I think that Wilcox, who worked at Cal previously and had seen whatever it is that Sonny describes as "complicated," and then was willing to come back, well, that speaks volumes to me.OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079
packawana said:
Other than the fact that the ticket sales lagged partly due to his poor performance, most of what's written here is pretty accurate.
Except for the "fake news" that Goff was the first overall pick in the history of the program.packawana said:
Other than the fact that the ticket sales lagged partly due to his poor performance, most of what's written here is pretty accurate.
packawana said:
Other than the fact that the ticket sales lagged partly due to his poor performance, most of what's written here is pretty accurate.
"... they want to win from the administration down. Asked how this compares to what he had at Cal and Dykes said: "It's completely different."
I actually felt good reading this. I'm glad it is completely different. At TCU and SMU football carries the University. At Cal, the University carries football. That is how it should be. Not to say that our administration can't do a better job of supporting football, but we should never get the two reversed.
Sebastabear said:
Say what you will, but Sonny Dykes still coached one of the most exciting finishes I've ever been privileged to witness to a Cal football game (and that's not even talking about that WSU nutiness or the double OT win against Oregon that ended at 3:00 am EDT). It wasn't all roses (God knows), but wish him well.
Short Version:OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079
OaktownBear said:Short Version:OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079
Sonny: Oh, did I say Cal was my dream job? I meant SMU was my dream job. Some day Paris Texas Community College will be my dream job.
I was awesome. Cal sucked.
Journalist: No, this isn't actually a crappy hire. He's awesome. Cal sucks.
I don't care if you think what he said is true. Anyone with decency answers the questions by saying "I'm not coach at Cal anymore. Let's talk about SMU" Instead he gives a long list of excuses for his own failings and an overall conclusion that he actually didn't do that bad a job.
And how about the fact that he didn't say there were any issues with the coaching. See it is one thing if say Wilner, who has no stake in anything talks about structural issues at Cal. A coach who fails at Cal and can't find one thing to say he did to contribute to the failure and talks about the structural issues at Cal is not providing a critical analysis. He is making excuses for his own failure. Which should be obvious to everyone which is why most coaches don't answer the question.packawana said:OaktownBear said:Short Version:OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079
Sonny: Oh, did I say Cal was my dream job? I meant SMU was my dream job. Some day Paris Texas Community College will be my dream job.
I was awesome. Cal sucked.
Journalist: No, this isn't actually a crappy hire. He's awesome. Cal sucks.
I don't care if you think what he said is true. Anyone with decency answers the questions by saying "I'm not coach at Cal anymore. Let's talk about SMU" Instead he gives a long list of excuses for his own failings and an overall conclusion that he actually didn't do that bad a job.
Look, we're Cal alums and we have a predilection to protect our school. Sonny did poorly at Cal. But there's a lot of different circumstances that go into that, the most important of which probably was fit. And he didn't fit.
I'm okay with him saying that there were issues with how our university has bungled football and it's important to acknowledge that. There's a reason why we're not taken seriously on the college football main stage other than the height of Jeff Tedford. Since our last Rose Bowl in 58, we've had 22 winning seasons. That's 36% over the course of 60 years. We clearly have structural problems when it comes to investing in football and we need to own that.
Also if coaches were decent, they wouldn't be blocking grad transfers from going to other schools within their conference even if they've earned their degree and are no longer tied to it. Nick Saban does it all the time and guess who wins all the time. The top are at the top because they're not decent, they're just focused on one thing: winning. Now, I'd like us to win the right way but let's be frank -- coaches are hired to win, not to be decent.
