So clearly it is a downward spiral of doom toward BDW (or can you be worse than BDW?) He inherited a horrible mess and, I think, last year showed he is capable of coaching. The failure to find a Pac-12 capable point guard, however, is a huge problem and it isn't clear that gets solved next year. COVID19 adds additional wrinkles to how to think about this year - clearly the loss of practice time and then some of the sit outs were going to hurt this sort of team more than others who can play a more simply offense and defensive scheme and beat you on talent (or which for random luck or looser public health rules were able to get in more practice).

Clearly the seat is getting warm. Cause "Cal" it is almost unthinkable we would (or should) make a change after this year. But if you are JK what is at the top of your list for Fox and what should be the goals for next year?

There are so many aspects of coaching a P5 Men's basketball program: Game management, recruiting, player development, coaching staff, relations with campus and athletic department, external program perception, community engagement, tourney success, etc.

Prior to Fox coming on board, I think any factor was near 1 on a scale from 1 to 10. Cal needs to get to an overall 8, to consistently be a top 50 program in the nation - which is where it needs to be. A comparison to Colorado has been proposed. That is probably the floor, IMHO - we should be able to consistently do a better than CU without cheating.

I thought last year, Fox probably got us from a 1 to 2, maybe a 3 - based mostly on eye-test vs actual metrics. In an ideal world, he would have the program at a 4 or 5 in the second season and a 6 or 7 in the third. That trajectory would encourage me to see how long he could keep up the improvement. Otherwise, I would encourage JK to move on with someone else.

However, this last season has not been in an ideal world, so I don't want to be too critical. But the program is still at a 2 or 3 in this weird year. I don't give him a pass per se, but I think he definitely needs to show some dramatic (vs incremental) improvement in year three to get us to at least a 6 (maybe a 5).

If I'm JK, I'm getting my top 10 list sussed and after the tourney, using some back channels to explore possible successors after next season in case the dramatic improvement does not occur.

Now, that isn't to say that I'm not supporting our players, coach and program - just being honest about what Fox has shown. As SCT says, the seat is 'warm', but not HOT at this point.

I will be really interested to see how JK handles this and hopefully he _IS_ here long enough. As so many have said, a key thing that ADs at P5 schools do is understand the market and prospects for coaches in the 2 revenue sports.

Since we will be returning a lot of guys, Fox and his staff need to show that they can develop players:

The Brown/Hyder combo needs to get better at the point. Duh.

Our tallest guys (Thiemann, Kuany and Thorpe) need to contribute a lot more. Duh again.

So it's going to be wins, certainly, but also the "eye test" for the players mentioned above. I'm reasonably confident that they'll be improved, but by how much? Hope springs eternal...

Huge off-season for this team. Huge.

The core of our team was recruited by Jones and will be seniors next year. My fear is for the following year. My bigger fear is that we have a bump next year to mediocre, extend Fox's contract and then fall off the cliff putting Fox's eventual successor in a far worse position than we had when Fox was hired.

Thge KEY will be the PG Fox recruits for the 22-23 season. Anything less than a *3 star and JK will have to break out his rolodex---You live or die with your PG's. Unless, of course, you have a dominant big man...

stu said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

But if you are JK what is at the top of your list for Fox

---

Recruiting. Show me some 2022 players.

---

This. The cupboard is as bare as I have ever seen it at Cal and I haven't seen Fox do anything to address this so far. In fact, when he took over he lost players we already had. Cal has always been able to attract some talent so I'm not really sure why Fox is struggling with this, but he struggled with recruiting at Georgia as well so maybe it's not his thing.

I second this. One of Thiemann, Kuany or Thorpe has to show development as a serviceable center, either by being able to set up on the low block, or screening up high for others, then rolling to the foul line for the mid-range jumper if open. Second, either Brown or Hyder has to develop into a reasonably effective point.

Again, I reference Monty, who seemingly was able to tell players what they needed to do to improve, and actually get them to do it in the off-season. A Cal coach is always going to be judged a lot on player development, IMHO, because I don't think we'll ever just be reloading.

Beyond that, he has to show he can recruit a decent point to take either Brown or Hyder's place when they graduate.

I'll be looking more at these eye tests than at record, although i agree something around .500 in conference and a winning record overall are also probably reasonable expectations.

If he doesn't meet them, I'd say Knowlton should be looking at someone younger who can be elevated. It might be time to finally give Dennis Gates a chance, for instance, if he's interested.

Dear big C. Although, at 5/11, I would consider you median C. I just don't think Cal has enough Donors to make this happen. You would think Cal would have at least ONE major donor like Oregon merge-donor. it's not that most potential Cal donors are cheap....it's just that most don't care. Also...thge outreach hasn't been state-of-the art either. merge should read Mega.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Dim: if recruiting is not 'his thing', the world always needs bartenders.. Unless you are Don Shula, Pete Newell or John Wooden, recruiting is 90 % of basketball and football. The other 10% is getting thge right players. let's see the PG Fox brings in for the class of 22-23. That will determine his fate.

---

I don't think John Wooden belongs in your unless list there.

DavisBear said:

---

I'm not confident giving him more time will help the situation. I'm leaning more towards just acknowledging that it was a poor fit and moving on now.

---

Agreed. We had no conference games cancelled. Other teams did and had to move games. Its Bradley one on one . No plan. No effective screens. Very disappointed. Not optimistic but I will be there if they allow it. Theiman is not likely to get better. Jelly is undersized. Point guards don't really run the offense.

oskidunker said:

---

DavisBear said:

---

I'm not confident giving him more time will help the situation. I'm leaning more towards just acknowledging that it was a poor fit and moving on now.

---

Agreed. We had no conference games cancelled. Other teams did and had to move games. Its Bradley one on one . No plan. No effective screens. Very disappointed. Not optimistic but I will be there if they allow it. Theiman is not likely to get better. Jelly is undersized. Point guards don't really run the offense.

---

Actually, it's Bradley one on five, regardless of who we play against. Nobody but Bradley on our team routinely performs at a high level.

