stu said:

---

For 2017-18 Gottlieb recruited only 2 players, Smith and Styles. Smith left after 2 years, Styles left after 3 years. For 2018-19 Gottlieb recruited only 1 player, Forbes, who left after 1 year. The best player Gottlieb left (Brown) was a senior. That's why we now have zero scholarship juniors or seniors.

Fox started out recruiting mostly grad transfers and international players with 2-star ratings. Now he's recruiting USA freshies with 3- and 4-star ratings so we may eventually see them develop into quality players.

Smith recruited 4 freshies for 2019-20, 6 for 2020-21, and 2 for 2021-22 (one of whom enrolled in January). Their ratings run from 3 to 5 stars. To my eyes most of the guards look solid, one (Green) got Pac-12 honorable mention all-frosh honors. Of the forwards I'd say one (Daniels) has great talent and another (Oniyah) is a great athlete, I expect both of them to develop into very good players. One of the centers (Heide) has great height and looks to have been well coached, I think she'll present matchup problems to most of our opponents.

I think Smith has done a better job than Fox of recruiting freshies, though she inherited an even more depleted roster. I expect our women to be out of the cellar real soon, like next season.

---

very good summary of WBB's recruiting. the women's team has recruited higher rated players, but for what ever reason were never able to parlay the Final Four and those players and elevate the program.

We had a star center and what looked on paper as a highly rated and athletic team, but never got farther than the 2nd round of the NCAA. We should have gotten to at least the sweet sixteen those teams.

We again have a highly rated freshmen class with at least 2 legit all-pac 12 prospects. Usually Cal can sign guards, but has a harder time with bigs, but we brought in four 4/5 star front court players. Hopefully we can surround them with perimeter players and shooters, and have a more balanced offense.

I was extremely disappointed when Smith transferred as I felt she had a tons of talent, and would have led our team. Forbes was good, but I was never completely sold on her, partly because she was a liability on defense. I don't know why Styles left. That surprised me, and she would have really stabilized this team with her experience and versatility. After all the rehabs, Mi'Cole also disappointed me by transferring. She might not ever get back to 100% but she would have been a clear starter this year, and our best defender.

Overall, the talent is there, but super young, and that's primarily due to prior small recruiting classes and unfortunate transfers out

OaktownBear said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbears4ever said:

---

He's in change of the whole athletics program, including budgeting, scheduling, and other behind the scenes work that allows teams to have their seasons

---

There are thousands of schmucks with the appropriate education level that you can pay $60K a year to do those things. They will get done by anyone you put in the job. They are not what differentiate a good AD from a bad one. In fact, probably our most successful AD in 50 years absolutely sucked at a lot of that, but he got hiring a football coach right.

---

so people who do that type of job is a schmuck?

---

Oh, brother. I was being glib. I just meant those are not specific talents. There are thousands of schmucks who can do my job too. An athletic director does not make his bones by budgets and scheduling. We aren't paying him nearly $700K to schedule field hockey games.

---

But just like I can't fault Fox in accepting an $8.25 million contract from Knowlton to live in the Bay Area and coach a team to mediocre, I can't fault Knowlton for accepting the $700,000 a year salary while farming out the hard work and money to consultants while putting out embarrassing publicity. The fault is Christ's in hiring such a bad fit in the first place.

It is critical that we have someone at this time who really understands Cal, the Bay Area and has a vision. A background in sports marketing would be great. Someone connected to our donors who can get them to open their checkbooks. Someone who can work with the academic side, the city. Someone who has the knowledge to help find Larry Scott's replacement....

Knowlton is none of that. He is a conservative military bureaucrat with no experience in big time sports, academia or marketing and with no previous connection to our school or even the West Coast. His justification for the hiring of Fox over DeCuire was a classic "affinity" hire, and he had so little background in diversity training or sensitivity to the issue that he just blabbed it to reporters. He has decades of catching up to do and frankly he doesn't seem that bright and we don't have time for that. Some thought Christ had the vision and Knowlton would just implement, but we've seen no sign of that either.

Between the two, Fox is a better fit, but then so was Jones. We really just have to hope they get lucky. At least football recruiting has picked up giving me hope that the cash cow can pay for all this.

---

I too was disappointed with the selection - and liked Musselmen (not interested), Pasternack (knows Cal/ large donors very well, would have brought back former well known players, tireless worker), Turner, Amaker etc - but Gates gave a very poor interview (totally unprepared - though yes He could fire up some donors and certainly appeal to a wide range of recruits. However all we can do is support our program for now and hopefully we will see a far more competitive team that next season reaches 500 in conference. Then we will get more serious looks from the top recruits. Any coach really needs 3 seasons, to fully assess and I am fine with giving Fox 1-2 more seasons - practically and financially.

Regarding Knowlton - most people commenting don't know him really well, I do and He helped save the housing for the basketball team(very important to the program), kept our leading men's swimming coach from bolting, is a key reason Wilcox has not bolted, has Grid Club strong support, large factor in the Cameron Institute formation/donation. And has worked very well with Chancellor Christ. Informative article to read from Jon Wilner on "Cal athletics turning a profit in FY20 thanks to assist from Central Campus". Yes Bball is thus far a huge failure, but given where we have been since Cuonzo left us, its a 5 year timeline to stabilize and regain a winning program.

---

Cal is always on a five year timeline to stabilize and regain a winning program.

Wilcox not bolting has zero to do with Knowlton

---

Ha on point one and sure appears that way recently. Incorrect on #2 and straight from Justin. Relationship and trust in JK was a factor.

4thGenCal said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbears4ever said:

---

He's in change of the whole athletics program, including budgeting, scheduling, and other behind the scenes work that allows teams to have their seasons

---

There are thousands of schmucks with the appropriate education level that you can pay $60K a year to do those things. They will get done by anyone you put in the job. They are not what differentiate a good AD from a bad one. In fact, probably our most successful AD in 50 years absolutely sucked at a lot of that, but he got hiring a football coach right.

---

so people who do that type of job is a schmuck?

---

Oh, brother. I was being glib. I just meant those are not specific talents. There are thousands of schmucks who can do my job too. An athletic director does not make his bones by budgets and scheduling. We aren't paying him nearly $700K to schedule field hockey games.

---

But just like I can't fault Fox in accepting an $8.25 million contract from Knowlton to live in the Bay Area and coach a team to mediocre, I can't fault Knowlton for accepting the $700,000 a year salary while farming out the hard work and money to consultants while putting out embarrassing publicity. The fault is Christ's in hiring such a bad fit in the first place.

It is critical that we have someone at this time who really understands Cal, the Bay Area and has a vision. A background in sports marketing would be great. Someone connected to our donors who can get them to open their checkbooks. Someone who can work with the academic side, the city. Someone who has the knowledge to help find Larry Scott's replacement....

Knowlton is none of that. He is a conservative military bureaucrat with no experience in big time sports, academia or marketing and with no previous connection to our school or even the West Coast. His justification for the hiring of Fox over DeCuire was a classic "affinity" hire, and he had so little background in diversity training or sensitivity to the issue that he just blabbed it to reporters. He has decades of catching up to do and frankly he doesn't seem that bright and we don't have time for that. Some thought Christ had the vision and Knowlton would just implement, but we've seen no sign of that either.

Between the two, Fox is a better fit, but then so was Jones. We really just have to hope they get lucky. At least football recruiting has picked up giving me hope that the cash cow can pay for all this.