Fair, if you want to call him a loser due to his record, then that's fine. But you can't use a moral criterion like 'decency' to judge his tact toward us and then turn around and say that for competitive reasons 'decency' doesn't matter. The first hurts the feelings of some fans, the second hurts the career/livelihood of a student athlete. The latter clearly has greater magnitude.OaktownBear said:And how about the fact that he didn't say there were any issues with the coaching. See it is one thing if say Wilner, who has no stake in anything talks about structural issues at Cal. A coach who fails at Cal and can't find one thing to say he did to contribute to the failure and talks about the structural issues at Cal is not providing a critical analysis. He is making excuses for his own failure. Which should be obvious to everyone which is why most coaches don't answer the question.packawana said:OaktownBear said:Short Version:OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079
Sonny: Oh, did I say Cal was my dream job? I meant SMU was my dream job. Some day Paris Texas Community College will be my dream job.
I was awesome. Cal sucked.
Journalist: No, this isn't actually a crappy hire. He's awesome. Cal sucks.
I don't care if you think what he said is true. Anyone with decency answers the questions by saying "I'm not coach at Cal anymore. Let's talk about SMU" Instead he gives a long list of excuses for his own failings and an overall conclusion that he actually didn't do that bad a job.
Look, we're Cal alums and we have a predilection to protect our school. Sonny did poorly at Cal. But there's a lot of different circumstances that go into that, the most important of which probably was fit. And he didn't fit.
I'm okay with him saying that there were issues with how our university has bungled football and it's important to acknowledge that. There's a reason why we're not taken seriously on the college football main stage other than the height of Jeff Tedford. Since our last Rose Bowl in 58, we've had 22 winning seasons. That's 36% over the course of 60 years. We clearly have structural problems when it comes to investing in football and we need to own that.
Also if coaches were decent, they wouldn't be blocking grad transfers from going to other schools within their conference even if they've earned their degree and are no longer tied to it. Nick Saban does it all the time and guess who wins all the time. The top are at the top because they're not decent, they're just focused on one thing: winning. Now, I'd like us to win the right way but let's be frank -- coaches are hired to win, not to be decent.
But I'm fine with his answer also because as long as he blames the refs, the athletic director, the players, the school, the schedule, injuries, etc. he will be a loser.
Top coaches don't make excuses. Blocking grad transfers is a competitive issue. Talking about issues at your former employer doesn't help you win. I would be absolutely fine if Wilcox blocked a grad transfer. (I encourage it) I would not be fine with him behaving like a whiny loser. A point I made first in about 2013.
This confirms my impression of Cal, backed by about 60 years of mostly lousy football and MBB. It is a school that, at its core. is OK with being a loser program. It doesn't matter how good the coach is, the cancer it at the top and it's not going to change.Quote:
The vision for the Mustangs is clear they want to win from the administration down. Asked how this compares to what he had at Cal and Dykes said: "It's completely different."
"There's a lot of communication that takes place here. Everybody is on the same page. I think it's pretty clear they believe football is important, and that's where it starts."
packawana said:Fair, if you want to call him a loser due to his record, then that's fine. But you can't use a moral criterion like 'decency' to judge his tact toward us and then turn around and say that for competitive reasons 'decency' doesn't matter. The first hurts the feelings of some fans, the second hurts the career/livelihood of a student athlete. The latter clearly has greater magnitude.OaktownBear said:And how about the fact that he didn't say there were any issues with the coaching. See it is one thing if say Wilner, who has no stake in anything talks about structural issues at Cal. A coach who fails at Cal and can't find one thing to say he did to contribute to the failure and talks about the structural issues at Cal is not providing a critical analysis. He is making excuses for his own failure. Which should be obvious to everyone which is why most coaches don't answer the question.packawana said:OaktownBear said:Short Version:OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079
Sonny: Oh, did I say Cal was my dream job? I meant SMU was my dream job. Some day Paris Texas Community College will be my dream job.
I was awesome. Cal sucked.
Journalist: No, this isn't actually a crappy hire. He's awesome. Cal sucks.
I don't care if you think what he said is true. Anyone with decency answers the questions by saying "I'm not coach at Cal anymore. Let's talk about SMU" Instead he gives a long list of excuses for his own failings and an overall conclusion that he actually didn't do that bad a job.
