OaktownBear said:

---

sheki said:

---

I know he doesn't interview well...but he's won back to back conference coach of the year awards. We need a new sheriff.

---

I never understand why people take self serving information and rumors from inside the Cal administration at face value. I don't have much access to insiders and even I have caught them in things that were misinformation. And I know those who are big enough donors will say I just don't know the real story and they will believe who they think are there friends. Sorry. Was burned enough for too many years.

They were never going to hire Dennis Gates. They thought he was too young and inexperienced. They had some pressure from important enough sources to interview and consider him. So people who didn't want to interview him interviewed him and had to report back some reason he was being totally dismissed from consideration.

Dennis Gates is an extremely intelligent man. He interviews publicly very well. He apparently interviewed well enough at Cleveland State to get the job which makes one wonder about the claims about how poorly he interview with us as they made it sound like he came in with mustard on his tie and drooled during the interview.

My guess is that his poor interview had nothing to do with him. I could see one of three likely scenarios:

1. People who didn't want to interview him patronized him, made it clear from the get go he wasn't getting the job and he figured that out early and interviewed accordingly.

2. People who wanted him to fail the interview saw what they wanted

3. People who wanted him to fail the interview didn't see what they wanted but reported back to their sources to get them to back off.

He had no incentive to throw the interview even if he didn't want the job.

In any case, maybe he had a bad interview. It's possible. But our only evidence that he is a poor interview is a couple of Cal people at one interview who had plenty of self serving reasons to say he was a bad interview. And in any case, spreading that rumor EVEN IF TRUE, about anyone, let alone a distinguished member of the Cal basketball community, possibly hurting his future prospects, was a complete asshat maneuver and I see no way that those spreading that vs. keeping their mouths shut come out good in this scenario. I'd like to understand how trashing candidates you interview helps you get future candidates to interview. Clearly the only smart thing to do FOR THE UNIVERSITY, is to not comment . And, by the way, Gates had the tact not to respond.

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

I can't keep all the rumors straight. Was it DeCuire that didn't interview well or was it Gates? I can recall the 'Fox nailed the interview' by Knowlton rumor, but don't recall the Gates failed the interview rumor.

It was Gates, he came unprepared apparently. We should just hire Gates and keep Fox on as assistant AD for one year if Knowlton likes him that much.

Arizona just got burned at the stakes by the NCAA. This would the most opportune time for us to have a coach who can recruit from the best in the west.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sheki said:

---

I know he doesn't interview well...but he's won back to back conference coach of the year awards. We need a new sheriff.

---

I never understand why people take self serving information and rumors from inside the Cal administration at face value. I don't have much access to insiders and even I have caught them in things that were misinformation. And I know those who are big enough donors will say I just don't know the real story and they will believe who they think are there friends. Sorry. Was burned enough for too many years.

They were never going to hire Dennis Gates. They thought he was too young and inexperienced. They had some pressure from important enough sources to interview and consider him. So people who didn't want to interview him interviewed him and had to report back some reason he was being totally dismissed from consideration.

Dennis Gates is an extremely intelligent man. He interviews publicly very well. He apparently interviewed well enough at Cleveland State to get the job which makes one wonder about the claims about how poorly he interview with us as they made it sound like he came in with mustard on his tie and drooled during the interview.

My guess is that his poor interview had nothing to do with him. I could see one of three likely scenarios:

1. People who didn't want to interview him patronized him, made it clear from the get go he wasn't getting the job and he figured that out early and interviewed accordingly.

2. People who wanted him to fail the interview saw what they wanted

3. People who wanted him to fail the interview didn't see what they wanted but reported back to their sources to get them to back off.

He had no incentive to throw the interview even if he didn't want the job.

In any case, maybe he had a bad interview. It's possible. But our only evidence that he is a poor interview is a couple of Cal people at one interview who had plenty of self serving reasons to say he was a bad interview. And in any case, spreading that rumor EVEN IF TRUE, about anyone, let alone a distinguished member of the Cal basketball community, possibly hurting his future prospects, was a complete asshat maneuver and I see no way that those spreading that vs. keeping their mouths shut come out good in this scenario. I'd like to understand how trashing candidates you interview helps you get future candidates to interview. Clearly the only smart thing to do FOR THE UNIVERSITY, is to not comment . And, by the way, Gates had the tact not to respond.

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

I can't keep all the rumors straight. Was it DeCuire that didn't interview well or was it Gates? I can recall the 'Fox nailed the interview' by Knowlton rumor, but don't recall the Gates failed the interview rumor.

---

We had this conversation before. This is what I was telling you. You were confusing Decuire with Gates. It was never said that Decuire blew the interview or threw it. Just that Knowlton liked Fox better. Gates was the one they made this claim about.

As I said above, it makes no sense to bash candidates who interview for your job. That just tells future candidates to stay away.

To be clear, Gates interviewed in a prior search, not the one that ended with Fox.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sheki said:

---

I know he doesn't interview well...but he's won back to back conference coach of the year awards. We need a new sheriff.

---

I never understand why people take self serving information and rumors from inside the Cal administration at face value. I don't have much access to insiders and even I have caught them in things that were misinformation. And I know those who are big enough donors will say I just don't know the real story and they will believe who they think are there friends. Sorry. Was burned enough for too many years.