Dear Big C. Surely JK knows what his most important job is...let's go up the chain...the Chancellor knewJK had no experience in either football or basketball. yet...he was hired anyway...Almost no other Chancellor at a major university would have made such a hire. JK, so far, looks to be more a symptom than a cause. He does appear to be very approachable. maybe, on balance, over the years, he will prove to be a plus. I'll be rooting for him. Did he consult Monty on the hire??Or, did he wing it ??if Monty was not consulted, I would be concerned.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear big C. Although, at 5/11, I would consider you median C. I just don't think Cal has enough Donors to make this happen. You would think Cal would have at least ONE major donor like Oregon merge-donor. it's not that most potential Cal donors are cheap....it's just that most don't care. Also...thge outreach hasn't been state-of-the art either. merge should read Mega.

---

I believe we're the only school in the conference w/o a dedicated practice facility (but somebody correct me if I'm wrong). Getting one doesn't mean automatic improvement, but not having one is holding us back. Hard to attract top players or even coaches when it doesn't look like we're serious. We need to find a way to make it happen. Easy for me to say, though, I won't be paying for it. (One season ticket's worth of support is the best I can do.)

- "median C"

Jeff82 said:

---

I second this. One of Thiemann, Kuany or Thorpe has to show development as a serviceable center, either by being able to set up on the low block, or screening up high for others, then rolling to the foul line for the mid-range jumper if open. Second, either Brown or Hyder has to develop into a reasonably effective point.

Again, I reference Monty, who seemingly was able to tell players what they needed to do to improve, and actually get them to do it in the off-season. A Cal coach is always going to be judged a lot on player development, IMHO, because I don't think we'll ever just be reloading.

Beyond that, he has to show he can recruit a decent point to take either Brown or Hyder's place when they graduate.

I'll be looking more at these eye tests than at record, although i agree something around .500 in conference and a winning record overall are also probably reasonable expectations.

If he doesn't meet them, I'd say Knowlton should be looking at someone younger who can be elevated. It might be time to finally give Dennis Gates a chance, for instance, if he's interested.

---

I think your first point, while accurate, is an increasingly long shot. These guys are all better than last year, but not much. I don't care that this year won't count against their eligibility - I don't want to wait four years hoping that they'll be good in their fifth.. I have no complaint about their effort and frankly I feel bad when I see the frustration on Thiemann's face because I'm sure he (and the others) are putting out effort. But if these guys aren't recruited over, there's a problem. And as soon as they fulfill the requirements to graduate, they should be congratulated and reminded that the grad transfer process works both ways.

And finally, how can a guy like Kuany (who has obvious athletic ability) go to a self-proclaimed basketball factory like Prolific Prep and still be so raw?

NathanAllen said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

So clearly it is a downward spiral of doom toward BDW (or can you be worse than BDW?) He inherited a horrible mess and, I think, last year showed he is capable of coaching. The failure to find a Pac-12 capable point guard, however, is a huge problem and it isn't clear that gets solved next year. COVID19 adds additional wrinkles to how to think about this year - clearly the loss of practice time and then some of the sit outs were going to hurt this sort of team more than others who can play a more simply offense and defensive scheme and beat you on talent (or which for random luck or looser public health rules were able to get in more practice).

Clearly the seat is getting warm. Cause "Cal" it is almost unthinkable we would (or should) make a change after this year. But if you are JK what is at the top of your list for Fox and what should be the goals for next year?

---

I like this discussion prompt and hope it stays productive, constructive, and civil.

Next year is a crucial year for Fox and Cal because of his five-year contract. After next season, Knowlton will need to decide if Fox is the right coach for Cal moving forward and extend his contract. If he doesn't, Fox will be even more hamstrung on the recruiting trail as there will be no guarantee he's there past two more seasons. So, if Knowlton truly wants to keep Fox around and create the best environment for his success, an extension should come at the end of next season.

Fox was clearly brought in to stabilize the program and raise the floor. Anyone in the administration or within the fanbase thinking Fox would turn the program around into a Pac-12 power within the first few years was ignoring his previous 10+ years of head coaching. Fox's best team at UGA finished 11-7 in the SEC and in a four-way tie for third place. (One could argue his 12-6 SEC team the year before which tied for second in the conference was better, but I don't think so. A horrible non-conference (6-6) performance caused that team to miss in the NCAA tournament.

The truth is, in nine seasons at Georgia, Fox had four winning seasons in SEC play, five winning seasons overall, and two NCAA tournament appearances (not winning one NCAA tournament game). UGA and Cal are obviously very different schools in different conferences, and maybe it's tougher to win at UGA than Cal or vice versa, I don't really know. But there was no real previous data showing Fox would turn Cal into a team that would regularly compete for conference titles.

But for where Cal's program was at the time it hired Fox, just getting it into the middle-of-the-pack was a good enough goal.

Fox's first year showed promise, as many here have acknowledged. He took a program that had finished in 240s in KenPom's rankings to No. 153 last year. That's a solid jump. (Yes, a far too low bar, but still.) Fox did exactly what he was brought in to do immediately lift the floor of the program. Cal finished 14-18 overall and 7-11 in the P12, finishing in a three-way tie for eight-place, and won its first and only conference tournament game.

The team lost a couple of key guards in Paris Austin and Kareem South but brought back a core of players. And I think many expected a similar finish to last year or perhaps slightly better.

Obviously, that didn't happen and this year has been a disappointment. A lot of that had to do with last week, but I think most were already disappointed. It's been a step back as Cal has slipped to No. 157 in Kenpom Fox's worst ever. Now, there's still time. Beating Oregon State and Oregon would go a long way to redeeming this season a bit. Even beating Oregon State, competitively losing to Oregon, and winning a game in the conference tournament would help. Losing out would be very bad for the team's trajectory heading into next year.

Regardless, what does Fox need to do to prove he deserves that contract extension? Before we come up with specifics, we really need to know what next year's roster is going to look like. But generally, I'd say assuming COVID is less of a threat and a normal(ish) season is played, Cal really needs to have a winning record overall and around .500 or better in P12 games.

---

I think the lead up to the Fox era at Cal is a lot more relevant than his time at Georgia, in terms of a turnaround timetable. His winning percentage at Georgia was on par with other coaches they have had, along with comparable tournament appearances and advancement. The hottest coach they had Tubby Smith, got gobbled up by Kentucky. Tom Crean, well respected in the coaching fraternity isn't on fire in Athens.

The idea of a university being perceived as a true "football school" is more relevant there than almost any college in country....even Bama, Auburn and Tennessee in their conference have overcome this perception more than Georgia has.