Look, we're Cal alums and we have a predilection to protect our school. Sonny did poorly at Cal. But there's a lot of different circumstances that go into that, the most important of which probably was fit. And he didn't fit.
I'm okay with him saying that there were issues with how our university has bungled football and it's important to acknowledge that. There's a reason why we're not taken seriously on the college football main stage other than the height of Jeff Tedford. Since our last Rose Bowl in 58, we've had 22 winning seasons. That's 36% over the course of 60 years. We clearly have structural problems when it comes to investing in football and we need to own that.
Also if coaches were decent, they wouldn't be blocking grad transfers from going to other schools within their conference even if they've earned their degree and are no longer tied to it. Nick Saban does it all the time and guess who wins all the time. The top are at the top because they're not decent, they're just focused on one thing: winning. Now, I'd like us to win the right way but let's be frank -- coaches are hired to win, not to be decent.
But I'm fine with his answer also because as long as he blames the refs, the athletic director, the players, the school, the schedule, injuries, etc. he will be a loser.
Top coaches don't make excuses. Blocking grad transfers is a competitive issue. Talking about issues at your former employer doesn't help you win. I would be absolutely fine if Wilcox blocked a grad transfer. (I encourage it) I would not be fine with him behaving like a whiny loser. A point I made first in about 2013.
Uthaithani said:
The money quote:This confirms my impression of Cal, backed by about 60 years of mostly lousy football and MBB. It is a school that, at its core. is OK with being a loser program. It doesn't matter how good the coach is, the cancer it at the top and it's not going to change.Quote:
The vision for the Mustangs is clear they want to win from the administration down. Asked how this compares to what he had at Cal and Dykes said: "It's completely different."
"There's a lot of communication that takes place here. Everybody is on the same page. I think it's pretty clear they believe football is important, and that's where it starts."
If the university hadn't sold its soul and abandoned teaching undergrads to focus on grant money, the entire university would be in the garbage heap, just like athletics. The administration and donor coterie have their heads so far up their arses they view their tonsils from the back..
I really can't imagine any good athlete coming here. There are plenty of good academic schools that actually believe in winning. And that actually care about an undergraduate education. Cal doesn't care about either of those things.
GoBears635 said:Except for the "fake news" that Goff was the first overall pick in the history of the program.packawana said:
Other than the fact that the ticket sales lagged partly due to his poor performance, most of what's written here is pretty accurate.
"Didn't fit"??? There might be some merit to all your points, but funny, for all these discussion topics, Dykes could have indeed been successful at Cal if he simply realized that there are 2 sides to the ball. If he ignores defense elsewhere like he did here, he will always be minimally successful wherever he goes. Hopefully he learns from his mistakes.packawana said:OaktownBear said:Short Version:OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079
Sonny: Oh, did I say Cal was my dream job? I meant SMU was my dream job. Some day Paris Texas Community College will be my dream job.
I was awesome. Cal sucked.
Journalist: No, this isn't actually a crappy hire. He's awesome. Cal sucks.
I don't care if you think what he said is true. Anyone with decency answers the questions by saying "I'm not coach at Cal anymore. Let's talk about SMU" Instead he gives a long list of excuses for his own failings and an overall conclusion that he actually didn't do that bad a job.
Look, we're Cal alums and we have a predilection to protect our school. Sonny did poorly at Cal. But there's a lot of different circumstances that go into that, the most important of which probably was fit. And he didn't fit.
I'm okay with him saying that there were issues with how our university has bungled football and it's important to acknowledge that. There's a reason why we're not taken seriously on the college football main stage other than the height of Jeff Tedford. Since our last Rose Bowl in 58, we've had 22 winning seasons. That's 36% over the course of 60 years. We clearly have structural problems when it comes to investing in football and we need to own that.