They were never going to hire Dennis Gates. They thought he was too young and inexperienced. They had some pressure from important enough sources to interview and consider him. So people who didn't want to interview him interviewed him and had to report back some reason he was being totally dismissed from consideration.

Dennis Gates is an extremely intelligent man. He interviews publicly very well. He apparently interviewed well enough at Cleveland State to get the job which makes one wonder about the claims about how poorly he interview with us as they made it sound like he came in with mustard on his tie and drooled during the interview.

My guess is that his poor interview had nothing to do with him. I could see one of three likely scenarios:

1. People who didn't want to interview him patronized him, made it clear from the get go he wasn't getting the job and he figured that out early and interviewed accordingly.

2. People who wanted him to fail the interview saw what they wanted

3. People who wanted him to fail the interview didn't see what they wanted but reported back to their sources to get them to back off.

He had no incentive to throw the interview even if he didn't want the job.

In any case, maybe he had a bad interview. It's possible. But our only evidence that he is a poor interview is a couple of Cal people at one interview who had plenty of self serving reasons to say he was a bad interview. And in any case, spreading that rumor EVEN IF TRUE, about anyone, let alone a distinguished member of the Cal basketball community, possibly hurting his future prospects, was a complete asshat maneuver and I see no way that those spreading that vs. keeping their mouths shut come out good in this scenario. I'd like to understand how trashing candidates you interview helps you get future candidates to interview. Clearly the only smart thing to do FOR THE UNIVERSITY, is to not comment . And, by the way, Gates had the tact not to respond.

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

I can't keep all the rumors straight. Was it DeCuire that didn't interview well or was it Gates? I can recall the 'Fox nailed the interview' by Knowlton rumor, but don't recall the Gates failed the interview rumor.

---

We had this conversation before. This is what I was telling you. You were confusing Decuire with Gates. It was never said that Decuire blew the interview or threw it. Just that Knowlton liked Fox better. Gates was the one they made this claim about.

As I said above, it makes no sense to bash candidates who interview for your job. That just tells future candidates to stay away.

To be clear, Gates interviewed in a prior search, not the one that ended with Fox.

---

I distinctly remember reading here that both Gates and Decuire didn't have good interviews. We change basketball coaches so often these days that -- for the life of me -- I can't remember which times these were (not necessarily the same year for each).

Decuire came to Berkeley to interview right after having coached his Montana team in the NCAAs (or some such). Reportedly, he was not as impressive as somebody who had had a week to rest, relax and prepare (like Fox had a whole year, lol). Don't shoot the messenger here: I was for hiring Decuire last time.

Gates took a "first round" interview by phone. The story was that his questions and answers seemed to indicate that he was not particularly prepared for the interview.

I have no idea how much of the above is true, but it was reported that way here. And when I say "reported", I don't necessarily mean by a BI staff writer, though it may have been.

As I previously stated regarding Gates: Now that he has demonstrated some success as a head coach, that is a whole different ballgame than the Gates who had been a long-time assistant in another part of the country. A few years ago, if he hadn't been a Cal guy, his name never would've been brought up. Now he would be quite viable.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sheki said:

---

I know he doesn't interview well...but he's won back to back conference coach of the year awards. We need a new sheriff.

---

I never understand why people take self serving information and rumors from inside the Cal administration at face value. I don't have much access to insiders and even I have caught them in things that were misinformation. And I know those who are big enough donors will say I just don't know the real story and they will believe who they think are there friends. Sorry. Was burned enough for too many years.

They were never going to hire Dennis Gates. They thought he was too young and inexperienced. They had some pressure from important enough sources to interview and consider him. So people who didn't want to interview him interviewed him and had to report back some reason he was being totally dismissed from consideration.

Dennis Gates is an extremely intelligent man. He interviews publicly very well. He apparently interviewed well enough at Cleveland State to get the job which makes one wonder about the claims about how poorly he interview with us as they made it sound like he came in with mustard on his tie and drooled during the interview.

My guess is that his poor interview had nothing to do with him. I could see one of three likely scenarios:

1. People who didn't want to interview him patronized him, made it clear from the get go he wasn't getting the job and he figured that out early and interviewed accordingly.

2. People who wanted him to fail the interview saw what they wanted

3. People who wanted him to fail the interview didn't see what they wanted but reported back to their sources to get them to back off.

He had no incentive to throw the interview even if he didn't want the job.

In any case, maybe he had a bad interview. It's possible. But our only evidence that he is a poor interview is a couple of Cal people at one interview who had plenty of self serving reasons to say he was a bad interview. And in any case, spreading that rumor EVEN IF TRUE, about anyone, let alone a distinguished member of the Cal basketball community, possibly hurting his future prospects, was a complete asshat maneuver and I see no way that those spreading that vs. keeping their mouths shut come out good in this scenario. I'd like to understand how trashing candidates you interview helps you get future candidates to interview. Clearly the only smart thing to do FOR THE UNIVERSITY, is to not comment . And, by the way, Gates had the tact not to respond.

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

I can't keep all the rumors straight. Was it DeCuire that didn't interview well or was it Gates? I can recall the 'Fox nailed the interview' by Knowlton rumor, but don't recall the Gates failed the interview rumor.

---

We had this conversation before. This is what I was telling you. You were confusing Decuire with Gates. It was never said that Decuire blew the interview or threw it. Just that Knowlton liked Fox better. Gates was the one they made this claim about.

