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.

Yes, Braun's last team was second to last in the Pac-10, but that was an entirely different Pac-10 than what we've seen recently. It was the best league in the nation that year. It had five (half) teams make the NCAA Tournament and another three make it to the NIT (including Cal). Hell, UCLA had Kevin Love and Russell Westbrook on its team that year and made it to the Final Four. Stanford and Wazzu made it to the Sweet 16.

Jones's last year needed an unlikely three-game winning streak in the last three games to get its only three wins in the league, in a league that ranked seventh in the country in KenPom's conference standings. That Pac-12 league had three teams make it to the NCAA Tournament, all as a nine-seed or lower, none of which made it past the Sweet-16.

I think your point that Monty was a better coach than Fox is objectively true based on wins and losses. But there's a lot of context to also consider. Here's another way of putting it: Jones left teams that finished No. 244 and No. 241 in KenPom, Braun's last two teams finished No. 78 and No. 67. Fox was left a dumpster fire, and objectively one of the worst Power Conference programs in recent history.

---

calumnus said:

---

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.

Yes, Braun's last team was second to last in the Pac-10, but that was an entirely different Pac-10 than what we've seen recently. It was the best league in the nation that year. It had five (half) teams make the NCAA Tournament and another three make it to the NIT (including Cal). Hell, UCLA had Kevin Love and Russell Westbrook on its team that year and made it to the Final Four. Stanford and Wazzu made it to the Sweet 16.

Jones's last year needed an unlikely three-game winning streak in the last three games to get its only three wins in the league, in a league that ranked seventh in the country in KenPom's conference standings. That Pac-12 league had three teams make it to the NCAA Tournament, all as a nine-seed or lower, none of which made it past the Sweet-16.

I think your point that Monty was a better coach than Fox is objectively true based on wins and losses. But there's a lot of context to also consider. Here's another way of putting it: Jones left teams that finished No. 244 and No. 241 in KenPom, Braun's last two teams finished No. 78 and No. 67. Fox was left a dumpster fire, and objectively one of the worst Power Conference programs in recent history.

---

It is relative.

If Braun did poorly in a tough league, Monty excelled in the same tough league using Braun's players.

If Jones did poorly in a weak league, Fox has failed to elevate us significantly in the same weak league.

I think that absolves Braun more than it absolves Fox. If Monty can improve over Braun in a tough league, Fox should be able to improve over Jones in a weak league if he is a better coach. If anything a turnaround in a weak league should be easier, there are fewer quality teams to climb over.

Monty did it with great Xs and Os, but there is little evidence of great game day coaching in our offense or even our defense. Frankly, between the two I would take Braun over Fox just for personality, talent scouting and donor relations.

Turnarounds in basketball can be fast. Not counting Brown and Thorpe, 7 players on the roster are players he signed. 7 players can be a complete rotation in basketball.

Crazy that some are now arguing WSU is easier to recruit to than Cal.

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

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.

Yes, Braun's last team was second to last in the Pac-10, but that was an entirely different Pac-10 than what we've seen recently. It was the best league in the nation that year. It had five (half) teams make the NCAA Tournament and another three make it to the NIT (including Cal). Hell, UCLA had Kevin Love and Russell Westbrook on its team that year and made it to the Final Four. Stanford and Wazzu made it to the Sweet 16.

Jones's last year needed an unlikely three-game winning streak in the last three games to get its only three wins in the league, in a league that ranked seventh in the country in KenPom's conference standings. That Pac-12 league had three teams make it to the NCAA Tournament, all as a nine-seed or lower, none of which made it past the Sweet-16.

I think your point that Monty was a better coach than Fox is objectively true based on wins and losses. But there's a lot of context to also consider. Here's another way of putting it: Jones left teams that finished No. 244 and No. 241 in KenPom, Braun's last two teams finished No. 78 and No. 67. Fox was left a dumpster fire, and objectively one of the worst Power Conference programs in recent history.

---

It is relative.

If Braun did poorly in a tough league, Monty excelled in the same tough league using Braun's players.

If Jones did poorly in a weak league, Fox has failed to elevate us significantly in the same weak league.

I think that absolves Braun more than it absolves Fox. If Monty can improve over Braun in a tough league, Fox should be able to improve over Jones in a weak league if he is a better coach. If anything a turnaround in a weak league should be easier, there are fewer quality teams to climb over.