Go hangout at an Atlanta sports bar during a Georgia basketball night; you probably would need to ask them to change over from the Ga. Tech game to see it. Besides Ga. Tech, you have the blueblood programs of the ACC a moderate drive from the Atlanta metro. This isn't new, even before conference expansion.
Fox may be the worst recruiter known to man for all I know, but his Georgia experience is an overblown citation or indicator.
I

NathanAllen said:

---

mbBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

So clearly it is a downward spiral of doom toward BDW (or can you be worse than BDW?) He inherited a horrible mess and, I think, last year showed he is capable of coaching. The failure to find a Pac-12 capable point guard, however, is a huge problem and it isn't clear that gets solved next year. COVID19 adds additional wrinkles to how to think about this year - clearly the loss of practice time and then some of the sit outs were going to hurt this sort of team more than others who can play a more simply offense and defensive scheme and beat you on talent (or which for random luck or looser public health rules were able to get in more practice).

Clearly the seat is getting warm. Cause "Cal" it is almost unthinkable we would (or should) make a change after this year. But if you are JK what is at the top of your list for Fox and what should be the goals for next year?

---

I like this discussion prompt and hope it stays productive, constructive, and civil.

Next year is a crucial year for Fox and Cal because of his five-year contract. After next season, Knowlton will need to decide if Fox is the right coach for Cal moving forward and extend his contract. If he doesn't, Fox will be even more hamstrung on the recruiting trail as there will be no guarantee he's there past two more seasons. So, if Knowlton truly wants to keep Fox around and create the best environment for his success, an extension should come at the end of next season.

Fox was clearly brought in to stabilize the program and raise the floor. Anyone in the administration or within the fanbase thinking Fox would turn the program around into a Pac-12 power within the first few years was ignoring his previous 10+ years of head coaching. Fox's best team at UGA finished 11-7 in the SEC and in a four-way tie for third place. (One could argue his 12-6 SEC team the year before which tied for second in the conference was better, but I don't think so. A horrible non-conference (6-6) performance caused that team to miss in the NCAA tournament.

The truth is, in nine seasons at Georgia, Fox had four winning seasons in SEC play, five winning seasons overall, and two NCAA tournament appearances (not winning one NCAA tournament game). UGA and Cal are obviously very different schools in different conferences, and maybe it's tougher to win at UGA than Cal or vice versa, I don't really know. But there was no real previous data showing Fox would turn Cal into a team that would regularly compete for conference titles.

But for where Cal's program was at the time it hired Fox, just getting it into the middle-of-the-pack was a good enough goal.

Fox's first year showed promise, as many here have acknowledged. He took a program that had finished in 240s in KenPom's rankings to No. 153 last year. That's a solid jump. (Yes, a far too low bar, but still.) Fox did exactly what he was brought in to do immediately lift the floor of the program. Cal finished 14-18 overall and 7-11 in the P12, finishing in a three-way tie for eight-place, and won its first and only conference tournament game.

The team lost a couple of key guards in Paris Austin and Kareem South but brought back a core of players. And I think many expected a similar finish to last year or perhaps slightly better.

Obviously, that didn't happen and this year has been a disappointment. A lot of that had to do with last week, but I think most were already disappointed. It's been a step back as Cal has slipped to No. 157 in Kenpom Fox's worst ever. Now, there's still time. Beating Oregon State and Oregon would go a long way to redeeming this season a bit. Even beating Oregon State, competitively losing to Oregon, and winning a game in the conference tournament would help. Losing out would be very bad for the team's trajectory heading into next year.

Regardless, what does Fox need to do to prove he deserves that contract extension? Before we come up with specifics, we really need to know what next year's roster is going to look like. But generally, I'd say assuming COVID is less of a threat and a normal(ish) season is played, Cal really needs to have a winning record overall and around .500 or better in P12 games.

---

I think the lead up to the Fox era at Cal is a lot more relevant than his time at Georgia, in terms of a turnaround timetable. His winning percentage at Georgia was on par with other coaches they have had, along with comparable tournament appearances and advancement. The hottest coach they had Tubby Smith, got gobbled up by Kentucky. Tom Crean, well respected in the coaching fraternity isn't on fire in Athens.

The idea of a university being perceived as a true "football school" is more relevant there than almost any college in country....even Bama, Auburn and Tennessee in their conference have overcome this perception more than Georgia has.

Go hangout at an Atlanta sports bar during a Georgia basketball night; you probably would need to ask them to change over from the Ga. Tech game to see it. Besides Ga. Tech, you have the blueblood programs of the ACC a moderate drive from the Atlanta metro. This isn't new, even before conference expansion.
Fox may be the worst recruiter known to man for all I know, but his Georgia experience is an overblown citation or indicator.
I

---

I think this is a good point, but his time at UGA is really the only relevant experience/data we have on Fox. Perhaps it is a bit overblown, but I'm not sure.

Here are some reasons why:

First, for UGA, it could be argued that it's easier to recruit there than Cal. According to 247Sports, the last two classes for Tom Crean have been nationally ranked No. 33 (2020) and No. 11 (2019).

Fox's classes were No. 37 (2018), No. 41 (2017), No. 35 (2016), No. 48 (2015), No. 110 (2014), No. 58 (2013), No. 37 (2012), No. 32 (2011), No. 73 (2012).

It's a small sample size for Crean, but he's already lifted the floor and ceiling for hoops recruiting at UGA post-Fox.

A little less directly related but still a point is I think those "traditional football schools" you listed have all proven just because you're a "football school" doesn't mean you can't compete in hoops (i.e. UGA could compete in hoops with the right coach). (I also wouldn't list Tennessee as a football school anymore they're a trainwreck and have been for a while now.)

While he's probably (definitely) using illegal recruiting tactics, Bruce Pearl has had Auburn in the NCAA Tournament the past few seasons, including a Final Four run that included knocking out Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky. Rick Barnes has Tennessee in solid shape as a program. In year two at Alabama, Nate Oats has got to be a strong contender for National COY as the Tide is on its way to an SEC title and a very good NCAA Tournament seed after going about .500 last season.

As for recruiting, in the 2020 class, Tennessee (fifth), Auburn (10th), and Alabama (12th) all have classes ranked in the national top-12 according to 247Sports. The year before, all of those schools finished in the top-28 in the national class rankings.