As I said above, it makes no sense to bash candidates who interview for your job. That just tells future candidates to stay away.

To be clear, Gates interviewed in a prior search, not the one that ended with Fox.

---

IIRC, it was Shockey or some other "super reliable inside source" that said Gates was not prepared.

Gates' team had a team GPA of 3.43 this year. Nine players made the Fall Academic Honor Roll. Eight made the Dean's List and one made the President's List.

Gates may not be at CSU for very long.

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sheki said:

---

I know he doesn't interview well...but he's won back to back conference coach of the year awards. We need a new sheriff.

---

I never understand why people take self serving information and rumors from inside the Cal administration at face value. I don't have much access to insiders and even I have caught them in things that were misinformation. And I know those who are big enough donors will say I just don't know the real story and they will believe who they think are there friends. Sorry. Was burned enough for too many years.

They were never going to hire Dennis Gates. They thought he was too young and inexperienced. They had some pressure from important enough sources to interview and consider him. So people who didn't want to interview him interviewed him and had to report back some reason he was being totally dismissed from consideration.

Dennis Gates is an extremely intelligent man. He interviews publicly very well. He apparently interviewed well enough at Cleveland State to get the job which makes one wonder about the claims about how poorly he interview with us as they made it sound like he came in with mustard on his tie and drooled during the interview.

My guess is that his poor interview had nothing to do with him. I could see one of three likely scenarios:

1. People who didn't want to interview him patronized him, made it clear from the get go he wasn't getting the job and he figured that out early and interviewed accordingly.

2. People who wanted him to fail the interview saw what they wanted

3. People who wanted him to fail the interview didn't see what they wanted but reported back to their sources to get them to back off.

He had no incentive to throw the interview even if he didn't want the job.

In any case, maybe he had a bad interview. It's possible. But our only evidence that he is a poor interview is a couple of Cal people at one interview who had plenty of self serving reasons to say he was a bad interview. And in any case, spreading that rumor EVEN IF TRUE, about anyone, let alone a distinguished member of the Cal basketball community, possibly hurting his future prospects, was a complete asshat maneuver and I see no way that those spreading that vs. keeping their mouths shut come out good in this scenario. I'd like to understand how trashing candidates you interview helps you get future candidates to interview. Clearly the only smart thing to do FOR THE UNIVERSITY, is to not comment . And, by the way, Gates had the tact not to respond.

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

I can't keep all the rumors straight. Was it DeCuire that didn't interview well or was it Gates? I can recall the 'Fox nailed the interview' by Knowlton rumor, but don't recall the Gates failed the interview rumor.

---

We had this conversation before. This is what I was telling you. You were confusing Decuire with Gates. It was never said that Decuire blew the interview or threw it. Just that Knowlton liked Fox better. Gates was the one they made this claim about.

As I said above, it makes no sense to bash candidates who interview for your job. That just tells future candidates to stay away.

To be clear, Gates interviewed in a prior search, not the one that ended with Fox.

---

I distinctly remember reading here that both Gates and Decuire didn't have good interviews. We change basketball coaches so often these days that -- for the life of me -- I can't remember which times these were (not necessarily the same year for each).

Decuire came to Berkeley to interview right after having coached his Montana team in the NCAAs (or some such). Reportedly, he was not as impressive as somebody who had had a week to rest, relax and prepare (like Fox had a whole year, lol). Don't shoot the messenger here: I was for hiring Decuire last time.

Gates took a "first round" interview by phone. The story was that his questions and answers seemed to indicate that he was not particularly prepared for the interview.

I have no idea how much of the above is true, but it was reported that way here. And when I say "reported", I don't necessarily mean by a BI staff writer, though it may have been.

As I previously stated regarding Gates: Now that he has demonstrated some success as a head coach, that is a whole different ballgame than the Gates who had been a long-time assistant in another part of the country. A few years ago, if he hadn't been a Cal guy, his name never would've been brought up. Now he would be quite viable.

---

Civil Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sheki said:

---

I know he doesn't interview well...but he's won back to back conference coach of the year awards. We need a new sheriff.

---

I never understand why people take self serving information and rumors from inside the Cal administration at face value. I don't have much access to insiders and even I have caught them in things that were misinformation. And I know those who are big enough donors will say I just don't know the real story and they will believe who they think are there friends. Sorry. Was burned enough for too many years.

They were never going to hire Dennis Gates. They thought he was too young and inexperienced. They had some pressure from important enough sources to interview and consider him. So people who didn't want to interview him interviewed him and had to report back some reason he was being totally dismissed from consideration.

Dennis Gates is an extremely intelligent man. He interviews publicly very well. He apparently interviewed well enough at Cleveland State to get the job which makes one wonder about the claims about how poorly he interview with us as they made it sound like he came in with mustard on his tie and drooled during the interview.

My guess is that his poor interview had nothing to do with him. I could see one of three likely scenarios:

1. People who didn't want to interview him patronized him, made it clear from the get go he wasn't getting the job and he figured that out early and interviewed accordingly.

2. People who wanted him to fail the interview saw what they wanted

3. People who wanted him to fail the interview didn't see what they wanted but reported back to their sources to get them to back off.

He had no incentive to throw the interview even if he didn't want the job.