---

I too was disappointed with the selection - and liked Musselmen (not interested), Pasternack (knows Cal/ large donors very well, would have brought back former well known players, tireless worker), Turner, Amaker etc - but Gates gave a very poor interview (totally unprepared - though yes He could fire up some donors and certainly appeal to a wide range of recruits. However all we can do is support our program for now and hopefully we will see a far more competitive team that next season reaches 500 in conference. Then we will get more serious looks from the top recruits. Any coach really needs 3 seasons, to fully assess and I am fine with giving Fox 1-2 more seasons - practically and financially.

Regarding Knowlton - most people commenting don't know him really well, I do and He helped save the housing for the basketball team(very important to the program), kept our leading men's swimming coach from bolting, is a key reason Wilcox has not bolted, has Grid Club strong support, large factor in the Cameron Institute formation/donation. And has worked very well with Chancellor Christ. Informative article to read from Jon Wilner on "Cal athletics turning a profit in FY20 thanks to assist from Central Campus". Yes Bball is thus far a huge failure, but given where we have been since Cuonzo left us, its a 5 year timeline to stabilize and regain a winning program.

---

Cal is always on a five year timeline to stabilize and regain a winning program.

Wilcox not bolting has zero to do with Knowlton

---

Ha on point one and sure appears that way recently. Incorrect on #2 and straight from Justin. Relationship and trust in JK was a factor.

---

I like Wilcox. I'm not buying that he had a head coaching job to bolt to.

OaktownBear said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbears4ever said:

---

He's in change of the whole athletics program, including budgeting, scheduling, and other behind the scenes work that allows teams to have their seasons

---

There are thousands of schmucks with the appropriate education level that you can pay $60K a year to do those things. They will get done by anyone you put in the job. They are not what differentiate a good AD from a bad one. In fact, probably our most successful AD in 50 years absolutely sucked at a lot of that, but he got hiring a football coach right.

---

so people who do that type of job is a schmuck?

---

Oh, brother. I was being glib. I just meant those are not specific talents. There are thousands of schmucks who can do my job too. An athletic director does not make his bones by budgets and scheduling. We aren't paying him nearly $700K to schedule field hockey games.

---

But just like I can't fault Fox in accepting an $8.25 million contract from Knowlton to live in the Bay Area and coach a team to mediocre, I can't fault Knowlton for accepting the $700,000 a year salary while farming out the hard work and money to consultants while putting out embarrassing publicity. The fault is Christ's in hiring such a bad fit in the first place.

It is critical that we have someone at this time who really understands Cal, the Bay Area and has a vision. A background in sports marketing would be great. Someone connected to our donors who can get them to open their checkbooks. Someone who can work with the academic side, the city. Someone who has the knowledge to help find Larry Scott's replacement....

Knowlton is none of that. He is a conservative military bureaucrat with no experience in big time sports, academia or marketing and with no previous connection to our school or even the West Coast. His justification for the hiring of Fox over DeCuire was a classic "affinity" hire, and he had so little background in diversity training or sensitivity to the issue that he just blabbed it to reporters. He has decades of catching up to do and frankly he doesn't seem that bright and we don't have time for that. Some thought Christ had the vision and Knowlton would just implement, but we've seen no sign of that either.

Between the two, Fox is a better fit, but then so was Jones. We really just have to hope they get lucky. At least football recruiting has picked up giving me hope that the cash cow can pay for all this.

---

I too was disappointed with the selection - and liked Musselmen (not interested), Pasternack (knows Cal/ large donors very well, would have brought back former well known players, tireless worker), Turner, Amaker etc - but Gates gave a very poor interview (totally unprepared - though yes He could fire up some donors and certainly appeal to a wide range of recruits. However all we can do is support our program for now and hopefully we will see a far more competitive team that next season reaches 500 in conference. Then we will get more serious looks from the top recruits. Any coach really needs 3 seasons, to fully assess and I am fine with giving Fox 1-2 more seasons - practically and financially.

Regarding Knowlton - most people commenting don't know him really well, I do and He helped save the housing for the basketball team(very important to the program), kept our leading men's swimming coach from bolting, is a key reason Wilcox has not bolted, has Grid Club strong support, large factor in the Cameron Institute formation/donation. And has worked very well with Chancellor Christ. Informative article to read from Jon Wilner on "Cal athletics turning a profit in FY20 thanks to assist from Central Campus". Yes Bball is thus far a huge failure, but given where we have been since Cuonzo left us, its a 5 year timeline to stabilize and regain a winning program.

---

Cal is always on a five year timeline to stabilize and regain a winning program.

Wilcox not bolting has zero to do with Knowlton

---

Ha on point one and sure appears that way recently. Incorrect on #2 and straight from Justin. Relationship and trust in JK was a factor.

---

I like Wilcox. I'm not buying that he had a head coaching job to bolt to.

---

Extension offered by JK in December 2018, signed May 2019. Not all posters are privy to everything. Not the deciding factor but definitely a positive factor in Justin extending. Point is that the coaches across the board respect him and love his relationship with the chancellor, his active involvement with all of the coaches and his tireless outreach on their behalf. JK is organized, has a great work ethic and the majority of major donors back him.

Fox is the problem to me, not Knowlton. I don't follow MBB that much, so idk much about the situation besides the disappointing season MBB has had. I would say that Cal needs a Steve Kerr- esque coach if they want to go back to the NCAA's

What would you say about the coaches whose names are not Wilcox, Fox, or Smith? I think that Knowlton's decision to hire Crosson as the women's volleyball coach was one of the best hiring decisions he ever made. I have met Crosson and think he's a good coach; Cal VB is lucky to have him. Like I said before, the fault lies in Fox and not anyone else. I respect Smith as a coach and don't think she is the reason why the WBB team was bad this year, the problem was the injuries. MBB's demise was due to bad coaching and Bradley and Anticevich missing time this season

calbears4ever said:

---

Fox is the problem to me, not Knowlton. I don't follow MBB that much, so idk much about the situation besides the disappointing season MBB has had. I would say that Cal needs a Steve Kerr- esque coach if they want to go back to the NCAA's

---

Knowlton was the one who looked at the resume that got Fox fired from Georgia and out of work for a year and hired him after interviewing only one other candidate. Can't blame Fox for taking the $8.25 million. The problem is, I don't trust Knowlton to hire Fox's replacement. I don't think he has a clue to hiring a basketball coach. He wasn't even smart enough to know he wasn't smart enough and put together a committee with maybe Shareef, Monty, Steve Kerr, Ben Braun, Leon Powe, Jason Kidd, Sean Marks....

HoopDreams said:

---

We had a star center and what looked on paper as a highly rated and athletic team, but never got farther than the 2nd round of the NCAA. We should have gotten to at least the sweet sixteen those teams.

---

Our star center couldn't play in the 1st round NCAA game and we lost. FWIW I thought the guards on that team were good on offense, not so much on defense.

Quote:

---

... Usually Cal can sign guards, but has a harder time with bigs, but we brought in four 4/5 star front court players. Hopefully we can surround them with perimeter players and shooters, and have a more balanced offense.

---

From 2005 we've signed some great bigs: Hampton, Walker, Stallworth (transferred), Brandon, Gray, Anigwe, and now I think Daniels and Oniyah may turn out that well. Not so many great guards: Gray-Lawson, Morris (transferred), Clarendon, Boyd, and maybe Smith (transferred). I don't think it was a coincidence our Final Four came with two of those great guards. Since that FF we've had attrition and injury problems at guard so except for the 2018-19 season haven't had enough guards on the roster. Coach Smith seems to be recruiting enough guards so I hope that problem is in the past.

NathanAllen said:

---

... There is no magic bullet that is going to suddenly flip the program. And the path forward isn't going to be linear. Maybe Fox turns the program or maybe he doesn't. This season was disappointing, yes, but it's just one season of two so far for Fox. It's a very small sample size.