So while I agree there is definitely context at Cal and UGA that should be considered, and while fans at the "football schools" might care more about the gridiron than hoops, the traditional football schools you listed have proven they absolutely can and will compete at an elite hoops level as well.

A reason? Their massive football revenue brings enough money to either hire some established strong coaching candidates (Barnes and Pearl). (Say what you will about Pearl and his illegal tactics, the dude is still a good coach, even if he cheats on the recruiting trail.) Or they've snagged one of the hottest up-and-comers in the country in Oats.

What does this say about Fox/Cal? I think it's understandable to give Fox some benefit of the doubt because of the state of Cal's program and the difficulties in recruiting to Cal. But I'm not sure it's OK to do the same at UGA considering Crean has already lifted the recruiting status of the school and other peer Southern schools have shown there is a model to elevate a hoops program at a traditional football school.

---

Maybe they can and will turn it around for Georgia hoops. Hiring Crean was a bigger deal than hiring Fox. But again, no one before Fox excelled in a big way. You are looking at Georgia through contemporary lenses relative to the other SEC schools. Bama has struggled to get to this point, or has been inconsistent.at best. Auburn had a defining moment with Barkley, and Tennessee with Ernie and Bernie....Wilkins did not do that for Georgia.
The "Georgia is easier to recruit to than Cal" is myopic-of course they are in terms of academics. But, in their respective recruiting footprint, Cal has a better basketball perception. And again, Cal always has recruiting competition, but doesn't go head to head with as many basketball powerhouses that are a drive away, like Georgia does.
I'm perfectly fine saying that Fox isn't Crean, Pearl, or Barnes. As you say it's a small sample for Crean, and let's see if he isn't snatched up the moment he shows some strong on-court success. But again, in general, Fox wasn't an outlier to Georgia history, he was simply a reminder of it.
Does his Nevada success not count at all?

NathanAllen said:

---

mbBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

mbBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

So clearly it is a downward spiral of doom toward BDW (or can you be worse than BDW?) He inherited a horrible mess and, I think, last year showed he is capable of coaching. The failure to find a Pac-12 capable point guard, however, is a huge problem and it isn't clear that gets solved next year. COVID19 adds additional wrinkles to how to think about this year - clearly the loss of practice time and then some of the sit outs were going to hurt this sort of team more than others who can play a more simply offense and defensive scheme and beat you on talent (or which for random luck or looser public health rules were able to get in more practice).

Clearly the seat is getting warm. Cause "Cal" it is almost unthinkable we would (or should) make a change after this year. But if you are JK what is at the top of your list for Fox and what should be the goals for next year?

---

I like this discussion prompt and hope it stays productive, constructive, and civil.

Next year is a crucial year for Fox and Cal because of his five-year contract. After next season, Knowlton will need to decide if Fox is the right coach for Cal moving forward and extend his contract. If he doesn't, Fox will be even more hamstrung on the recruiting trail as there will be no guarantee he's there past two more seasons. So, if Knowlton truly wants to keep Fox around and create the best environment for his success, an extension should come at the end of next season.

Fox was clearly brought in to stabilize the program and raise the floor. Anyone in the administration or within the fanbase thinking Fox would turn the program around into a Pac-12 power within the first few years was ignoring his previous 10+ years of head coaching. Fox's best team at UGA finished 11-7 in the SEC and in a four-way tie for third place. (One could argue his 12-6 SEC team the year before which tied for second in the conference was better, but I don't think so. A horrible non-conference (6-6) performance caused that team to miss in the NCAA tournament.

The truth is, in nine seasons at Georgia, Fox had four winning seasons in SEC play, five winning seasons overall, and two NCAA tournament appearances (not winning one NCAA tournament game). UGA and Cal are obviously very different schools in different conferences, and maybe it's tougher to win at UGA than Cal or vice versa, I don't really know. But there was no real previous data showing Fox would turn Cal into a team that would regularly compete for conference titles.

But for where Cal's program was at the time it hired Fox, just getting it into the middle-of-the-pack was a good enough goal.

Fox's first year showed promise, as many here have acknowledged. He took a program that had finished in 240s in KenPom's rankings to No. 153 last year. That's a solid jump. (Yes, a far too low bar, but still.) Fox did exactly what he was brought in to do immediately lift the floor of the program. Cal finished 14-18 overall and 7-11 in the P12, finishing in a three-way tie for eight-place, and won its first and only conference tournament game.

The team lost a couple of key guards in Paris Austin and Kareem South but brought back a core of players. And I think many expected a similar finish to last year or perhaps slightly better.

Obviously, that didn't happen and this year has been a disappointment. A lot of that had to do with last week, but I think most were already disappointed. It's been a step back as Cal has slipped to No. 157 in Kenpom Fox's worst ever. Now, there's still time. Beating Oregon State and Oregon would go a long way to redeeming this season a bit. Even beating Oregon State, competitively losing to Oregon, and winning a game in the conference tournament would help. Losing out would be very bad for the team's trajectory heading into next year.

Regardless, what does Fox need to do to prove he deserves that contract extension? Before we come up with specifics, we really need to know what next year's roster is going to look like. But generally, I'd say assuming COVID is less of a threat and a normal(ish) season is played, Cal really needs to have a winning record overall and around .500 or better in P12 games.

---

I think the lead up to the Fox era at Cal is a lot more relevant than his time at Georgia, in terms of a turnaround timetable. His winning percentage at Georgia was on par with other coaches they have had, along with comparable tournament appearances and advancement. The hottest coach they had Tubby Smith, got gobbled up by Kentucky. Tom Crean, well respected in the coaching fraternity isn't on fire in Athens.

The idea of a university being perceived as a true "football school" is more relevant there than almost any college in country....even Bama, Auburn and Tennessee in their conference have overcome this perception more than Georgia has.

Go hangout at an Atlanta sports bar during a Georgia basketball night; you probably would need to ask them to change over from the Ga. Tech game to see it. Besides Ga. Tech, you have the blueblood programs of the ACC a moderate drive from the Atlanta metro. This isn't new, even before conference expansion.
Fox may be the worst recruiter known to man for all I know, but his Georgia experience is an overblown citation or indicator.
I

---

I think this is a good point, but his time at UGA is really the only relevant experience/data we have on Fox. Perhaps it is a bit overblown, but I'm not sure.