In any case, maybe he had a bad interview. It's possible. But our only evidence that he is a poor interview is a couple of Cal people at one interview who had plenty of self serving reasons to say he was a bad interview. And in any case, spreading that rumor EVEN IF TRUE, about anyone, let alone a distinguished member of the Cal basketball community, possibly hurting his future prospects, was a complete asshat maneuver and I see no way that those spreading that vs. keeping their mouths shut come out good in this scenario. I'd like to understand how trashing candidates you interview helps you get future candidates to interview. Clearly the only smart thing to do FOR THE UNIVERSITY, is to not comment . And, by the way, Gates had the tact not to respond.

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

I can't keep all the rumors straight. Was it DeCuire that didn't interview well or was it Gates? I can recall the 'Fox nailed the interview' by Knowlton rumor, but don't recall the Gates failed the interview rumor.

---

We had this conversation before. This is what I was telling you. You were confusing Decuire with Gates. It was never said that Decuire blew the interview or threw it. Just that Knowlton liked Fox better. Gates was the one they made this claim about.

As I said above, it makes no sense to bash candidates who interview for your job. That just tells future candidates to stay away.

To be clear, Gates interviewed in a prior search, not the one that ended with Fox.

---

IIRC, it was Shockey or some other "super reliable inside source" that said Gates was not prepared.

---

Highly doubt it was Shocky

Interview results:
do you look like me
do you talk like me
do we know the same people
interview score good

It's often based on pedigree and expectations and has zero to do with candidate ability.

And also, make sure whatever errors we committed with bringing in Theo for possible grooming are not repeated if Dennis doesn't come in as HC.

OaktownBear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

Just wanted to clarify, OTB. Was this Gates interview when we hired Jones or when we hired Fox? Because if his interview was during the most recent cycle when we interviewed Fox, that is definitely the current admin, no? Knowlton hired Fox (an Christ hired Knowlton, if I'm not mistaken). I guess Gates got the Cleveland State job in the same cycle as when we hired Fox, so maybe Gates' interview was a token interview during the Wyking hiring cycle, but I thought his interview was during the most recent cycle.

---

I know it wasn't the Fox cycle.

---

Gates has some fans in this thread from 2017, the wyking hiring...

https://bearinsider.com/forums/3/topics/30755/1

Go!Bears said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

Just wanted to clarify, OTB. Was this Gates interview when we hired Jones or when we hired Fox? Because if his interview was during the most recent cycle when we interviewed Fox, that is definitely the current admin, no? Knowlton hired Fox (an Christ hired Knowlton, if I'm not mistaken). I guess Gates got the Cleveland State job in the same cycle as when we hired Fox, so maybe Gates' interview was a token interview during the Wyking hiring cycle, but I thought his interview was during the most recent cycle.

---

I know it wasn't the Fox cycle.

---

Gates has some fans in this thread from 2017, the wyking hiring...

https://bearinsider.com/forums/3/topics/30755/1

---

It's interesting to re-read this thread. It's like reading the obituary of the Cal Men's Basketball program.

Lots of people used to post on this board...many familiar names. Now scattered to the wind because of people like Mike Williams.

Cleveland State has an excellent record this season, but it's not the best in their history. Take a look at their records in the mid-1980s under Kevin Mackey, which included a run to the Sweet 16 in 1986 (when they won 29 games). It all came crashing down, including as a result of Mackey getting arrested while driving under the influence (testing showed traces of cocaine in his system). I think later cleaned up those personal problems.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sheki said:

---

I know he doesn't interview well...but he's won back to back conference coach of the year awards. We need a new sheriff.

---

I never understand why people take self serving information and rumors from inside the Cal administration at face value. I don't have much access to insiders and even I have caught them in things that were misinformation. And I know those who are big enough donors will say I just don't know the real story and they will believe who they think are there friends. Sorry. Was burned enough for too many years.

They were never going to hire Dennis Gates. They thought he was too young and inexperienced. They had some pressure from important enough sources to interview and consider him. So people who didn't want to interview him interviewed him and had to report back some reason he was being totally dismissed from consideration.

Dennis Gates is an extremely intelligent man. He interviews publicly very well. He apparently interviewed well enough at Cleveland State to get the job which makes one wonder about the claims about how poorly he interview with us as they made it sound like he came in with mustard on his tie and drooled during the interview.

My guess is that his poor interview had nothing to do with him. I could see one of three likely scenarios:

1. People who didn't want to interview him patronized him, made it clear from the get go he wasn't getting the job and he figured that out early and interviewed accordingly.

2. People who wanted him to fail the interview saw what they wanted

3. People who wanted him to fail the interview didn't see what they wanted but reported back to their sources to get them to back off.

He had no incentive to throw the interview even if he didn't want the job.

In any case, maybe he had a bad interview. It's possible. But our only evidence that he is a poor interview is a couple of Cal people at one interview who had plenty of self serving reasons to say he was a bad interview. And in any case, spreading that rumor EVEN IF TRUE, about anyone, let alone a distinguished member of the Cal basketball community, possibly hurting his future prospects, was a complete asshat maneuver and I see no way that those spreading that vs. keeping their mouths shut come out good in this scenario. I'd like to understand how trashing candidates you interview helps you get future candidates to interview. Clearly the only smart thing to do FOR THE UNIVERSITY, is to not comment . And, by the way, Gates had the tact not to respond.