---

I'm pretty sure Fox will be here for a third season, and if it goes as well as his first then he'll be here for a fourth. So unless we stay in the cellar we'll have a larger sample on which to base our arguments.

calbears4ever said:

---

What would you say about the coaches whose names are not Wilcox, Fox, or Smith? I think that Knowlton's decision to hire Crosson as the women's volleyball coach was one of the best hiring decisions he ever made. I have met Crosson and think he's a good coach; Cal VB is lucky to have him. Like I said before, the fault lies in Fox and not anyone else. I respect Smith as a coach and don't think she is the reason why the WBB team was bad this year, the problem was the injuries. MBB's demise was due to bad coaching and Bradley and Anticevich missing time this season

---

I would say who cares.

NathanAllen said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

As we come close to the end of the season, my opinion of Fox and coaching is adapting a bit. Here is where I'm at.

I think FOX is a better coach than Jones. I don't think he's as good as Monty and never will be. His ceiling is probably less than Braun or Campanelli.

However, based on the results the last decade or so, my sense is that coaching skills has less impact on results than talent. Sure there are a few coaches that can make due with less talent, but they are few, hard to find and unlikely to arrive at Cal.

Besides recruiting talent, we should be looking for a coach that can make that talent work well together. I'm not a fan of his at all (and don't suggest anyone like him would be a good fit at Cal), but most people describing Calipari would do so with those two attributes.

In the P12, Altman is probably the closest comparison or Miller at UA. Again. I don't like either of those, but the results speak for themselves. I'm racking my brains for a D1 coach that fits the bill and is not tainted.

---

I'm not in the know enough to know if these dudes are "tainted," but I've always admired Mick Cronin (I know, I know, but look at his Cincy teams), Chris Beard at Texas Tech, and Leonard Hamilton at Florida State. I also wonder how long a guy like Brian Dutcher is going to stick around at San Diego State. Lon Kruger at Oklahoma seems to get a lot out of his players. Archie Miller was a guy I really liked at Dayton but he hasn't been able to quite put it together yet at Indiana. I've also been impressed with what Travis Ford has done at Saint Louis in his brief time there.

---

Excellent list. I too am becoming a fan of Cronin. Leonard Hamilton and Lon Kruger are/were very good coaches, but are both a bit long in the tooth. What Kruger did at Illinois would be a nifty blueprint for Cal. What about Nate Oats?

In any event, I don't think the current AD could bring in anyone like this (including Archie Miller and Travis Ford). Personally, my expectations are lower until there is a significant change in the Administration.

---

Oats has been very impressive so far. I'm intrigued to see how he continues to do at Alabama. But an SEC title in his second season is pretty nuts.

Not that I think it's worth talking much about because a) Fox is in year two of a five-year contract and b) it'd be much better for Cal if Fox turned things around at Cal and evolved, but regardless of AD, Cal has a current issue with finding its coach post-Fox (whenever that might be).

Here's what I mean. I think most in college hoops will agree that the two easiest paths to hiring a good coach are paying big for a known Power Conference winner or hire a hot up-and-comer from a mid-major (like Alabama did with Nate Oats, for example). Cal currently seems unable and/or unwilling to pay for a proven Power Conference winner. And in its current state, what sort of hot up-and-comer would take a chance on Cal's program when there are likely to be other suiters?

So it remains my opinion that the best-case scenario for Cal is Fox uses an experienced, albeit athletically-limited, roster next year to make some noise and lift the floor of the program a bit. And then uses that to get some recruiting break-throughs and get the program back to a middle-of-the-pack (or better) Pac-12 team. Then the job becomes a lot more attractive and Cal is able to get past those limitations listed above.

As others have mentioned, Dennis Gates is an intriguing option. But, in my opinion, he needs more time. I'd like to see him string together at least a couple more competitive seasons in the Horizon League.

---

Thing is, we had the opportunity to do that post-Cuonzo. We punted.

Things aren't going to get better under Fox or Knowlton. Our only path forward is to pay an up and coming coach well (because regardless of success, they don't get paid much at the mid-major level) and hope we pick the right one. But first we need to deal with the Athletic Director problem and I don't see Christ having any interest in that. So I think Cal Athletics is in trouble for as long as Christ is Chancellor.

---

I mean, yeah, that's when the downfall began.

There is no magic bullet that is going to suddenly flip the program. And the path forward isn't going to be linear. Maybe Fox turns the program or maybe he doesn't. This season was disappointing, yes, but it's just one season of two so far for Fox. It's a very small sample size.

---

"Just one season out of two so far for Fox."

So you are saying last year was good? Worst overall record/fewest wins of any team in the PAC-12? Points scored 332nd out of 353 teams in the NCAA? That is your level of acceptable?

My sample size is his 11 years coaching in a power conference. The first 9 got him fired. The last two have been worse.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I am not saying fire him now. We don't have the money to buy him out and I have no confidence in Knowlton to hire a replacement. However, unless I am shocked and there is a dramatic turnaround next year I think we absolutely should not throw good money after bad and extend his contract. Knowlton should form a basketball advisory committee to monitor the situation and put feelers out to potential candidates. Only make the move when you have a very good idea what you are going to do or at least what your options are.

Stanford Jonah said:

---

calbears4ever said:

---

What would you say about the coaches whose names are not Wilcox, Fox, or Smith?

---

I don't give a damn about the coaches outside of Wilcox and Fox. If we can't get those right, nothing else matters.

---

All I can say is that Fox needs to go now. If not, we'll be in for more trouble

calbears4ever said:

---

MBB's demise was due to bad coaching and Bradley and Anticevich missing time this season

---

Strangely we won twice as many PAC-12 games (2) without Bradley as we won with him (1). Similarly we won two of the games Grant missed and the other two up in Oregon it is highly unlikely he makes a difference.

Agree about Fox though.

calbears4ever said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

calbears4ever said:

---

What would you say about the coaches whose names are not Wilcox, Fox, or Smith?

---

I don't give a damn about the coaches outside of Wilcox and Fox. If we can't get those right, nothing else matters.

---

All I can say is that Fox needs to go now. If not, we'll be in for more trouble

---

His buyout is about $5 million. I agree the trajectory is bad but I don't think we have the money to pay that out and hire and pay a new coach. How do you support your men's VB coach and program and the other 28 non-revenue sports?

I'd say get fans back in to watch games as soon as the city of Berkeley health dept allows it and increase ticket pricing. There are pac-12 programs that are allowing a limited number of fans to attend games, and we are still under a no-fan policy. Also, for fans, donate to the Cal athletics fund. If VB gets an endowment from someone, that would also help a lot. The $5 million buyout for Fox sounds utterly ridiculous

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

We had a star center and what looked on paper as a highly rated and athletic team, but never got farther than the 2nd round of the NCAA. We should have gotten to at least the sweet sixteen those teams.

---

Our star center couldn't play in the 1st round NCAA game and we lost. FWIW I thought the guards on that team were good on offense, not so much on defense.

Quote:

---

... Usually Cal can sign guards, but has a harder time with bigs, but we brought in four 4/5 star front court players. Hopefully we can surround them with perimeter players and shooters, and have a more balanced offense.

---

From 2005 we've signed some great bigs: Hampton, Walker, Stallworth (transferred), Brandon, Gray, Anigwe, and now I think Daniels and Oniyah may turn out that well. Not so many great guards: Gray-Lawson, Morris (transferred), Clarendon, Boyd, and maybe Smith (transferred). I don't think it was a coincidence our Final Four came with two of those great guards. Since that FF we've had attrition and injury problems at guard so except for the 2018-19 season haven't had enough guards on the roster. Coach Smith seems to be recruiting enough guards so I hope that problem is in the past.