Here are some reasons why:

First, for UGA, it could be argued that it's easier to recruit there than Cal. According to 247Sports, the last two classes for Tom Crean have been nationally ranked No. 33 (2020) and No. 11 (2019).

Fox's classes were No. 37 (2018), No. 41 (2017), No. 35 (2016), No. 48 (2015), No. 110 (2014), No. 58 (2013), No. 37 (2012), No. 32 (2011), No. 73 (2012).

It's a small sample size for Crean, but he's already lifted the floor and ceiling for hoops recruiting at UGA post-Fox.

A little less directly related but still a point is I think those "traditional football schools" you listed have all proven just because you're a "football school" doesn't mean you can't compete in hoops (i.e. UGA could compete in hoops with the right coach). (I also wouldn't list Tennessee as a football school anymore they're a trainwreck and have been for a while now.)

While he's probably (definitely) using illegal recruiting tactics, Bruce Pearl has had Auburn in the NCAA Tournament the past few seasons, including a Final Four run that included knocking out Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky. Rick Barnes has Tennessee in solid shape as a program. In year two at Alabama, Nate Oats has got to be a strong contender for National COY as the Tide is on its way to an SEC title and a very good NCAA Tournament seed after going about .500 last season.

As for recruiting, in the 2020 class, Tennessee (fifth), Auburn (10th), and Alabama (12th) all have classes ranked in the national top-12 according to 247Sports. The year before, all of those schools finished in the top-28 in the national class rankings.

So while I agree there is definitely context at Cal and UGA that should be considered, and while fans at the "football schools" might care more about the gridiron than hoops, the traditional football schools you listed have proven they absolutely can and will compete at an elite hoops level as well.

A reason? Their massive football revenue brings enough money to either hire some established strong coaching candidates (Barnes and Pearl). (Say what you will about Pearl and his illegal tactics, the dude is still a good coach, even if he cheats on the recruiting trail.) Or they've snagged one of the hottest up-and-comers in the country in Oats.

What does this say about Fox/Cal? I think it's understandable to give Fox some benefit of the doubt because of the state of Cal's program and the difficulties in recruiting to Cal. But I'm not sure it's OK to do the same at UGA considering Crean has already lifted the recruiting status of the school and other peer Southern schools have shown there is a model to elevate a hoops program at a traditional football school.

---

Maybe they can and will turn it around for Georgia hoops. Hiring Crean was a bigger deal than hiring Fox. But again, no one before Fox excelled in a big way. You are looking at Georgia through contemporary lenses relative to the other SEC schools. Bama has struggled to get to this point, or has been inconsistent.at best. Auburn had a defining moment with Barkley, and Tennessee with Ernie and Bernie....Wilkins did not do that for Georgia.
The "Georgia is easier to recruit to than Cal" is myopic-of course they are in terms of academics. But, in their respective recruiting footprint, Cal has a better basketball perception. And again, Cal always has recruiting competition, but doesn't go head to head with as many basketball powerhouses that are a drive away, like Georgia does.
I'm perfectly fine saying that Fox isn't Crean, Pearl, or Barnes. As you say it's a small sample for Crean, and let's see if he isn't snatched up the moment he shows some strong on-court success. But again, in general, Fox wasn't an outlier to Georgia history, he was simply a reminder of it.
Does his Nevada success not count at all?

---

I mean, I was just responding to your point about traditional football schools and their hoops success (or lack of success). Obviously, they're all different.

Does Cal have a better basketball perception? I don't think there's a point in trying to decide if UGA or Cal has the better perception in their respective recruiting footprint, but I do think Cal's current perception is a big disadvantage to Fox on the recruiting trail. What's the perception of a power conference school that won't build a practice facility to the parents of a high school athlete? I don't know how much the average high school recruit cares or knows about relatively recent history, but Cal hoops has been at the bottom of the conference standings for years now. I'm guessing the average 16-year-old player knows about Jaylen Brown, but does he know Brown played at Cal? This can be hard for fans to accept because we remember the last time a Cal team was relevant, but the last time Cal made it to an NCAA Tournament, current recruits were 11 or 12 or younger. The last time Cal won an NCAA Tournament game, the average current recruit was around eight-years-old. The last time Cal made it past the first weekend in the NCAA Tournament? No current recruit was born. That's a serious perception issue that any coach at Cal will have to contend with until the program gets back to NCAA Tournament appearances.

I do like the question about Nevada because of the springboard it has been for coaches.

Over the past 25 years, three coaches have left Nevada for a Power Conference position. As many here know, Trent Johnson turned Nevada into a solid team, making the Sweet 16, left for Stanford, turned the Cardinal into a good team, also taking them to the Sweet 16, then failed to make it happen at LSU or TCU.

Fox then took the foundation Johnson established, and had three straight tournament appearances (making it to Round Two twice) but didn't make it to the Tournament his last two years before leaving for UGA. Eric Musselman took what Fox and David Carter left and turned Nevada into a solid team, with three-straight Tournament appearances, including a Sweet 16 appearance. After an unimpressive first year at Arkansas, Musselman now has the Razorbacks playing well and on their way to a solid seed in the NCAA Tournament.

So, of the recent coaches to leave Nevada and go to Power Conference positions, I still don't think Fox has had the sort of success that Trent Johnson had or the Musselman looks like he'll have (even though it's still very early to make too many judgments for him at Arkansas). Fox has done better at Nevada than David Carter and Stevel Alford so far. I'm curious to see how Alford does in Reno.

---

I think your point about the Cal perception is an important one. Fox was left a mess, so, short of Cal hiring John Calipari at the time, would any hire they made be in need of an extended amount of time to turn things around? I'm not for a second suggesting that Fox gets an unlimited amount of years, but that Cal is struggling at the moment I don't think is a shock.

I don't understand the "Georgia never had any success before Fox" narrative.

Hugh Durham was hired from powerhouse Florida State and turned Georgia around recruiting local players like Dominique Wilikins and after Wilkins graduated took Georgia to the Final 4 in 1983 beating VCU, Lou Carnaseca's St. John's (Chris Mullins, Bill Wennington) and Dean Smith's North Carolina (Jordan, Perkins, Doherty) before losing to eventual National Champion Valvano and NC State. In one 11 year stretch he took Georgia to the NCAA Tournament 5 times and NIT 5 times. 12 post season appearances in 17 years before retiring.