So I would challenge why anyone believes he is a poor interview. And to be clear, I don't care whether we consider him or not. I don't think going to Cal makes one more qualified to coach here. What bothers me is a guy who was a great representative of everything a Cal student athlete is supposed to be given shade by our (to be clear past) administration and Cal fans so easily believing the shade.

---

I can't keep all the rumors straight. Was it DeCuire that didn't interview well or was it Gates? I can recall the 'Fox nailed the interview' by Knowlton rumor, but don't recall the Gates failed the interview rumor.

---

We had this conversation before. This is what I was telling you. You were confusing Decuire with Gates. It was never said that Decuire blew the interview or threw it. Just that Knowlton liked Fox better. Gates was the one they made this claim about.

As I said above, it makes no sense to bash candidates who interview for your job. That just tells future candidates to stay away.

To be clear, Gates interviewed in a prior search, not the one that ended with Fox.

---

Thanks. That was when we hired Jones.

UrsineMaximus said:

---

Gates' team had a team GPA of 3.43 this year. Nine players made the Fall Academic Honor Roll. Eight made the Dean's List and one made the President's List.

Gates may not be at CSU for very long.

---

We are going to miss our window with him.

bipolarbear said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

Gates' team had a team GPA of 3.43 this year. Nine players made the Fall Academic Honor Roll. Eight made the Dean's List and one made the President's List.

Gates may not be at CSU for very long.

---

We are going to miss our window with him.

---

I am generally in the 'give him a chance' camp. My thinking is that success at Cal is a slow build, requiring someone who will stay as opportunities come when the coach surprisingly produces a winner 'at Cal, of all places!' But... at this point I think we take a flyer and shoot for the moon. I think Fox has shown he will slowly lead us to mediocrity. Nothing more, and so we will fire him in a couple years. What do we have to lose? Fire him now and take a chance on someone with more risk, but more reward. If it doesn't work, we are at about the same place... new coach three years from now. All we need is the buy out money...

Go!Bears said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

Gates' team had a team GPA of 3.43 this year. Nine players made the Fall Academic Honor Roll. Eight made the Dean's List and one made the President's List.

Gates may not be at CSU for very long.

---

We are going to miss our window with him.

---

I am generally in the 'give him a chance' camp. My thinking is that success at Cal is a slow build, requiring someone who will stay as opportunities come when the coach surprisingly produces a winner 'at Cal, of all places!' But... at this point I think we take a flyer and shoot for the moon. I think Fox has shown he will slowly lead us to mediocrity. Nothing more, and so we will fire him in a couple years. What do we have to lose? Fire him now and take a chance on someone with more risk, but more reward. If it doesn't work, we are at about the same place... new coach three years from now. All we need is the buy out money...

---

Unless we negotiated a lump sum buy-out with Wyking Jones, we will still be paying him through next season. We are one of the few schools who can't even get a dedicated practice facility for basketball: What are the chances we'll be paying buy-outs for two basketball coaches at the same time (plus the salary for new one)? Not gonna happen.

My hope right now is that Fox can elevate the program somewhat, in the short-term, and then we'll see where we're at in a year. Meanwhile, Knowlton better be doing a lot of groundwork. For example, would he even RECOGNIZE the name Dennis Gates right now? Sadly, I kind of doubt it.

Big C said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

bipolarbear said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

Gates' team had a team GPA of 3.43 this year. Nine players made the Fall Academic Honor Roll. Eight made the Dean's List and one made the President's List.

Gates may not be at CSU for very long.

---

We are going to miss our window with him.

---

I am generally in the 'give him a chance' camp. My thinking is that success at Cal is a slow build, requiring someone who will stay as opportunities come when the coach surprisingly produces a winner 'at Cal, of all places!' But... at this point I think we take a flyer and shoot for the moon. I think Fox has shown he will slowly lead us to mediocrity. Nothing more, and so we will fire him in a couple years. What do we have to lose? Fire him now and take a chance on someone with more risk, but more reward. If it doesn't work, we are at about the same place... new coach three years from now. All we need is the buy out money...

---

Unless we negotiated a lump sum buy-out with Wyking Jones, we will still be paying him through next season. We are one of the few schools who can't even get a dedicated practice facility for basketball: What are the chances we'll be paying buy-outs for two basketball coaches at the same time (plus the salary for new one)? Not gonna happen.

My hope right now is that Fox can elevate the program somewhat, in the short-term, and then we'll see where we're at in a year. Meanwhile, Knowlton better be doing a lot of groundwork. For example, would he even RECOGNIZE the name Dennis Gates right now? Sadly, I kind of doubt it.

---

Assuming Bradley and Kelly come back and Celestine or someone else plays better than Betley we will be moderately improved next year. Making it to .500 in conference on that basis is a stretch, but a winning overall record and NIT is conceivable. However, the year after without Bradley and Kelly is the big question. It would be a shame if we get a bump from a senior lead team, extend Fox's contract, lose out on Gates and then fall back to last place again.

I remember two things about Gates when he was at Cal.
1) He was a very good defender
2) For someone who had limited offensive skills, he shot too much. Shooting too much when you have limited offensive skills suggests you are not team-oriented.
3) Becoming more team-oriented is a mind-set you may or may not acquire as you age.
4) Someone needs to research whether or not Gates had the advantage of having superior players in his conference or whether his superior coaching optimized average or even below-average players in his conference.
5) The mark of a good coach is the ability to win consistently without the benefit of superior players...think Don Shula..Bill Walsh..Pete Newell...