---

We also signed Green, Mikalya, Jefflo, Range and Brown ... those are some serious talent and athletic wings with size

calbears4ever said:

---

I'd say get fans back in to watch games as soon as the city of Berkeley health dept allows it and increase ticket pricing. There are pac-12 programs that are allowing a limited number of fans to attend games, and we are still under a no-fan policy. Also, for fans, donate to the Cal athletics fund. If VB gets an endowment from someone, that would also help a lot. The $5 million buyout for Fox sounds utterly ridiculous

---

It is my estimate. He has 3 years left on a 5 year contract worth $8.25 million. What is crazy is we paid $3 million to buyout Wyking Jones to hire Fox, pay him 50% more and achieve similar results. Wyking Jones might have even had more upside potential as his major issue was zero previous head coaching experience.

At least if Jones had coached the last two years and we let him go now with one year left on his contract we would have saved $8 million (versus letting Fox go now) and the new coach would inherit a better roster.

Stanford Jonah said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

As we come close to the end of the season, my opinion of Fox and coaching is adapting a bit. Here is where I'm at.

I think FOX is a better coach than Jones. I don't think he's as good as Monty and never will be. His ceiling is probably less than Braun or Campanelli.

However, based on the results the last decade or so, my sense is that coaching skills has less impact on results than talent. Sure there are a few coaches that can make due with less talent, but they are few, hard to find and unlikely to arrive at Cal.

Besides recruiting talent, we should be looking for a coach that can make that talent work well together. I'm not a fan of his at all (and don't suggest anyone like him would be a good fit at Cal), but most people describing Calipari would do so with those two attributes.

In the P12, Altman is probably the closest comparison or Miller at UA. Again. I don't like either of those, but the results speak for themselves. I'm racking my brains for a D1 coach that fits the bill and is not tainted.

---

I'm not in the know enough to know if these dudes are "tainted," but I've always admired Mick Cronin (I know, I know, but look at his Cincy teams), Chris Beard at Texas Tech, and Leonard Hamilton at Florida State. I also wonder how long a guy like Brian Dutcher is going to stick around at San Diego State. Lon Kruger at Oklahoma seems to get a lot out of his players. Archie Miller was a guy I really liked at Dayton but he hasn't been able to quite put it together yet at Indiana. I've also been impressed with what Travis Ford has done at Saint Louis in his brief time there.

---

Excellent list. I too am becoming a fan of Cronin. Leonard Hamilton and Lon Kruger are/were very good coaches, but are both a bit long in the tooth. What Kruger did at Illinois would be a nifty blueprint for Cal. What about Nate Oats?

In any event, I don't think the current AD could bring in anyone like this (including Archie Miller and Travis Ford). Personally, my expectations are lower until there is a significant change in the Administration.

---

Oats has been very impressive so far. I'm intrigued to see how he continues to do at Alabama. But an SEC title in his second season is pretty nuts.

Not that I think it's worth talking much about because a) Fox is in year two of a five-year contract and b) it'd be much better for Cal if Fox turned things around at Cal and evolved, but regardless of AD, Cal has a current issue with finding its coach post-Fox (whenever that might be).

Here's what I mean. I think most in college hoops will agree that the two easiest paths to hiring a good coach are paying big for a known Power Conference winner or hire a hot up-and-comer from a mid-major (like Alabama did with Nate Oats, for example). Cal currently seems unable and/or unwilling to pay for a proven Power Conference winner. And in its current state, what sort of hot up-and-comer would take a chance on Cal's program when there are likely to be other suiters?

So it remains my opinion that the best-case scenario for Cal is Fox uses an experienced, albeit athletically-limited, roster next year to make some noise and lift the floor of the program a bit. And then uses that to get some recruiting break-throughs and get the program back to a middle-of-the-pack (or better) Pac-12 team. Then the job becomes a lot more attractive and Cal is able to get past those limitations listed above.

As others have mentioned, Dennis Gates is an intriguing option. But, in my opinion, he needs more time. I'd like to see him string together at least a couple more competitive seasons in the Horizon League.

---

Thing is, we had the opportunity to do that post-Cuonzo. We punted.

Things aren't going to get better under Fox or Knowlton. Our only path forward is to pay an up and coming coach well (because regardless of success, they don't get paid much at the mid-major level) and hope we pick the right one. But first we need to deal with the Athletic Director problem and I don't see Christ having any interest in that. So I think Cal Athletics is in trouble for as long as Christ is Chancellor.

---

If Athletics is in trouble as long as Christ is Chancellor, we are totally screwed, because there is a wide consensus that she is the best Chancellor we have had for Athletics stretching over a half century or so.

There's gotta be somebody in the hierarchy who Knowlton reports to, who then in turn reports to the Chancellor. Who the heck is that?

Anyway, Knowlton, his boss and a few key donors need to work on upgrading the basketball program. That's according to me; they may not think so.

calumnus said:

---

calbears4ever said:

---

I'd say get fans back in to watch games as soon as the city of Berkeley health dept allows it and increase ticket pricing. There are pac-12 programs that are allowing a limited number of fans to attend games, and we are still under a no-fan policy. Also, for fans, donate to the Cal athletics fund. If VB gets an endowment from someone, that would also help a lot. The $5 million buyout for Fox sounds utterly ridiculous

---

It is my estimate. He has 3 years left on a 5 year contract worth $8.25 million. What is crazy is we paid $3 million to buyout Wyking Jones to hire Fox and achieve similar results. Wyking Jones might have even had more upside potential as his major issue was zero previous head coaching experience.

At least if Jones had coached the last two years and we let him go now with one year left on his contract we would have saved $8 million (versus letting Fox go now) and the new coach would inherit a better roster.

---

Jones may have also recruited better - certainly not worse. Talent makes up for a lot of coaching deficiencies.

"Wyking is a five-star recruiter, a five-star coach and a five-star person," said Jones's former boss, Louisville head coach Rick Pitino, who has now seen 31 former assistants move on to become head coaches.

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

...And in its current state, what sort of hot up-and-comer would take a chance on Cal's program when there are likely to be other suiters?

...

As others have mentioned, Dennis Gates is an intriguing option. But, in my opinion, he needs more time. I'd like to see him string together at least a couple more competitive seasons in the Horizon League.

---

I understand your point, Nathan, but to me, the first point above is precisely why we should try to target Gates now. Yes, there is a risk that we are taking if we hire him before he has fully proven himself. But once he has, is he willing to take a chance on us when other, more attractive options might be available?

I think that an AD who is willing to do the work (and knows what questions to ask and what the answers need to be) should be able to at least have a strong sense of Gates' potential in this role, and should be willing to take that chance. I actually liked OaktownBear's analogy of Jones/Fox to the Teevens/Harris succession path in Stanfurd FB. The Furd AD then went and took a chance on Harbaugh (and I think that the projection one has to make from USD football to Stanfurd is probably harder than the projection from Cleveland State BB to Cal, esp. with a Cal alum as the target). But I do think the AD should be thinking quite hard about Fox and his future after this quite disappointing year.

---

We're in agreement here. If Fox is going to succeed here, he'll need an extension at the end of next season. So the evaluation needs to be happening now. Feelers need to also go out. You don't fire a coach (or let his contract wane) unless you know you have better option(s). No offense to Wyking Jones, but, pretty much no matter what, you know you're gonna have better options after letting him go. For Fox, that's not a guarantee at this point.

---

Nathan - I very respectfully disagree with a lot of what you are saying on multiple posts.