Durham was followed by Tubby Smith who in 2 seasons went 45-19 with two NCAA appearances including a Sweet 16.

When Smith left his assistant Ron Jirsa was hired. He was fired after two years going 35-30 with two NIT appearances.

Next 4 years were Jim Harrick, who had a winning conference record and two NCAA appearances before getting fired over player's unpaid long distance phone calls and academic fraud.

The next coach, Felton, went 6 years with one NCAA appearance (off a Cinderella SEC tournament win) and two NITs. When he was fired Fox was hired and was an improvement over Felton, going 9 years with almost a .500 record in the SEC a a pair of NCAA first round loses before he too was fired.

So Georgia definitely has a history of success In the 80s and 90s which is greater than Cal's.

I think the best you can say is Fox was better than Felton and didn't cheat.

mbBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

mbBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

mbBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

So clearly it is a downward spiral of doom toward BDW (or can you be worse than BDW?) He inherited a horrible mess and, I think, last year showed he is capable of coaching. The failure to find a Pac-12 capable point guard, however, is a huge problem and it isn't clear that gets solved next year. COVID19 adds additional wrinkles to how to think about this year - clearly the loss of practice time and then some of the sit outs were going to hurt this sort of team more than others who can play a more simply offense and defensive scheme and beat you on talent (or which for random luck or looser public health rules were able to get in more practice).

Clearly the seat is getting warm. Cause "Cal" it is almost unthinkable we would (or should) make a change after this year. But if you are JK what is at the top of your list for Fox and what should be the goals for next year?

---

I like this discussion prompt and hope it stays productive, constructive, and civil.

Next year is a crucial year for Fox and Cal because of his five-year contract. After next season, Knowlton will need to decide if Fox is the right coach for Cal moving forward and extend his contract. If he doesn't, Fox will be even more hamstrung on the recruiting trail as there will be no guarantee he's there past two more seasons. So, if Knowlton truly wants to keep Fox around and create the best environment for his success, an extension should come at the end of next season.

Fox was clearly brought in to stabilize the program and raise the floor. Anyone in the administration or within the fanbase thinking Fox would turn the program around into a Pac-12 power within the first few years was ignoring his previous 10+ years of head coaching. Fox's best team at UGA finished 11-7 in the SEC and in a four-way tie for third place. (One could argue his 12-6 SEC team the year before which tied for second in the conference was better, but I don't think so. A horrible non-conference (6-6) performance caused that team to miss in the NCAA tournament.

The truth is, in nine seasons at Georgia, Fox had four winning seasons in SEC play, five winning seasons overall, and two NCAA tournament appearances (not winning one NCAA tournament game). UGA and Cal are obviously very different schools in different conferences, and maybe it's tougher to win at UGA than Cal or vice versa, I don't really know. But there was no real previous data showing Fox would turn Cal into a team that would regularly compete for conference titles.

But for where Cal's program was at the time it hired Fox, just getting it into the middle-of-the-pack was a good enough goal.

Fox's first year showed promise, as many here have acknowledged. He took a program that had finished in 240s in KenPom's rankings to No. 153 last year. That's a solid jump. (Yes, a far too low bar, but still.) Fox did exactly what he was brought in to do immediately lift the floor of the program. Cal finished 14-18 overall and 7-11 in the P12, finishing in a three-way tie for eight-place, and won its first and only conference tournament game.

The team lost a couple of key guards in Paris Austin and Kareem South but brought back a core of players. And I think many expected a similar finish to last year or perhaps slightly better.

Obviously, that didn't happen and this year has been a disappointment. A lot of that had to do with last week, but I think most were already disappointed. It's been a step back as Cal has slipped to No. 157 in Kenpom Fox's worst ever. Now, there's still time. Beating Oregon State and Oregon would go a long way to redeeming this season a bit. Even beating Oregon State, competitively losing to Oregon, and winning a game in the conference tournament would help. Losing out would be very bad for the team's trajectory heading into next year.

Regardless, what does Fox need to do to prove he deserves that contract extension? Before we come up with specifics, we really need to know what next year's roster is going to look like. But generally, I'd say assuming COVID is less of a threat and a normal(ish) season is played, Cal really needs to have a winning record overall and around .500 or better in P12 games.

---

I think the lead up to the Fox era at Cal is a lot more relevant than his time at Georgia, in terms of a turnaround timetable. His winning percentage at Georgia was on par with other coaches they have had, along with comparable tournament appearances and advancement. The hottest coach they had Tubby Smith, got gobbled up by Kentucky. Tom Crean, well respected in the coaching fraternity isn't on fire in Athens.

The idea of a university being perceived as a true "football school" is more relevant there than almost any college in country....even Bama, Auburn and Tennessee in their conference have overcome this perception more than Georgia has.

Go hangout at an Atlanta sports bar during a Georgia basketball night; you probably would need to ask them to change over from the Ga. Tech game to see it. Besides Ga. Tech, you have the blueblood programs of the ACC a moderate drive from the Atlanta metro. This isn't new, even before conference expansion.
Fox may be the worst recruiter known to man for all I know, but his Georgia experience is an overblown citation or indicator.
I

---

I think this is a good point, but his time at UGA is really the only relevant experience/data we have on Fox. Perhaps it is a bit overblown, but I'm not sure.

Here are some reasons why:

First, for UGA, it could be argued that it's easier to recruit there than Cal. According to 247Sports, the last two classes for Tom Crean have been nationally ranked No. 33 (2020) and No. 11 (2019).

Fox's classes were No. 37 (2018), No. 41 (2017), No. 35 (2016), No. 48 (2015), No. 110 (2014), No. 58 (2013), No. 37 (2012), No. 32 (2011), No. 73 (2012).

It's a small sample size for Crean, but he's already lifted the floor and ceiling for hoops recruiting at UGA post-Fox.

A little less directly related but still a point is I think those "traditional football schools" you listed have all proven just because you're a "football school" doesn't mean you can't compete in hoops (i.e. UGA could compete in hoops with the right coach). (I also wouldn't list Tennessee as a football school anymore they're a trainwreck and have been for a while now.)

