to a certain extent its true but you still got to figure out how to manage them, allow them to grow. fwiw i think steve kerr's empowerment style is more suited to todays type of athlete. I just dont think that young people respond to CEO type of management these days because i think it can be taken as being neglectful, uncaring, or distant. theres a balance and i guess we can say i guess he failed to find that balance.

as a player i appreciated an open line of communication with a coach, ill put that out there. the reason being is just that theres just things coaches dont see or just know about and they can better manage the team that way because theyll have more information to work from. that and its hard work to play and practice and its not all glamour. it felt good to have a leader that made you feel good about coming in and putting in the work and i dont feel you can do that without communicating

Ball coach vs football coach.

gobears725;842842497 said:

---

i think that its illogical to mange things from a CEO type style this day in age at least in team sports dealing with young people. all we hear about is how kids are soft or snowflakes and to a certain extent its true but you still got to figure out how to manage them, allow them to grow. fwiw i think steve kerr's empowerment style is more suited to todays type of athlete. I just dont think that young people respond to CEO type of management these days because i think it can be taken as being neglectful, uncaring, or distant. theres a balance and i guess we can say i guess he failed to find that balance.

as a player i appreciated an open line of communication with a coach, ill put that out there. the reason being is just that theres just things coaches dont see or just know about and they can better manage the team that way because theyll have more information to work from. that and its hard work to play and practice and its not all glamour. it felt good to have a leader that made you feel good about coming in and putting in the work and i dont feel you can do that without communicating

---

Makes sense to me that you and most others would prefer a more hands on and connected style with a college HC. Not sure that makes it illogical. I think you'll find more than a half dozen of the currently perceived top 25 coaches in America who have a similar style to Dykes.

CalHoopFan;842842513 said:

---

Makes sense to me that you and most others would prefer a more hands on and connected style with a college HC. Not sure that makes it illogical. I think you'll find more than a half dozen of the currently perceived top 25 coaches in America who have a similar style to Dykes.

---

i think there are a lot that have the perception of being hardasses but arent actually that way on a daily basis. to me its not a matter of being hands on, so as its to reinforce that youre there. sometimes its just saying hi and giving them that energy at that 5 am workout which is where i truly believe games are won and lost, the work no one sees.

ive had both types and my personal feeling is that the standoffish coach was the least successful style.

personally i think sonny knows this being the son of a successful coach and having to played sports himself. i just dont think he was motivated to put forth that type of effort

wifeisafurd;842842490 said:

---

Let me say this a different way. From what I heard, Sonny separated himself from the players, in almost a chain of command type environment. The players were close to their position coaches, and to go above the position coach, you then went to the coordinator. You only saw Sonny for something really bad or good. For example, one player, a starter, said he spoke to Wilcox more in the first week Wilcox was hired, than he spoke to Sonny his entire time at Cal. It is if Sonny was sin play tolerated because the was the HC. Just a difference in style. Wilcox being so much more accessible to players undoubtedly makes him more popular. We will see if it wins more games.

---

Indeed. Ultimately, it comes down to winning games.

That said, my gut... I'll take those players that would run through the proverbial brick wall for their HC. Don't know if Wilcox is that man yet of course. I had zero indication that SD was though, maybe even the opposite; whatever that might be...

CalHoopFan;842842483 said:

---

Exactly. I'd build JT a statue given what he did here at Cal. JT was an all time great for Cal football. At the same time, I thought he needed to be fired a year before he was. He lost it so completely there was no solving for it or turning it around. And for the record, I got to personally interact with him at least 8 times during his tenure. He was always intense as well as an introvert. Did not like the public speaking part of his job and could be irascible and aloof even when things were going well for him. He could also be friendly and kind. Dykes social skills were off the charts. So direct and honest. Very transparent and open and just a genuinely warm person. Not sure that's a critical skill in a college football coach. Never saw the edge I think ALL the great ones have in Dykes. Wilcox has the edginess and IMO is more reminiscent of JTs personality albeit with less stressful anxiety. Wilcox has a nice calm to him.