1. Barring a top 3 finish in conference AND a significant recruit haul to replace all the seniors that will be leaving after next year, there is absolutely zero chance Cal should extend him. I do not know where the Cal community has bought into this "after year 3 you have to extend" concept, but it makes no sense and it keeps Cal paying buyouts. He should be extended when he earns the extension. Extending for recruiting is ridiculous. EVERY COACH IN AMERICA IS ON A ONE YEAR AGREEMENT. They don't perform, they get bought out. Every recruit knows this. If you don't want to risk your coach getting fired, your best option is to not play for a guy with a losing record. Let's say Fox replicates what he did last year. So you aren't ready to fire him and you extend him. Then he follows that up with what he did this year again. He'll be fired. Even if you wanted to make this argument, Cal literally just extended its football coach and then fired him the next year. Extending buys us nothing but a big fat bill when we need to fire him the next year. If he gets extended, the buyout has to be one year's salary. Period. No increased buyout for the extension. If he wants better, go find anyone else who wants him.

2. No, if you are in last place you don't wait until you know you have better options. You don't worry about being last worse. You take a shot.

3. Fox is a better coach than Jones. Nearly tripling the head coach expense to upgrade to Fox was in no way a better option. And frankly, as bad as Jones was, I'm not convinced, especially the way the team ended his second season, that Jones with a rotation of Bradley, Kelly, Grant, Vanover, Sueing, McNeil, Brown and then Thorpe and whomever else he recruited doesn't give us better results this season. Yeah, the coaching would be worse, but the personnel would be a lot better.

4. Regarding Dennis Gates not being ready, I haven't followed him, but I disagree with your premise. By the time anyone on this board recognizes that the hot up and comer is ready, Cal is not getting him. The last two coaching hires saw to that. Cal needs to moneyball this thing. Cal needs to find the person that no one is valuing correctly yet. If a guy is a known up and comer, he is probably getting an offer from someone else. If not, he knows he is a year away and he isn't going to risk blowing his career on a school that does a Jones-Fox tandem. You need a guy who is a couple years away and is willing to take the bird in hand. That isn't going to come from a search committee, 2 interviews and a "I was just more comfortable with this guy" hiring process.

This is why Knowlton's hiring Fox was such a disaster. He actually had a story to tell to counteract the Jones hire. Look, we had a Chancellor who was on his way out who didn't give a shyte about sports and a non-professional AD, and we had just put our focus on hiring the football coach. It is two years later. New Chancellor. New AD. Cal never fires a coach after 2 years. We knew we needed to take drastic steps to recommit to basketball and that is what we are doing. Someone might buy that. But when you go out and hire a coach sitting on the shelf who had a 9 year stint at Georgia and a losing conference record to show for it, you just defined what you want to be. That was Knowlton's decision. He can't lay that off on the last guy. He can't claim a change in philosophy. He set the philosophy. So now it is much harder to sell that job. And every year you find this acceptable digs the hole deeper.

I'd argue now is the time. Our roster in 2 years looks abysmal. We need next year to show some improvement to sell to recruits. But if Fox stabilizes this thing and gets us to say, 8th place, well, (i) he already did that with no recruiting bump; and (ii) it is his third year and big deal. If you get a young coach that can sell the program and he gets us to 8th place - he actually just took us from a 12th place finish that he had no responsibility for to an 8th place finish. He can sell that at least somewhat.

And we need something to change. Next year, every team is either running it back, or they are top teams who will lose a couple good players and replace them easily anyway. Grant, Bradley, Foreman and Betley are pretty much who they are. Kelly can maybe squeeze a little more out. Maybe Brown improves a little. I don't see it with Hyder. There is a chance with Celestine he will take a step. That is the rotation. There is not a freshman difference maker coming in. And every other team is going to be improving. If we don't change direction, I don't see why we expect different results.

---

Lol. I appreciate your very respectful disagreement. The feeling is mutual as I also very respectfully disagree with pretty much all of this post.

Bottom line, I think we can agree that we both want Cal hoops to be back to respectability (and better) sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if you'd agree with this, but I believe Fox will be the coach for at least the next two seasons. So, a lot of our disagreements in this thread don't matter much in the immediate future.

One thing I will say is you're making a lot of assumptions about Cal and other teams towards the end of your post. At this point, there really is no way of knowing for sure which teams will improve or not next year. We're not even finished with this season yet. But in the meantime, I'm personally going to choose the belief that another year getting to know Fox and vice versa will be good for an experienced returning group of players and Cal will make a bigger step forward. I think there's some data to support that hope/belief, but I also don't know. It's just the mindset I'm gonna choose. If it doesn't happen, then we'll be revisiting these disagreements again sooner rather than later and they will, unfortunately, be meaningful then.

---

There are some, maybe many on this board who continually point to Fox's 77-79 record in the SEC as a "losing record" in conference. Literally, they are right, but in sports, that is an average record. Just about .500, and if Fox had won just one of the games he lost, he would have had a .500 record, and no one could say he had a losing record. It was a tough conference during Fox's years, with Kentucky and Florida and usually four other really good teams to compete with, every year.

Once upon a time, there was a coach who had coached at a small independent school for 4 years, and then was then hired to coach a team in the Big Ten. Try as hard as he could, he had a losing record in his new conference, 26-34 over 4 years. He was then hired by a school who had not won a conference championship in 9 years, a year where they also had the only NCAA appearance in their entire history. This coach was hired, even though he had a losing conference record in the Big Ten, 26-34. The Big Ten had only two really good teams like Indiana and Illinois, and maybe Iowa, but that was about it. Nevertheless, this Big Ten coach was hired by his new school, in spite of his crummy record in the the Big Ten. Many fans of his new University and many local sportswriters were upset at hiring a coach with a losing record in the Big Ten.

That coach's name was Pete Newell, and the school that hired him was Cal. So it should be etched in stone that a losing record in conference, even as bad as Newell's record was, should not be grounds for disputing the hire. BTW, Newell inherited some very good players for his first team, and he recruited well, too, but his first season stunk, going 1-11 in conference. Now, THAT was a losing record.

As we all know, the chance of success in a coach's first couple of seasons depends largely on the roster talent he inherits from the previous coach. I think Mike Montgomery's retirement was planned somewhat, and I think he wanted to leave something for the next coach, which he did: Jabari Bird, Jordan Mathews, David Kravish, Tyrone Wallace, Sam Singer, and Kam Rooks. How well do we think that team of 2016 would have been with just Rabb and Brown, Okoroh and Chauca and whoever else Martin might have been able to pick up? Would Rabb and Brown even have come to Cal if there was not already a nucleus of pretty good players?

If only Martin had left some good talent for Wyking (leading to a better leave for Fox). Alas, Cuonzo had no such consideration for his successor, even when it was an assistant on his very own staff. By the time Fox got the job, and players left for greener pastures, Fox was left with an empty cupboard, a whole lot of scholarships to give out, and only a couple months to recruit the players which the rest of the nation's coaches had left for him to pick over. He was caught between a rock and a hard place, try and pick the best he could find in order to win games right away, or hold the scholies for the next season, when he'd have more time to recruit. With the average Cal fan's desire for instant gratification, I'm not sure Fox can do anything soon to dig out of this, but I think he deserves the chance to try, or at least he deserves to have Cal fans be a little more realistic about his record at Georgia and stop ragging on it for being worse than it was. This has been a screwball year.

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

calbears4ever said:

---

I'd say get fans back in to watch games as soon as the city of Berkeley health dept allows it and increase ticket pricing. There are pac-12 programs that are allowing a limited number of fans to attend games, and we are still under a no-fan policy. Also, for fans, donate to the Cal athletics fund. If VB gets an endowment from someone, that would also help a lot. The $5 million buyout for Fox sounds utterly ridiculous

---

It is my estimate. He has 3 years left on a 5 year contract worth $8.25 million. What is crazy is we paid $3 million to buyout Wyking Jones to hire Fox and achieve similar results. Wyking Jones might have even had more upside potential as his major issue was zero previous head coaching experience.