Dear Lifer: I saw the game too. I yelled at braun the whole damn game so loudly I was speechless for two years. ******* IT----DOUBLE TEAM HIM!!!!!!!!Nope----wouldn't be prudent....We really lost the game earlier...Whethers was not called for walking as he sank a shot at the buzzer. ( He walked).

Go!Bears said:

---

What do we have to lose? Fire him now and take a chance on someone with more risk, but more reward. If it doesn't work, we are at about the same place... new coach three years from now. All we need is the buy out money...

---

If Knowelton had that mindset he would have gone that route 2 years ago. I'm guessing there is a very slim chance of that happening now.

Overall record is 27-28 over a two-year period. Small-sample-size from a c+ conference. Dynamic, driven personality who will need more seasoning in the salt and pepper league to assess his suitability in the major leagues. At this point he may be a boom or bust candidate. I still focus on his shooting too much while at Cal. Key question---what doers braun privately think ??Only his family knows...

Civil Bear said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

What do we have to lose? Fire him now and take a chance on someone with more risk, but more reward. If it doesn't work, we are at about the same place... new coach three years from now. All we need is the buy out money...

---

If Knowelton had that mindset he would have gone that route 2 years ago. I'm guessing there is a very slim chance of that happening now.

---

Agreed. The search firm delivered exactly what Knowlton asked for: a guy who had "experience" in a P5 conference. It was likely an overreaction to all of us being unhappy with Wyking and his lack of experience. I guess maybe Knowlton tries for an up and comer in a year or two if he finds out fans and donors are not happy with Fox and want that instead. In the end he will go whichever way the wind blows to keep his $700,000 a year job.

Dennis Gates is basically an assistant coach with just 2 years as a head coach in a conference at least a couple of cuts below the PAC12. He may have overachieved in his first year, even with a losing record. He had a very good 2nd season, and overall has a .500 record.

As an assistant coach, Wyking Jones had more to recommend him for the Cal head coach job than does Gates, on paper, that is. Gates has been an assistant coach for 17 years, and Jones was an assistant for 13 years, but Jones coached at higher level conferences, and more tournament teams and for better head coaches than did Gates.

I am very skeptical of hiring anyone to be Cal's coach, if they don't have at least 5-10 years as a head coach in a decent conference. I don't think we should have such a low opinion of Cal that we have to settle for anything less, and I really don't like the idea of hiring an assistant coach to his first head coaching job. Wyking Jones should have taught us a lesson of going down that road. Besides Cal has had no success hiring assistant coaches to the Cal head coaching job. Rene Herrerias, Jim Padgett, and Dick Kuchen were all hired with never being a head coach at the college level, and they all fared poorly at Cal. Todd Bozeman had been an assistant at Cal, and gave us some thrills before he ran the program into the toilet as our head coach. Our only successful head coaches were head coaches in their previous jobs: Newell, Campanelli, Braun, Montgomery, and Martin had all been head coaches at other schools before they were offered the Cal head coach job. Even Nibs Price had been the head football coach at Cal before he became the head basketball coach, I believe.

Gates has very little experience as a head coach, compared to any of the men I mentioned above. It is so different running a ship than just working with players to improve their individual skills, or running drills or scrimmages, or scouting or breaking down tape, etc.

The reason I was not in the Travis DeCuire camp was that he had never been a head coach at the D1 level, only an assistant. He had a few years under Monty as associate head coach, whatever that means. Travis now has had that experience as head coach at Montana, and he has a record of 8 seasons there as good or better than a lot of big name D1 coaches who had coached Montana: Mike Montgomery, Larry Kristowiak, Wayne Tinkle, Jud Heathcote, and Blaine Taylor. I'd be much more likely now to support DeCuire than Dennis Gates, as much as I liked Gates when he played at Cal.

Gates needs more head coaching experience to be qualified for the Cal job. I am curious how so many of you are so ready to throw Mark Fox under the bus ASAP, after only 2 years on the job, and at the same time, you are so willing hire Dennis Gates to be the Cal head coach, with so little information to go on. He has had only 2 years in a head coaching job, in a conference not close to the level of the one Fox is now coaching in.

If you want to change coaches, fine, but please get one with 5-10 years experience as a head coach, and let's not be looking at assistant coaches. I don't think the "window" on Gates will close any time soon, but I do think the window on DeCuire might be closing.

helltopay1 said:

---

I remember two things about Gates when he was at Cal.
1) He was a very good defender
2) For someone who had limited offensive skills, he shot too much. Shooting too much when you have limited offensive skills suggests you are not team-oriented.
3) Becoming more team-oriented is a mind-set you may or may not acquire as you age.
4) Someone needs to research whether or not Gates had the advantage of having superior players in his conference or whether his superior coaching optimized average or even below-average players in his conference.
5) The mark of a good coach is the ability to win consistently without the benefit of superior players...think Don Shula..Bill Walsh..Pete Newell...