While he's probably (definitely) using illegal recruiting tactics, Bruce Pearl has had Auburn in the NCAA Tournament the past few seasons, including a Final Four run that included knocking out Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky. Rick Barnes has Tennessee in solid shape as a program. In year two at Alabama, Nate Oats has got to be a strong contender for National COY as the Tide is on its way to an SEC title and a very good NCAA Tournament seed after going about .500 last season.

As for recruiting, in the 2020 class, Tennessee (fifth), Auburn (10th), and Alabama (12th) all have classes ranked in the national top-12 according to 247Sports. The year before, all of those schools finished in the top-28 in the national class rankings.

So while I agree there is definitely context at Cal and UGA that should be considered, and while fans at the "football schools" might care more about the gridiron than hoops, the traditional football schools you listed have proven they absolutely can and will compete at an elite hoops level as well.

A reason? Their massive football revenue brings enough money to either hire some established strong coaching candidates (Barnes and Pearl). (Say what you will about Pearl and his illegal tactics, the dude is still a good coach, even if he cheats on the recruiting trail.) Or they've snagged one of the hottest up-and-comers in the country in Oats.

What does this say about Faox/Cal? I think it's understandable to give Fox some benefit of the doubt because of the state of Cal's program and the difficulties in recruiting to Cal. But I'm not sure it's OK to do the same at UGA considering Crean has already lifted the recruiting status of the school and other peer Southern schools have shown there is a model to elevate a hoops program at a traditional football school.

---

Maybe they can and will turn it around for Georgia hoops. Hiring Crean was a bigger deal than hiring Fox. But again, no one before Fox excelled in a big way. You are looking at Georgia through contemporary lenses relative to the other SEC schools. Bama has struggled to get to this point, or has been inconsistent.at best. Auburn had a defining moment with Barkley, and Tennessee with Ernie and Bernie....Wilkins did not do that for Georgia.
The "Georgia is easier to recruit to than Cal" is myopic-of course they are in terms of academics. But, in their respective recruiting footprint, Cal has a better basketball perception. And again, Cal always has recruiting competition, but doesn't go head to head with as many basketball powerhouses that are a drive away, like Georgia does.
I'm perfectly fine saying that Fox isn't Crean, Pearl, or Barnes. As you say it's a small sample for Crean, and let's see if he isn't snatched up the moment he shows some strong on-court success. But again, in general, Fox wasn't an outlier to Georgia history, he was simply a reminder of it.
Does his Nevada success not count at all?

---

I mean, I was just responding to your point about traditional football schools and their hoops success (or lack of success). Obviously, they're all different.

Does Cal have a better basketball perception? I don't think there's a point in trying to decide if UGA or Cal has the better perception in their respective recruiting footprint, but I do think Cal's current perception is a big disadvantage to Fox on the recruiting trail. What's the perception of a power conference school that won't build a practice facility to the parents of a high school athlete? I don't know how much the average high school recruit cares or knows about relatively recent history, but Cal hoops has been at the bottom of the conference standings for years now. I'm guessing the average 16-year-old player knows about Jaylen Brown, but does he know Brown played at Cal? This can be hard for fans to accept because we remember the last time a Cal team was relevant, but the last time Cal made it to an NCAA Tournament, current recruits were 11 or 12 or younger. The last time Cal won an NCAA Tournament game, the average current recruit was around eight-years-old. The last time Cal made it past the first weekend in the NCAA Tournament? No current recruit was born. That's a serious perception issue that any coach at Cal will have to contend with until the program gets back to NCAA Tournament appearances.

I do like the question about Nevada because of the springboard it has been for coaches.

Over the past 25 years, three coaches have left Nevada for a Power Conference position. As many here know, Trent Johnson turned Nevada into a solid team, making the Sweet 16, left for Stanford, turned the Cardinal into a good team, also taking them to the Sweet 16, then failed to make it happen at LSU or TCU.

Fox then took the foundation Johnson established, and had three straight tournament appearances (making it to Round Two twice) but didn't make it to the Tournament his last two years before leaving for UGA. Eric Musselman took what Fox and David Carter left and turned Nevada into a solid team, with three-straight Tournament appearances, including a Sweet 16 appearance. After an unimpressive first year at Arkansas, Musselman now has the Razorbacks playing well and on their way to a solid seed in the NCAA Tournament.

So, of the recent coaches to leave Nevada and go to Power Conference positions, I still don't think Fox has had the sort of success that Trent Johnson had or the Musselman looks like he'll have (even though it's still very early to make too many judgments for him at Arkansas). Fox has done better at Nevada than David Carter and Stevel Alford so far. I'm curious to see how Alford does in Reno.

---

I think your point about the Cal perception is an important one. Fox was left a mess, so, short of Cal hiring John Calipari at the time, would any hire they made be in need of an extended amount of time to turn things around? I'm not for a second suggesting that Fox gets an unlimited amount of years, but that Cal is struggling at the moment I don't think is a shock.

---

I think Cal is a very hard sell right now, possibly the hardest in the Pac 12 with the exception, maybe, of WSU, and then only because of location. Not to necessarily defend the current coaching staff but they have a tough job. As has been pointed out current recruits have only seen terrible Cal teams for the last few years. Is it worth it to deal with the academic expectations for a losing team? At least in basketball it only takes a few players to turn things around. We can hope.

calumnus said:

---

I don't understand the "Georgia never had any success before Fox" narrative.

Hugh Durham was hired from powerhouse Florida State and turned Georgia around recruiting local players like Dominique Wilikins and after Wilkins graduated took Georgia to the Final 4 in 1983 beating VCU, Lou Carnaseca's St. John's (Chris Mullins, Bill Wennington) and Dean Smith's North Carolina (Jordan, Perkins, Doherty) before losing to eventual National Champion Valvano and NC State. In one 11 year stretch he took Georgia to the NCAA Tournament 5 times and NIT 5 times. 12 post season appearances in 17 years before retiring.

Durham was followed by Tubby Smith who in 2 seasons went 45-19 with two NCAA appearances including a Sweet 16.

When Smith left his assistant Ron Jirsa was hired. He was fired after two years going 35-30 with two NIT appearances.

Next 4 years were Jim Harrick, who had a winning conference record and two NCAA appearances before getting fired over player's unpaid long distance phone calls and academic fraud.

The next coach, Felton, went 6 years with one NCAA appearance (off a Cinderella SEC tournament win) and two NITs. When he was fired Fox was hired and was an improvement over Felton, going 9 years with almost a .500 record in the SEC a a pair of NCAA first round loses before he too was fired.