At least if Jones had coached the last two years and we let him go now with one year left on his contract we would have saved $8 million (versus letting Fox go now) and the new coach would inherit a better roster.

---

Jones may have also recruited better - certainly not worse. Talent makes up for a lot of coaching deficiencies.

"Wyking is a five-star recruiter, a five-star coach and a five-star person," said Jones's former boss, Louisville head coach Rick Pitino, who has now seen 31 former assistants move on to become head coaches.

---

Exactly. I have zero doubt Jones would have recruited better, especially in L.A., his hometown. Vanover and Sueing would continue to develop. If we fired him now the next coach would inherit more talent than whoever follows Fox. Not really trying to defend Jones, but if I knew Knowlton was going to hire Fox who had ample opportunity at Georgia to demonstrate his lack of upside potential, I might have had a different opinion.

HoopDreams said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Big C said:

---

ClayK, could you give us a little synopsis of where the women's team is right now? I mean, they had that BANNER recruiting year, right? Some injuries and just too young overall? Were the top recruits "as advertised"? If so, shouldn't they be primed for an historic turnaround next season?

---

Right now, the women's team is terrible (not to put too fine a point on it).

Charmin Smith is a decent coach, I think, but as mentioned in this thread, it's hard to recruit to Cal -- especially since the Pac-12 is arguably the best women's league in the country.

Last year's class:

Dalayah Daniels, the top recruit, is very good, but her shooting mechanics are a serious problem. She's a 6-3 3/4, athletic for her size, good player. Potential all Pac-12 as a junior and senior but she has to rebuild her shot to get there, and that's not easy to do.

Michelle Onyiah and Fatou Samb are two tall posts who were ranked highly because, well, they were tall. Neither has shown much skill, but because Cal is an abysmal shooting team, opponents pack the paint, limiting whatever abilities the two might have been able to display even further.

Ornela Muca is from Greece, and it's good to be suspicious of foreign players. Some are great, of course, but you just never know. Suffice it to say that Mia Mastrov, who should be a senior at Miramonte right now, is playing 35 to 40 minutes a game ahead of her, and though Mia has potential, she's a long way from a finished product.

In short, one good player, two tall ones who are tall.

But the biggest issue was that two of their returning players, including their best returner, opted out, and both were perimeter players. Then their next guard up blew out her knee in the first game, so they have no backcourt. Only one player is shooting better than 21.7% from three.

Even worse are the turnovers: the team A/TO is 142/339 -- their point guard, Leilani McIntosh, is 49/49 (do the math on the rest of the team if you want a horror story).

They've also lost transfers to Maryland and Louisville (a starter for a top 10 team).

With good health, everyone returning, better shooting that opens up the paint, some luck (well, maybe a lot of luck), a .500 season might be possible next year, but the league is very, very strong, and there's no mercy anywhere. Even Washington State was briefly in the top 25 this year.

Which circles back to my question: Why are both teams struggling with what appear to be competent coaches (not great, but not close to terrible)?

---

Dalayah - agree. she's a potential star, but needs to be able to shoot a 15 footer, and a 5 foot jumper and a floater to get there since right now she only scores at the rim. She probably will never be a great 3 point shooter.

Michelle - don't agree. I think she is also a potential star. Super bouncy, great rebounder and has some skills around the post. She will get a lot of benefit if we have perimeter shooters on the floor so defenses don't pack the paint and double her

Muca and Mia - Muca is another undersized guard, and hopefully she improves her shooting (because she came in with that rep), but the biggest problem so far are her turnovers and defense. Mia is a big upgrade at guard and has good fundamentals, but has only practiced with the team for a month and only played 5 games. She will have a full off season of strength and conditioning, a year to get stronger and actually have some real team practices

Totally agree that the BIGGEST problem was 3 guards, including our best guard were injured and out for the season. That meant we couldn't actually run a legit offense, and we had to push our former walk-ons into the action to play major minutes. Our second biggest problem was the extreme youth of the team.

The combo was lethal

Next year we will be a whole team, although still extremely young with the only senior being a former walk-on, but I'm hopeful for a big improvement

---

What about Sela Heide? Did I miss something? I noticed neither of you mentioned her. Is she still with the team? My daughter is same class and played against Sela quite a bit (when Sela was healthy) in high school (also played against Delayah a number of times, though she was in a different league).

SFCityBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

...And in its current state, what sort of hot up-and-comer would take a chance on Cal's program when there are likely to be other suiters?

...

As others have mentioned, Dennis Gates is an intriguing option. But, in my opinion, he needs more time. I'd like to see him string together at least a couple more competitive seasons in the Horizon League.

---

I understand your point, Nathan, but to me, the first point above is precisely why we should try to target Gates now. Yes, there is a risk that we are taking if we hire him before he has fully proven himself. But once he has, is he willing to take a chance on us when other, more attractive options might be available?

I think that an AD who is willing to do the work (and knows what questions to ask and what the answers need to be) should be able to at least have a strong sense of Gates' potential in this role, and should be willing to take that chance. I actually liked OaktownBear's analogy of Jones/Fox to the Teevens/Harris succession path in Stanfurd FB. The Furd AD then went and took a chance on Harbaugh (and I think that the projection one has to make from USD football to Stanfurd is probably harder than the projection from Cleveland State BB to Cal, esp. with a Cal alum as the target). But I do think the AD should be thinking quite hard about Fox and his future after this quite disappointing year.

---

We're in agreement here. If Fox is going to succeed here, he'll need an extension at the end of next season. So the evaluation needs to be happening now. Feelers need to also go out. You don't fire a coach (or let his contract wane) unless you know you have better option(s). No offense to Wyking Jones, but, pretty much no matter what, you know you're gonna have better options after letting him go. For Fox, that's not a guarantee at this point.

---

Nathan - I very respectfully disagree with a lot of what you are saying on multiple posts.

1. Barring a top 3 finish in conference AND a significant recruit haul to replace all the seniors that will be leaving after next year, there is absolutely zero chance Cal should extend him. I do not know where the Cal community has bought into this "after year 3 you have to extend" concept, but it makes no sense and it keeps Cal paying buyouts. He should be extended when he earns the extension. Extending for recruiting is ridiculous. EVERY COACH IN AMERICA IS ON A ONE YEAR AGREEMENT. They don't perform, they get bought out. Every recruit knows this. If you don't want to risk your coach getting fired, your best option is to not play for a guy with a losing record. Let's say Fox replicates what he did last year. So you aren't ready to fire him and you extend him. Then he follows that up with what he did this year again. He'll be fired. Even if you wanted to make this argument, Cal literally just extended its football coach and then fired him the next year. Extending buys us nothing but a big fat bill when we need to fire him the next year. If he gets extended, the buyout has to be one year's salary. Period. No increased buyout for the extension. If he wants better, go find anyone else who wants him.

2. No, if you are in last place you don't wait until you know you have better options. You don't worry about being last worse. You take a shot.

3. Fox is a better coach than Jones. Nearly tripling the head coach expense to upgrade to Fox was in no way a better option. And frankly, as bad as Jones was, I'm not convinced, especially the way the team ended his second season, that Jones with a rotation of Bradley, Kelly, Grant, Vanover, Sueing, McNeil, Brown and then Thorpe and whomever else he recruited doesn't give us better results this season. Yeah, the coaching would be worse, but the personnel would be a lot better.