---

I agree with all of this. One reason I like Travis DeCuire is that he was a point guard, a pass-first point guard, who set the Montana career record for assists, and averaged 7.1 assists as a senior. I don't know how he coaches, but I figure he understands PG position.

helltopay1 said:

---

I remember two things about Gates when he was at Cal.
1) He was a very good defender
2) For someone who had limited offensive skills, he shot too much. Shooting too much when you have limited offensive skills suggests you are not team-oriented.
3) Becoming more team-oriented is a mind-set you may or may not acquire as you age.
4) Someone needs to research whether or not Gates had the advantage of having superior players in his conference or whether his superior coaching optimized average or even below-average players in his conference.
5) The mark of a good coach is the ability to win consistently without the benefit of superior players...think Don Shula..Bill Walsh..Pete Newell...

---

Glad I'm not the only one who remembers that Gates used to love hoisting up shots, with minimal return on investment. I used to groan when he'd shoot, but I guess he wasn't listening to me.

SFCity, okay, so Gates only has two years as a HC now, but maybe we're not ready to make a change for another year or two, and by that time...

Totally agree about these long-time assistants that have never run their own program (and you gave some great examples). However, I think 2-4 years as a HC is meaningful... if the guy can coach

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

I remember two things about Gates when he was at Cal.
1) He was a very good defender
2) For someone who had limited offensive skills, he shot too much. Shooting too much when you have limited offensive skills suggests you are not team-oriented.
3) Becoming more team-oriented is a mind-set you may or may not acquire as you age.
4) Someone needs to research whether or not Gates had the advantage of having superior players in his conference or whether his superior coaching optimized average or even below-average players in his conference.
5) The mark of a good coach is the ability to win consistently without the benefit of superior players...think Don Shula..Bill Walsh..Pete Newell...

---

Glad I'm not the only one who remembers that Gates used to love hoisting up shots, with minimal return on investment. I used to groan when he'd shoot, but I guess he wasn't listening to me.

SFCity, okay, so Gates only has two years as a HC now, but maybe we're not ready to make a change for another year or two, and by that time...

Totally agree about these long-time assistants that have never run their own program (and you gave some great examples). However, I think 2-4 years as a HC is meaningful... if the guy can coach

---

I agree. If a guy turns around a program quickly he is a good HC. Other guys take longer to figure it out, some never do.

SFCityBear said:

---

It is so different running a ship than just working with players to improve their individual skills, or running drills or scrimmages, or scouting or breaking down tape, etc.

---

Pretty much this. A collegiate head coach is like a HC and GM rolled into one, it is a huge step up for an AC and not a job that many are cut out for.

DePaul could be looking for a new coach. Dave Leitao's second stint is not working out. If the AD is smart he gives a long, hard look at Gates, the Chicago native, to revitalize the program.

SFCityBear said:

---

Dennis Gates is basically an assistant coach with just 2 years as a head coach in a conference at least a couple of cuts below the PAC12. He may have overachieved in his first year, even with a losing record. He had a very good 2nd season, and overall has a .500 record.

As an assistant coach, Wyking Jones had more to recommend him for the Cal head coach job than does Gates, on paper, that is. Gates has been an assistant coach for 17 years, and Jones was an assistant for 13 years, but Jones coached at higher level conferences, and more tournament teams and for better head coaches than did Gates.

I am very skeptical of hiring anyone to be Cal's coach, if they don't have at least 5-10 years as a head coach in a decent conference. I don't think we should have such a low opinion of Cal that we have to settle for anything less, and I really don't like the idea of hiring an assistant coach to his first head coaching job. Wyking Jones should have taught us a lesson of going down that road. Besides Cal has had no success hiring assistant coaches to the Cal head coaching job. Rene Herrerias, Jim Padgett, and Dick Kuchen were all hired with never being a head coach at the college level, and they all fared poorly at Cal. Todd Bozeman had been an assistant at Cal, and gave us some thrills before he ran the program into the toilet as our head coach. Our only successful head coaches were head coaches in their previous jobs: Newell, Campanelli, Braun, Montgomery, and Martin had all been head coaches at other schools before they were offered the Cal head coach job. Even Nibs Price had been the head football coach at Cal before he became the head basketball coach, I believe.

Gates has very little experience as a head coach, compared to any of the men I mentioned above. It is so different running a ship than just working with players to improve their individual skills, or running drills or scrimmages, or scouting or breaking down tape, etc.

The reason I was not in the Travis DeCuire camp was that he had never been a head coach at the D1 level, only an assistant. He had a few years under Monty as associate head coach, whatever that means. Travis now has had that experience as head coach at Montana, and he has a record of 8 seasons there as good or better than a lot of big name D1 coaches who had coached Montana: Mike Montgomery, Larry Kristowiak, Wayne Tinkle, Jud Heathcote, and Blaine Taylor. I'd be much more likely now to support DeCuire than Dennis Gates, as much as I liked Gates when he played at Cal.

Gates needs more head coaching experience to be qualified for the Cal job. I am curious how so many of you are so ready to throw Mark Fox under the bus ASAP, after only 2 years on the job, and at the same time, you are so willing hire Dennis Gates to be the Cal head coach, with so little information to go on. He has had only 2 years in a head coaching job, in a conference not close to the level of the one Fox is now coaching in.

If you want to change coaches, fine, but please get one with 5-10 years experience as a head coach, and let's not be looking at assistant coaches. I don't think the "window" on Gates will close any time soon, but I do think the window on DeCuire might be closing.