So Georgia definitely has a history of success In the 80s and 90s which is greater than Cal's.

I think the best you can say is Fox was better than Felton and didn't cheat.


Cal had 9 NCAA Tournament appearances over 11 years in 2000. 6 NCAA tournament appearances in the 90s.
Fox had a couple of 2nd round exits there. Was he as good as Hugh Durham-maybe not. Durham by the way got out-recruited by Bobby Cremins at Georgia Tech when Cremins was there; however Cremins was not a great X and O guy.. Fox had more 20 win seasons than Felton or Harrick. In general, Back back to Durham: I don't think that's a super high bar, because you are hanging your hat on one Final 4.
I lived in Atlanta for 8 years. To repeat: I will put Georgia up against any school in the nation in terms of being a "football school;" and before someone can say Trojans, I don't think they even compare. Am I saying that Fox is going to be a great recruiter, just you wait and see? No. But Georgia hoops are never going to be my case study.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

calumnus said:

---

In Braun's last year we finished second to last. Monty took that team, minus Anderson, and finished 3rd in his first year and 1st in his second going to the NCAA tournament both years.

---

Yeah, but Fox isn't Monty, Braun isn't Wyking Jones, and Cal's program was vastly different at the end of Braun's tenure compared to Jones's.

First, Monty took Stanford to NCAA Tournament appearances all eight seasons he was the head coach there, and one at least one game in the Tournament each year. He also had a Final Four appearance, as well as an Elite Eight and Sweet 16 appearances. In 14 seasons, Fox has taken five teams to the NCAA Tournament (three at Nevada, two at UGA). He's won two NCAA Tournament games total. I think this was your point, but so far, Fox doesn't have the coaching achievements or chops that Monty had coming to Cal.

---

With all due respect, I'd like to make a correction here. Mike Montgomery coached 18 seasons at Stanford, not 8 seasons. Nearly all his glory at Stanford was achieved in his final 10 seasons on the Farm. His first 8 years at Stanford had some success but were less than stellar. The success in those years was two trips to the NCAA. In 1989, his #13 nationally ranked Stanford team lost in the first round to lowly Siena. In 1991, Stanford was unranked, but won the NIT Championship. In 1992, Stanford was unranked and lost to Alabama in the first round of the NCAA. Three OK seasons out of 8 years, and an over all record of 142-102, and a 7-23 season in 1993 that he would like to forget. It was 1994 in his 9th year at Stanford, and his 17th year as a head coach, that his career finally took off at Stanford, and he went on to have the success at Stanford, and later at Cal. I would add to your list of his accomplishments that he won 5 conference championships (one at Cal), and a conference tourney championship.

Montgomery's first head coaching job was at Montana, and produced only one conference championship, and no invitations to the NCAA. His record was 154-77, and his teams never achieved a national ranking in 8 seasons.

So I think that even though I am a Montgomery fan, comparing a younger Mark Fox starting his 3rd job as a head coach to Mike Montgomery, who retired after finishing his 4th job is not quite fair. If we want to compare like experience to like experience, how about comparing the results of Fox's first coaching job at Nevada with the results of Montgomery's first job at Montana, and likewise the results of Fox's second coaching job at Georgia with the results of the first 8 years of Montgomery's second coaching job at Stanford?

Fox's record at Nevada was pretty good. He won four conference championships, and was invited to the NCAA 3 times in 5 years. In 2005, his Nevada team was ranked #24 nationally, and beat Texas in the first round of the NCAA. They lost to the nation's #1 team, Illinois, in the second round. In 2006, Nevada was ranked #20, but was knocked off by Montana in the first round. In 2007, Nevada was ranked #10 in the country, beat Creighton in the first round, but lost to a very good #5 ranked UMass team in the 2nd round. Fox's record over five years at Nevada was 123-43, 0.741 winning percentage against a Strength of Schedule (SOS) of 1.53. Montgomery's record over his first 8 years at Montana was 154-77, 0.667 winning percentage vs a SOS of -1.23. Both coaches inherited some good talent from the previous head coach. Fox inherited Kevin Pinkney, Nick Fazekas, and Ramon Sessions, all of whom did play in the NBA. Monty inherited Larry Kristowiak who also played in the NBA. Fox clearly had a better record at Nevada against a tougher schedule than Montgomery had at Montana against a weaker schedule.

Fox's 9 year record at Georgia was remarkably similar to Montgomery's first 8 years at Stanford, with both men in their second head coaching job. Fox's record was 163-133, a 0.551 winning percentage against an SOS of 7.80. Montgomery was 142-102, a 0.582 winning percentage against an SOS of 7.21. Fox took Georgia to the NCAA in 2011, losing to #13 Washington in round one and in 2015, losing to Michigan State in round one. Both coaches inherited some good players from the previous coach, Fox getting Trey Thomkins and Travis Leslie, who both played in the NBA, Montgomery got Todd Lichti, Howard Wright, and Greg Butler, who all played in the NBA. After they left, Monty landed Adam Keefe, and little else for a few years, until he landed Brevin Knight, and at that point, Monty's career really took off, leading the Stanford program into national prominence. But in those first 8 seasons at Stanford, Monty's highest finish was 2nd in conference, and included a 10th place finish. He had only one ranked team, 1989, ranked #13. He had three 20-win seasons in 8 years, and had 2 NCAA appearances and an NIT title, as mentioned above. Fox in his 9 years at Georgia. His best finish was 2nd in the SEC. He had four 20-win seasons. His only nationally ranked team was in 2011, ranked #24 for just one week.

Fox was better in his first job at Nevada than Montgomery was in his at Montana. In their second jobs, over his first 8 seasons, Montgomery was slightly better than Fox, only due to his 1989 team which did achieve a #13 ranking, albeit spoiled by a 1st round exit from the NCAA, beaten by a supposedly much weaker team, and maybe Stanford's NIT title, which is not the prestigious tournament it once was.

Monty was an excellent coach, but he did not really blossom until his 17th year as a head coach. Fox is in his 16th year, and it will take longer to see if he can blossom as Montgomery eventually did, considering Fox inherited just one good player when he arrived here at Cal, and then a shutdown over a pandemic, resulting in a screwball season, from which Fox and the players will have to recover and get back on track, hopefully next season.