4. Regarding Dennis Gates not being ready, I haven't followed him, but I disagree with your premise. By the time anyone on this board recognizes that the hot up and comer is ready, Cal is not getting him. The last two coaching hires saw to that. Cal needs to moneyball this thing. Cal needs to find the person that no one is valuing correctly yet. If a guy is a known up and comer, he is probably getting an offer from someone else. If not, he knows he is a year away and he isn't going to risk blowing his career on a school that does a Jones-Fox tandem. You need a guy who is a couple years away and is willing to take the bird in hand. That isn't going to come from a search committee, 2 interviews and a "I was just more comfortable with this guy" hiring process.

This is why Knowlton's hiring Fox was such a disaster. He actually had a story to tell to counteract the Jones hire. Look, we had a Chancellor who was on his way out who didn't give a shyte about sports and a non-professional AD, and we had just put our focus on hiring the football coach. It is two years later. New Chancellor. New AD. Cal never fires a coach after 2 years. We knew we needed to take drastic steps to recommit to basketball and that is what we are doing. Someone might buy that. But when you go out and hire a coach sitting on the shelf who had a 9 year stint at Georgia and a losing conference record to show for it, you just defined what you want to be. That was Knowlton's decision. He can't lay that off on the last guy. He can't claim a change in philosophy. He set the philosophy. So now it is much harder to sell that job. And every year you find this acceptable digs the hole deeper.

I'd argue now is the time. Our roster in 2 years looks abysmal. We need next year to show some improvement to sell to recruits. But if Fox stabilizes this thing and gets us to say, 8th place, well, (i) he already did that with no recruiting bump; and (ii) it is his third year and big deal. If you get a young coach that can sell the program and he gets us to 8th place - he actually just took us from a 12th place finish that he had no responsibility for to an 8th place finish. He can sell that at least somewhat.

And we need something to change. Next year, every team is either running it back, or they are top teams who will lose a couple good players and replace them easily anyway. Grant, Bradley, Foreman and Betley are pretty much who they are. Kelly can maybe squeeze a little more out. Maybe Brown improves a little. I don't see it with Hyder. There is a chance with Celestine he will take a step. That is the rotation. There is not a freshman difference maker coming in. And every other team is going to be improving. If we don't change direction, I don't see why we expect different results.

---

Lol. I appreciate your very respectful disagreement. The feeling is mutual as I also very respectfully disagree with pretty much all of this post.

Bottom line, I think we can agree that we both want Cal hoops to be back to respectability (and better) sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if you'd agree with this, but I believe Fox will be the coach for at least the next two seasons. So, a lot of our disagreements in this thread don't matter much in the immediate future.

One thing I will say is you're making a lot of assumptions about Cal and other teams towards the end of your post. At this point, there really is no way of knowing for sure which teams will improve or not next year. We're not even finished with this season yet. But in the meantime, I'm personally going to choose the belief that another year getting to know Fox and vice versa will be good for an experienced returning group of players and Cal will make a bigger step forward. I think there's some data to support that hope/belief, but I also don't know. It's just the mindset I'm gonna choose. If it doesn't happen, then we'll be revisiting these disagreements again sooner rather than later and they will, unfortunately, be meaningful then.

---

There are some, maybe many on this board who continually point to Fox's 77-79 record in the SEC as a "losing record" in conference. Literally, they are right, but in sports, that is an average record. Just about .500, and if Fox had won just one of the games he lost, he would have had a .500 record, and no one could say he had a losing record. It was a tough conference during Fox's years, with Kentucky and Florida and usually four other really good teams to compete with, every year.

Once upon a time, there was a coach who had coached at a small independent school for 4 years, and then was then hired to coach a team in the Big Ten. Try as hard as he could, he had a losing record in his new conference, 26-34 over 4 years. He was then hired by a school who had not won a conference championship in 9 years, a year where they also had the only NCAA appearance in their entire history. This coach was hired, even though he had a losing conference record in the Big Ten, 26-34. The Big Ten had only two really good teams like Indiana and Illinois, and maybe Iowa, but that was about it. Nevertheless, this Big Ten coach was hired by his new school, in spite of his crummy record in the the Big Ten. Many fans of his new University and many local sportswriters were upset at hiring a coach with a losing record in the Big Ten.

That coach's name was Pete Newell, and the school that hired him was Cal. So it should be etched in stone that a losing record in conference, even as bad as Newell's record was, should not be grounds for disputing the hire. BTW, Newell inherited some very good players for his first team, and he recruited well, too, but his first season stunk, going 1-11 in conference. Now, THAT was a losing record.

As we all know, the chance of success in a coach's first couple of seasons depends largely on the roster talent he inherits from the previous coach. I think Mike Montgomery's retirement was planned somewhat, and I think he wanted to leave something for the next coach, which he did: Jabari Bird, Jordan Mathews, David Kravish, Tyrone Wallace, Sam Singer, and Kam Rooks. How well do we think that team of 2016 would have been with just Rabb and Brown, Okoroh and Chauca and whoever else Martin might have been able to pick up? Would Rabb and Brown even have come to Cal if there was not already a nucleus of pretty good players?

If only Martin had left some good talent for Wyking (leading to a better leave for Fox). Alas, Cuonzo had no such consideration for his successor, even when it was an assistant on his very own staff. By the time Fox got the job, and players left for greener pastures, Fox was left with an empty cupboard, a whole lot of scholarships to give out, and only a couple months to recruit the players which the rest of the nation's coaches had left for him to pick over. He was caught between a rock and a hard place, try and pick the best he could find in order to win games right away, or hold the scholies for the next season, when he'd have more time to recruit. With the average Cal fan's desire for instant gratification, I'm not sure Fox can do anything soon to dig out of this, but I think he deserves the chance to try, or at least he deserves to have Cal fans be a little more realistic about his record at Georgia and stop ragging on it for being worse than it was. This has been a screwball year.

---

Well said.

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

...And in its current state, what sort of hot up-and-comer would take a chance on Cal's program when there are likely to be other suiters?

...

As others have mentioned, Dennis Gates is an intriguing option. But, in my opinion, he needs more time. I'd like to see him string together at least a couple more competitive seasons in the Horizon League.

---

I understand your point, Nathan, but to me, the first point above is precisely why we should try to target Gates now. Yes, there is a risk that we are taking if we hire him before he has fully proven himself. But once he has, is he willing to take a chance on us when other, more attractive options might be available?

I think that an AD who is willing to do the work (and knows what questions to ask and what the answers need to be) should be able to at least have a strong sense of Gates' potential in this role, and should be willing to take that chance. I actually liked OaktownBear's analogy of Jones/Fox to the Teevens/Harris succession path in Stanfurd FB. The Furd AD then went and took a chance on Harbaugh (and I think that the projection one has to make from USD football to Stanfurd is probably harder than the projection from Cleveland State BB to Cal, esp. with a Cal alum as the target). But I do think the AD should be thinking quite hard about Fox and his future after this quite disappointing year.

---

We're in agreement here. If Fox is going to succeed here, he'll need an extension at the end of next season. So the evaluation needs to be happening now. Feelers need to also go out. You don't fire a coach (or let his contract wane) unless you know you have better option(s). No offense to Wyking Jones, but, pretty much no matter what, you know you're gonna have better options after letting him go. For Fox, that's not a guarantee at this point.

---

Nathan - I very respectfully disagree with a lot of what you are saying on multiple posts.