Monty did it with great Xs and Os, but there is little evidence of great game day coaching in our offense or even our defense. Frankly, between the two I would take Braun over Fox just for personality, talent scouting and donor relations.

Turnarounds in basketball can be fast. Not counting Brown and Thorpe, 7 players on the roster are players he signed. 7 players can be a complete rotation in basketball.

Crazy that some are now arguing WSU is easier to recruit to than Cal.

---

I've never been to the Pelouse, but a WSU grad once told me that it's "heaven on earth". No wonder it's so easy to recruit to!

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

Interesting point. Is that a typical trajectory for top coaches? And if so is there some identifiable event around the turning point?

Also I wonder what fraction of coaches with average to better-than-average results over 16 years improve dramatically after that.

---

sluggo said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

Interesting point. Is that a typical trajectory for top coaches? And if so is there some identifiable event around the turning point?

Also I wonder what fraction of coaches with average to better-than-average results over 16 years improve dramatically after that.

---

He started recruiting better late. But he maximized talent from day 1 at Stanford. Fox is hopeless in 17 years or 117 years.

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

Interesting point. Is that a typical trajectory for top coaches? And if so is there some identifiable event around the turning point?

Also I wonder what fraction of coaches with average to better-than-average results over 16 years improve dramatically after that.

---

He started recruiting better late. But he maximized talent from day 1 at Stanford. Fox is hopeless in 17 years or 117 years.

---

His first decade of Stanford teams did more with less (unathlethic teams made up of pure shooters and muscular big men who could rebound, defend and set picks), which was a good fit for Stanford. He was not interested in recruiting. He lucked out on Brevin Knight and with a lot of lucky upsets ahead of him had a deep run in the Tournament that coincided with Lavin's demise at UCLA. Then he started landing top SoCal talent due to his coaching acumen and on-court success, Stanford's prestige, and the ability of his assistants to recruit around his personality.

Fox is not Monty. Georgia is not Stanford (especially Stanford in the 80's).

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

Interesting point. Is that a typical trajectory for top coaches? And if so is there some identifiable event around the turning point?

Also I wonder what fraction of coaches with average to better-than-average results over 16 years improve dramatically after that.

---

He started recruiting better late. But he maximized talent from day 1 at Stanford. Fox is hopeless in 17 years or 117 years.

---

His first decade of Stanford teams did more with less (unathlethic teams made up of pure shooters and muscular big men who could rebound, defend and set picks), which was a good fit for Stanford. He was not interested in recruiting. He lucked out on Brevin Knight and with a lot of lucky upsets ahead of him had a deep run in the Tournament that coincided with Lavin's demise at UCLA. Then he started landing top SoCal talent due to his coaching acumen and on-court success, Stanford's prestige, and the ability of his assistants to recruit around his personality.

Fox is not Monty. Georgia is not Stanford (especially Stanford in the 80's).

---

Monty was 15-3 in year 3 in conference and less than 8-10 only once in 18 years. Comparing Fox to Monty is ludicrous.

---

Big C said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

Interesting point. Is that a typical trajectory for top coaches? And if so is there some identifiable event around the turning point?

Also I wonder what fraction of coaches with average to better-than-average results over 16 years improve dramatically after that.

---

He started recruiting better late. But he maximized talent from day 1 at Stanford. Fox is hopeless in 17 years or 117 years.

---

His first decade of Stanford teams did more with less (unathlethic teams made up of pure shooters and muscular big men who could rebound, defend and set picks), which was a good fit for Stanford. He was not interested in recruiting. He lucked out on Brevin Knight and with a lot of lucky upsets ahead of him had a deep run in the Tournament that coincided with Lavin's demise at UCLA. Then he started landing top SoCal talent due to his coaching acumen and on-court success, Stanford's prestige, and the ability of his assistants to recruit around his personality.

Fox is not Monty. Georgia is not Stanford (especially Stanford in the 80's).

---

Monty was 15-3 in year 3 in conference and less than 8-10 only once in 18 years. Comparing Fox to Monty is ludicrous.

---

And yet, we complained when Monty was here. Would kill now, for ...

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

Interesting point. Is that a typical trajectory for top coaches? And if so is there some identifiable event around the turning point?