---

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.

Fwiw (pretty much nothing) Dykes lost me when I heard about the buy-in chart. I've coached a few years and never could imagine measuring or publicizing to other players how much or how little someone bought into the team. If a player wasn't buying in (whatever that means) I'd figure I failed them as a coach

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.

---

82gradDLSdad;842842527 said:

---

Fwiw (pretty much nothing) Dykes lost me when I heard about the buy-in chart. I've coached a few years and never could imagine measuring or publicizing to other players how much or how little someone bought into the team. If a player wasn't buying in (whatever that means) I'd figure I failed them as a coach

---

Getting the players to "buy in" is a huge part of coaching.

Tom Osborne once criticized Bill Callahan about that (without mentioning his name); Osborne said, "Some people know football, but they really don't get people to play hard for them."

Good thread... I guess because it's fun to read some thoughts about Cal Football in May. No need for me to weigh in, as MoragaBear and CalHoopFan expressed my views better than I ever could.

I will just add, though, that it would really be neat to see Luke Rubenzer -- now the forgotten quarterback -- come in for a play or two on offense and help us pull a November Surprise about five days before Thanksgiving.

82gradDLSdad;842842527 said:

---

Fwiw (pretty much nothing) Dykes lost me when I heard about the buy-in chart. I've coached a few years and never could imagine measuring or publicizing to other players how much or how little someone bought into the team. If a player wasn't buying in (whatever that means) I'd figure I failed them as a coach

---

have to admit, ive never seen a buy in chart either but then again chip kelly pee tested his players weekly. one of the stranger things ive ever heard of concerning that chart

People like playing for coaches that are 'real'. If a HC has to put up a facade it shows. Wilcox is a football guy...it jumps out almost immediately. Same with Tedford. When you get these guys talking actual football...they are no-nonsense and passionate. Dykes always seemed 'different'. Yes he was an out-of-the-box type...but it just felt forced. I dunno maybe I make no sense. Now being a 'football guy' doesn't guarantee success, because yes..you need the jimmies and joes. But when Wilcox and his staff talk...the players are probably much more attentive.

Dykes' annual Texas job hunt made it clear he didn't want to be at Cal. I'm certain the players knew Dykes was short-timing them since it was obvious. The defensive disasters year after year unmasked how unqualified Dykes was to run a Power 5 West Coast football program.

Jeff Tedford indeed brought us some of the best years in Cal's modern history. I'm mindful of the fact that Cal's decline during his tenure coincided with Tedford's health decline due to heart related problems. He struggled the couple of years after Cal as well. Thank goodness he was able to address this issue medically. I genuinely hope he success at Fresno.

Luke's tweet seems to me to be a positive reflection of how the team is responding to Justin Wilcox & staff. There is just no substitute for leadership that wants to be at Cal & is 100% committed to winning here.

I'll be convinced of coaches commitment after this year when there are the inevitable job openings and they decline interest early on.

Every style is fine if your are winning and every style will be deemed a problem if you are losing.

tequila4kapp;842842549 said:

---

Every style is fine if your are winning and every style will be deemed a problem if you are losing.

---

And everybody hates the coach who leaves

Big C_Cal;842842532 said:

---

Good thread... I guess because it's fun to read some thoughts about Cal Football in May. No need for me to weigh in, as MoragaBear and CalHoopFan expressed my views better than I ever could.

I will just add, though, that it would really be neat to see Luke Rubenzer -- now the forgotten quarterback -- come in for a play or two on offense and help us pull a November Surprise about five days before Thanksgiving.

---

Were you at the season ticket holder practice? Mums the word.

SRBear;842842548 said:

---

I'll be convinced of coaches commitment after this year when there are the inevitable job openings and they decline interest early on.