1. Barring a top 3 finish in conference AND a significant recruit haul to replace all the seniors that will be leaving after next year, there is absolutely zero chance Cal should extend him. I do not know where the Cal community has bought into this "after year 3 you have to extend" concept, but it makes no sense and it keeps Cal paying buyouts. He should be extended when he earns the extension. Extending for recruiting is ridiculous. EVERY COACH IN AMERICA IS ON A ONE YEAR AGREEMENT. They don't perform, they get bought out. Every recruit knows this. If you don't want to risk your coach getting fired, your best option is to not play for a guy with a losing record. Let's say Fox replicates what he did last year. So you aren't ready to fire him and you extend him. Then he follows that up with what he did this year again. He'll be fired. Even if you wanted to make this argument, Cal literally just extended its football coach and then fired him the next year. Extending buys us nothing but a big fat bill when we need to fire him the next year. If he gets extended, the buyout has to be one year's salary. Period. No increased buyout for the extension. If he wants better, go find anyone else who wants him.

2. No, if you are in last place you don't wait until you know you have better options. You don't worry about being last worse. You take a shot.

3. Fox is a better coach than Jones. Nearly tripling the head coach expense to upgrade to Fox was in no way a better option. And frankly, as bad as Jones was, I'm not convinced, especially the way the team ended his second season, that Jones with a rotation of Bradley, Kelly, Grant, Vanover, Sueing, McNeil, Brown and then Thorpe and whomever else he recruited doesn't give us better results this season. Yeah, the coaching would be worse, but the personnel would be a lot better.

4. Regarding Dennis Gates not being ready, I haven't followed him, but I disagree with your premise. By the time anyone on this board recognizes that the hot up and comer is ready, Cal is not getting him. The last two coaching hires saw to that. Cal needs to moneyball this thing. Cal needs to find the person that no one is valuing correctly yet. If a guy is a known up and comer, he is probably getting an offer from someone else. If not, he knows he is a year away and he isn't going to risk blowing his career on a school that does a Jones-Fox tandem. You need a guy who is a couple years away and is willing to take the bird in hand. That isn't going to come from a search committee, 2 interviews and a "I was just more comfortable with this guy" hiring process.

This is why Knowlton's hiring Fox was such a disaster. He actually had a story to tell to counteract the Jones hire. Look, we had a Chancellor who was on his way out who didn't give a shyte about sports and a non-professional AD, and we had just put our focus on hiring the football coach. It is two years later. New Chancellor. New AD. Cal never fires a coach after 2 years. We knew we needed to take drastic steps to recommit to basketball and that is what we are doing. Someone might buy that. But when you go out and hire a coach sitting on the shelf who had a 9 year stint at Georgia and a losing conference record to show for it, you just defined what you want to be. That was Knowlton's decision. He can't lay that off on the last guy. He can't claim a change in philosophy. He set the philosophy. So now it is much harder to sell that job. And every year you find this acceptable digs the hole deeper.

I'd argue now is the time. Our roster in 2 years looks abysmal. We need next year to show some improvement to sell to recruits. But if Fox stabilizes this thing and gets us to say, 8th place, well, (i) he already did that with no recruiting bump; and (ii) it is his third year and big deal. If you get a young coach that can sell the program and he gets us to 8th place - he actually just took us from a 12th place finish that he had no responsibility for to an 8th place finish. He can sell that at least somewhat.

And we need something to change. Next year, every team is either running it back, or they are top teams who will lose a couple good players and replace them easily anyway. Grant, Bradley, Foreman and Betley are pretty much who they are. Kelly can maybe squeeze a little more out. Maybe Brown improves a little. I don't see it with Hyder. There is a chance with Celestine he will take a step. That is the rotation. There is not a freshman difference maker coming in. And every other team is going to be improving. If we don't change direction, I don't see why we expect different results.

---

Lol. I appreciate your very respectful disagreement. The feeling is mutual as I also very respectfully disagree with pretty much all of this post.

Bottom line, I think we can agree that we both want Cal hoops to be back to respectability (and better) sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if you'd agree with this, but I believe Fox will be the coach for at least the next two seasons. So, a lot of our disagreements in this thread don't matter much in the immediate future.

One thing I will say is you're making a lot of assumptions about Cal and other teams towards the end of your post. At this point, there really is no way of knowing for sure which teams will improve or not next year. We're not even finished with this season yet. But in the meantime, I'm personally going to choose the belief that another year getting to know Fox and vice versa will be good for an experienced returning group of players and Cal will make a bigger step forward. I think there's some data to support that hope/belief, but I also don't know. It's just the mindset I'm gonna choose. If it doesn't happen, then we'll be revisiting these disagreements again sooner rather than later and they will, unfortunately, be meaningful then.

---

Thank you.

HoopDreams said:

---

We also signed Green, Mikalya, Jefflo, Range and Brown ... those are some serious talent and athletic wings with size

---

I wouldn't call Cowling, Range, or Brown guards since I don't think they had ballhandling and passing skills of guards. But they (and Jemerigbe) were very good wings and a lot of fun to watch.

Green was one of my favorite Cal WBB players ever. She had PG skills, PF size, and played superb defense but unfortunately couldn't shot. I always hoped she would learn some inside moves. She could have become a point forward who could defend all 5 positions. Alas, she transferred after 2 seasons.

Jefflo was a good, not great combo guard who did something to get dismissed from the team after 2 seasons. I have no idea what went down.

Insufficient recruiting, the early losses of Jefflo and Green, and Cayton's injuries left us really thin at guard. I think Thomas was the only recent guard who gave us 4 years.

Quote:

---

What about Sela Heide? Did I miss something? I noticed neither of you mentioned her. Is she still with the team? My daughter is same class and played against Sela quite a bit (when Sela was healthy) in high school (also played against Delayah a number of times, though she was in a different league).

---

Heide hasn't been fully healthy, she's played only 95 minutes all season. When she's played I thought she was a presence at both ends - scoring, rebounding, and blocking shots. She's not a great athlete but she's smooth, knows how to use her height, and looks quite mature for a freshie. I'd guess she had good coaching and absorbed it well. If she can stay healthy I think she could be very good.

We have two other bigs. Lutje-Schipholt (previous class) has a developing skill set and plays with unmatched intensity. She's a warrior, like Jorge. Samb doesn't have Heide's height, Daniels' skills, or Oniyah's athleticism but she looks strong and coordinated. I think she'll develop into a solid post.

calbears4ever said:

---

I'd say get fans back in to watch games as soon as the city of Berkeley health dept allows it and increase ticket pricing. There are pac-12 programs that are allowing a limited number of fans to attend games, and we are still under a no-fan policy. Also, for fans, donate to the Cal athletics fund. If VB gets an endowment from someone, that would also help a lot. The $5 million buyout for Fox sounds utterly ridiculous

---

Bwah ha ha ha ha

I'm guessing you didn't make it to Haas much in the years prior to Covid. The fan experience (and attendance) had been nose-diving since Martin. Raising ticket prices does not seem like a rational method to raise revenue.

The last time I was at Haas for a Cal MBB (around 2013 ish) game was in the days of Cobbs when they played Harvard. Since then, I've only been there to watch volleyball games; went to 10 VB games during the 2019 season (last season) and a few here and there before then

Yeah there comes a point where increasing prices will not help, and it's best to make them available on other sites besides the cal athletics website, like Ticketmaster. Idk how widely those sites are used for college sports games like Cal's, but I think they are a good way to increase ticket outreach

calumnus said:

---

calbears4ever said:

---

MBB's demise was due to bad coaching and Bradley and Anticevich missing time this season

---

Strangely we won twice as many PAC-12 games (2) without Bradley as we won with him (1). Similarly we won two of the games Grant missed and the other two up in Oregon it is highly unlikely he makes a difference.

Agree about Fox though.

---

I think that had to do with the fact that opponents were guarding them both heavily and preventing them from scoring frequently. Plus, when they didn't have either player, it allowed Kelly to shine