Also I wonder what fraction of coaches with average to better-than-average results over 16 years improve dramatically after that.

---

He started recruiting better late. But he maximized talent from day 1 at Stanford. Fox is hopeless in 17 years or 117 years.

---

His first decade of Stanford teams did more with less (unathlethic teams made up of pure shooters and muscular big men who could rebound, defend and set picks), which was a good fit for Stanford. He was not interested in recruiting. He lucked out on Brevin Knight and with a lot of lucky upsets ahead of him had a deep run in the Tournament that coincided with Lavin's demise at UCLA. Then he started landing top SoCal talent due to his coaching acumen and on-court success, Stanford's prestige, and the ability of his assistants to recruit around his personality.

Fox is not Monty. Georgia is not Stanford (especially Stanford in the 80's).

---

Monty was 15-3 in year 3 in conference and less than 8-10 only once in 18 years. Comparing Fox to Monty is ludicrous.

---

Big C said:

---

Oh, come on, sluggo and stu, go back and channel the BI archives.

---

Big C said:

---

Oh, come on, sluggo and stu, go back and channel the BI archives. Except for his second year when we won the conference (and even two weeks after that when we didn't make the Sweet Sixteen), there were plenty of complaints about Monty: He's not recruiting... We're never getting past the first weekend of the Tournament... He should take us as far as he took Furd... Blah blah blah...

Yes, he looks pretty good now, his teams having looked all well-coached, consistently in the top half of the conference. Wish we were anywhere near that lately, even projecting into the future...

---

NathanAllen said:

---

Bearprof said:

---

Sheesh, what I remember was that a few posters posted a LOT of negativity about Monty. Those posters felt that Monty was a good X/Os coach but could not recruit and that we needed a change to get to the mountain top. Now that we have resided in the deepest of valleys for so many years, I wonder what those posters now think? Hard to tell as many/most of them, perhaps not surprisingly, disappeared once the descent started. Like Monty, they are gone. I miss Monty more.

---

A constant with sports fans: the grass is always greener. Until a drought comes and all the grass is gone.

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

Interesting point. Is that a typical trajectory for top coaches? And if so is there some identifiable event around the turning point?

Also I wonder what fraction of coaches with average to better-than-average results over 16 years improve dramatically after that.

---

He started recruiting better late. But he maximized talent from day 1 at Stanford. Fox is hopeless in 17 years or 117 years.

---

His first decade of Stanford teams did more with less (unathlethic teams made up of pure shooters and muscular big men who could rebound, defend and set picks), which was a good fit for Stanford. He was not interested in recruiting. He lucked out on Brevin Knight and with a lot of lucky upsets ahead of him had a deep run in the Tournament that coincided with Lavin's demise at UCLA. Then he started landing top SoCal talent due to his coaching acumen and on-court success, Stanford's prestige, and the ability of his assistants to recruit around his personality.

Fox is not Monty. Georgia is not Stanford (especially Stanford in the 80's).

---

Monty was 15-3 in year 3 in conference and less than 8-10 only once in 18 years. Comparing Fox to Monty is ludicrous.

---

We actually have players that remind me of those early Monty Stanford teams. Or even the Crabbe/Solomon team. It would be fun to see what lineup he would put out and what plays he would run for them. I bet we would work it into Kelly more and we would set more picks for Bradley.

---

stu said:

---

Big C said:

---

Oh, come on, sluggo and stu, go back and channel the BI archives.

---

I can't figure out how to search back more than a year but I don't remember posting anything uncomplimentary about Montgomery. I'm not speaking for anyone else though.

Edit: I may have criticized a few of Montgomery's later recruiting decisions, e.g. Kahlil Johnson, Kaileb Rodriguez, Geoffrey Frid, after I saw them play. I'd still criticize those, along with his Martin's decisions to recruit Chauca and a bunch of guys who never enrolled and Jones' decisions to recruit Winston and McCullough.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I think our bench players today have much better potential compared to that group. Also, when I think about past teams, we never seemed to have quality depth

---

Quote:

---

seemed like most years, we needed to use players like Smith, Hamilton, etc way too much then we should have. I think it's cost us two spots at least in the conference standings. when Bird and Wallace went down in the NCAA, we had Chauca, Domingo and Roger go 0-11 shooting

---

stu said:

---

Big C said:

---

Oh, come on, sluggo and stu, go back and channel the BI archives.