Also if coaches were decent, they wouldn't be blocking grad transfers from going to other schools within their conference even if they've earned their degree and are no longer tied to it. Nick Saban does it all the time and guess who wins all the time. The top are at the top because they're not decent, they're just focused on one thing: winning. Now, I'd like us to win the right way but let's be frank -- coaches are hired to win, not to be decent.
I think Sonny could have been more successful at Cal if he paid more attention to the defense and/or got a better DC to begin with. However, I don't think he would have been here for the long term either way, not unless he got his way with the admin and new AD. Inevitably, JW is a better fit for the uni. Hell, I think even Spav would've been a good fit too.CalBarn said:"Didn't fit"??? There might be some merit to all your points, but funny, for all these discussion topics, Dykes could have indeed been successful at Cal if he simply realized that there are 2 sides to the ball. If he ignores defense elsewhere like he did here, he will always be minimally successful wherever he goes. Hopefully he learns from his mistakes.packawana said:OaktownBear said:Short Version:OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079
Sonny: Oh, did I say Cal was my dream job? I meant SMU was my dream job. Some day Paris Texas Community College will be my dream job.
I was awesome. Cal sucked.
Journalist: No, this isn't actually a crappy hire. He's awesome. Cal sucks.
I don't care if you think what he said is true. Anyone with decency answers the questions by saying "I'm not coach at Cal anymore. Let's talk about SMU" Instead he gives a long list of excuses for his own failings and an overall conclusion that he actually didn't do that bad a job.
Look, we're Cal alums and we have a predilection to protect our school. Sonny did poorly at Cal. But there's a lot of different circumstances that go into that, the most important of which probably was fit. And he didn't fit.
I'm okay with him saying that there were issues with how our university has bungled football and it's important to acknowledge that. There's a reason why we're not taken seriously on the college football main stage other than the height of Jeff Tedford. Since our last Rose Bowl in 58, we've had 22 winning seasons. That's 36% over the course of 60 years. We clearly have structural problems when it comes to investing in football and we need to own that.
Also if coaches were decent, they wouldn't be blocking grad transfers from going to other schools within their conference even if they've earned their degree and are no longer tied to it. Nick Saban does it all the time and guess who wins all the time. The top are at the top because they're not decent, they're just focused on one thing: winning. Now, I'd like us to win the right way but let's be frank -- coaches are hired to win, not to be decent.
+1OaktownBear said:Uthaithani said:
The money quote:This confirms my impression of Cal, backed by about 60 years of mostly lousy football and MBB. It is a school that, at its core. is OK with being a loser program. It doesn't matter how good the coach is, the cancer it at the top and it's not going to change.Quote:
The vision for the Mustangs is clear they want to win from the administration down. Asked how this compares to what he had at Cal and Dykes said: "It's completely different."
"There's a lot of communication that takes place here. Everybody is on the same page. I think it's pretty clear they believe football is important, and that's where it starts."
If the university hadn't sold its soul and abandoned teaching undergrads to focus on grant money, the entire university would be in the garbage heap, just like athletics. The administration and donor coterie have their heads so far up their arses they view their tonsils from the back..
I really can't imagine any good athlete coming here. There are plenty of good academic schools that actually believe in winning. And that actually care about an undergraduate education. Cal doesn't care about either of those things.
Okay so now we are a crappy school in addition to being a crappy football and basketball program. You offer nothing of value. Just hatred toward our school. Your criticism isn't even well thought out. Just dumb insults.
If you don't like anything about the university, why are you here? Just leave already.
Bear19 said:
Dykes is just trying to rewrite the facts of his failure at Cal. He didn't even recruit Goff, Tedford did. Worst defences in Cal's history. Donors abandoning the program. Attendence collapsing. Blowout losses to almost all of the Pac-12. Buh. Too stupid to get Cal's NFL draft history right. What an embarrassment.
OzoneTheCat said:
Have at it....
https://247sports.com/Article/SMU-football-Sonny-Dykes-has-clear-vision-for-program-after-post-Cal-TCU-refresh-118237079