---

And turn down pay raises lol

gobears725;842842537 said:

---

have to admit, ive never seen a buy in chart either but then again chip kelly pee tested his players weekly. one of the stranger things ive ever heard of concerning that chart

---

I've read over the years about a number of variations of buy-in charts used by some of the known coaches out there. In fact there's one coach (Herman?) that I recall treats his top players to steak while the lower tier gets burgers or something along those lines.

71Bear - I totally agree. JT was not a backslapping politician, but (especially early on) was a pleasant person who would explain his strategy and reason with polite alumni. I think he worked himself to death and expected others around him to do the same. Eventually he wore himself out. A ral shame, since he brought Cal to heights not seen since the early Waldorf era.

GB54 - Most of us never hated Snyder when he left, we hated Bockrath who drove him away.

BearSD;842842531 said:

---

Getting the players to "buy in" is a huge part of coaching.

Tom Osborne once criticized Bill Callahan about that (without mentioning his name); Osborne said, "Some people know football, but they really don't get people to play hard for them."

---

I guess I didn't make that clear with my last line. Of course a coaching getting buy in is very important. Posting a chart ranking player buy in is weird especially by a guy who didn't buy in to Cal himself

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.

---

He did have some excellent teams and there were some great wins. My experience with JT does not mirror yours. I liked Sonny well enough as a guy but was not a huge fan of his coaching and found his gameday antics involving the refs a bit over the top. Like most coaches there is some disagreement among folks when discussing the relative personal merits of each. I try to separate the man as a coach and as a man. I knew neither well. But if I had to pick a guy to sit down with and share a beer or two it would Sonny over JT and not close. As a coach JT in his best days was much better than Sonny and again not close.

When it comes to my fondness for a Cal coach as a coach it involves winning and not much else. If they win I like them and if not I do not. As a coach not as a person. If JT was still at Cal and winning I would care not a whit about his personality or interactions with me. I would enjoy the winning. I doubt very much I would like Nick Saban personally. But boy does he know how to build a program and win games. Everybody brings their own bias to any discussion surrounding a coach, their likability, style etc. I was not a fan of JT in a personal sense but he did a lot of very good to great things for Cal during his tenure. As for Sonny I found him likeable and did some good things for the program. But he was not a great coach.

As for Wilcox. I hope he wins. I do not really care if he is nice to me or not when or if I am able to interact with him. It would be great if he could be both a winner on the field and a great guy off it. But in the end for me anyway it is about winning games. My guess is that the players would prefer to like him. But given a choice of liking the coach or winning games IMO winning would be the overwhelming sentiment. Not saying you have to choose one or the other. Both are possible. My point is winning trumps liking the coach personally for most.

GB54;842842550 said:

---

And everybody hates the coach who leaves

---

True words when the coach is forced out.

GB54;842842550 said:

---

And everybody hates the coach who leaves

---

It's been a few decades since that happened in football.

82gradDLSdad;842842564 said:

---

I guess I didn't make that clear with my last line. Of course a coaching getting buy in is very important. Posting a chart ranking player buy in is weird especially by a guy who didn't buy in to Cal himself

---

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"

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"

---

Exactly. A public display trying to show how 'on top of things' the coach is.

BI missed an opportunity to have a Coach Buy In ticker at the very top of the page

gobears725;842842537 said:

---

have to admit, ive never seen a buy in chart either but then again chip kelly pee tested his players weekly. one of the stranger things ive ever heard of concerning that chart

---

Between Dyke's first two seasons, they had a huge "buy-in" program, with charts rating all the players. Pics of it-- probably that were supposed to remain "in house" -- were posted here. It seemed kind of lame, maybe even divisive, but the general idea was solid: Demonstrable actions that show you've bought in to team success.

Certainly, "team" had become a huge problem after Tedford's last year or two and Dykes' first year. And then things got somewhat better. So maybe it wasn't a bad thing.

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.