---

I can't figure out how to search back more than a year but I don't remember posting anything uncomplimentary about Montgomery. I'm not speaking for anyone else though.

Edit: I may have criticized a few of Montgomery's later recruiting decisions, e.g. Kahlil Johnson, Kaileb Rodriguez, Geoffrey Frid, after I saw them play. I'd still criticize those, along with his Martin's decisions to recruit Chauca and a bunch of guys who never enrolled and Jones' decisions to recruit Winston and McCullough.

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Big C: Please describe your "career."

---

Quote:

---

Just use Google. If I want to find old threads where I spoke about Goff and 1st Round draft pick I search the following terms and get these results (include a year in the search term if you want):

bearinsider bearister goff first round draft - Google Search

---

Big C said:

---

Monty at Cal, not wanting to kowtow to the AAU "coaches"/agents, reminded me of myself deep into my career: I still liked most of the job and got after it with enthusiasm, but I just didn't want to deal with the bs parts anymore.

---

bearister said:

---

stu said:

---

Big C said:

---

Oh, come on, sluggo and stu, go back and channel the BI archives.

---

I can't figure out how to search back more than a year but I don't remember posting anything uncomplimentary about Montgomery. I'm not speaking for anyone else though.

Edit: I may have criticized a few of Montgomery's later recruiting decisions, e.g. Kahlil Johnson, Kaileb Rodriguez, Geoffrey Frid, after I saw them play. I'd still criticize those, along with his Martin's decisions to recruit Chauca and a bunch of guys who never enrolled and Jones' decisions to recruit Winston and McCullough.

---

Just use Google. If I want to find old threads where I spoke about Goff and 1st Round draft pick I search the following terms and get these results (include a year in the search term if you want):

bearinsider bearister goff first round draft - Google Search


https://www.google.com/search?q=bearinsider+bearister+goff+first+round+draft&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

---

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I think our bench players today have much better potential compared to that group. Also, when I think about past teams, we never seemed to have quality depth

---

I agree, I can see something in almost all of our current players. Recruiting is certainly not an exact science but past coaches occasionally left me wondering what they saw in some recruits.

Quote:

---

seemed like most years, we needed to use players like Smith, Hamilton, etc way too much then we should have. I think it's cost us two spots at least in the conference standings. when Bird and Wallace went down in the NCAA, we had Chauca, Domingo and Roger go 0-11 shooting

---

IMHO Smith was just what we needed one year but after that he wasn't the same due to injury. Domingo and Moute may have been disappointing but at least I can see why the coach took a chance on them.

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

... 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.

---

Interesting point. Is that a typical trajectory for top coaches? And if so is there some identifiable event around the turning point?

Also I wonder what fraction of coaches with average to better-than-average results over 16 years improve dramatically after that.

---

He started recruiting better late. But he maximized talent from day 1 at Stanford. Fox is hopeless in 17 years or 117 years.

---

His first decade of Stanford teams did more with less (unathlethic teams made up of pure shooters and muscular big men who could rebound, defend and set picks), which was a good fit for Stanford. He was not interested in recruiting. He lucked out on Brevin Knight and with a lot of lucky upsets ahead of him had a deep run in the Tournament that coincided with Lavin's demise at UCLA. Then he started landing top SoCal talent due to his coaching acumen and on-court success, Stanford's prestige, and the ability of his assistants to recruit around his personality.

Fox is not Monty. Georgia is not Stanford (especially Stanford in the 80's).

---

Monty was 15-3 in year 3 in conference and less than 8-10 only once in 18 years. Comparing Fox to Monty is ludicrous.

---

We actually have players that remind me of those early Monty Stanford teams. Or even the Crabbe/Solomon team. It would be fun to see what lineup he would put out and what plays he would run for them. I bet we would work it into Kelly more and we would set more picks for Bradley.

---

I agree. I read here often that Cal lacks shooters. I think it more lacks good shots. I also think the development of KK, Lars T. and Thorpe would be better under Monty. It could not be worse. Kelly had good footwork going back to high school. Monty players, both at Stanford and at Cal, showed improved skills within seasons and between seasons. Guys like Boykin, Kemp and MSF, not the most skilled players, but they became very clever under Monty. Solomon also improved a lot. Even Thurman.

---