---

I'm not specifically arguing for Gates as I have not followed his career, but I think you are being unrealistic here.

Cal pays one of the lowest salaries in any power conference. Our program is not well supported. We will never have a fan base or alumni base that is as rabid about basketball as most other power conferences. Unless we find our own Phil Knight, we don't have a donor base willing to invest in basketball as much as many others. All my life I've seen Cal sports fans talk about what Cal should be. It hasn't changed in my lifetime. Cal has never been willing to invest what others will since the era of big money and big television began.

What Cal will do is bring in a coach at a reasonably low salary figure and invest more if they achieve success and that success gets a fan response. They did that with Tedford. They did that with the Campanelli/Bozeman era. And to be clear on the latter, Campanelli was a more proven coaching commodity, but he never would have gotten the program to a point where there would be heavy investment without Bozeman's recruiting. (Or whatever you want to call what Bozeman was doing to get players here)

What that means is that Cal needs to take some chances on guys that others will not. Every coach Cal hires is going to be someone that either few power conference teams want or that has a particular affinity for the Cal job. Monty was a massive outlier. He wanted to return to coaching, stay in the Bay Area, be in a power conference, and not start again at Stanford. It was pretty much Cal or nothing. That isn't walking in the door again.

My issue with hiring a coach with a profile like Fox's is not that he will be worse than a Decuire or a Gates. It is he had his chance at this level and his results were not acceptable. Like in all things, when people move up a level, some step up and are able to succeed and some can't. Fox was a great hire for Georgia. The record he had at Nevada made him absolutely worth seeing if he could step up to the next level. But he got that chance. For 9 years. He didn't step up. I would absolutely hire him for a mid major program. There is too much evidence that he will not translate to a power conference program. There is specifically way too much evidence he can't meaningfully impact recruiting

Decuire and Gates on paper are no better than Fox the day he left Nevada. Gates is clearly not as proven. But they haven't had their shot to step up yet. That is the big unknown. How they will respond. With Fox, it isn't an unknown anymore. With Fox the only thing you have to hang your hat on is change of scenery.

With Cal's strategy, hiring a coach is always a crapshoot. So, frankly, I think the strategy has got to change to a if you are going to fail, fail fast strategy to maximize dice rolls. Hiring a retread and giving them 5 or more years to see if they turn things around does not maximize your chances. Hire young and cheap with a contract you can get out of and see if the young prospect develops.

That is not the strategy I would employ everywhere, but we have got to stop strategizing as if we are not Cal. Billy Beane can't act like he is gm of the Yankees and say his strategy would work if A's ownership paid more or if the A's had 30k people at their games instead of 10k. He has to do what works best with an owner that is the stingiest around because that is his reality.

Or to use another analogy, you don't get rich on poorly performing utility stocks. You don't get rich on okay performing, safe blue chip stocks unless you are already rich. You get rich by being earlier than the market in identifying an innovative but risky company that you put your money in because you have done the research to believe in them. Cal doesn't have money. Cal has access to brilliant and successful people. They should be using that access to find those innovative coaches on the way up.

The problem is that while Cal has a brilliant faculty and a brilliant student body and brilliant alums, at least for my entire association they have had an administration that performs like it collectively has half the IQ of a lobotomized DMV lifer.

OaktownBear said:

---

... The problem is that while Cal has a brilliant faculty and a brilliant student body and brilliant alums, at least for my entire association they have had an administration that performs like it collectively has half the IQ of a lobotomized DMV lifer.

---

If there were no DMV I'd hate standing in line at the grocery checkout.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Dennis Gates is basically an assistant coach with just 2 years as a head coach in a conference at least a couple of cuts below the PAC12. He may have overachieved in his first year, even with a losing record. He had a very good 2nd season, and overall has a .500 record.

As an assistant coach, Wyking Jones had more to recommend him for the Cal head coach job than does Gates, on paper, that is. Gates has been an assistant coach for 17 years, and Jones was an assistant for 13 years, but Jones coached at higher level conferences, and more tournament teams and for better head coaches than did Gates.

I am very skeptical of hiring anyone to be Cal's coach, if they don't have at least 5-10 years as a head coach in a decent conference. I don't think we should have such a low opinion of Cal that we have to settle for anything less, and I really don't like the idea of hiring an assistant coach to his first head coaching job. Wyking Jones should have taught us a lesson of going down that road. Besides Cal has had no success hiring assistant coaches to the Cal head coaching job. Rene Herrerias, Jim Padgett, and Dick Kuchen were all hired with never being a head coach at the college level, and they all fared poorly at Cal. Todd Bozeman had been an assistant at Cal, and gave us some thrills before he ran the program into the toilet as our head coach. Our only successful head coaches were head coaches in their previous jobs: Newell, Campanelli, Braun, Montgomery, and Martin had all been head coaches at other schools before they were offered the Cal head coach job. Even Nibs Price had been the head football coach at Cal before he became the head basketball coach, I believe.

Gates has very little experience as a head coach, compared to any of the men I mentioned above. It is so different running a ship than just working with players to improve their individual skills, or running drills or scrimmages, or scouting or breaking down tape, etc.

The reason I was not in the Travis DeCuire camp was that he had never been a head coach at the D1 level, only an assistant. He had a few years under Monty as associate head coach, whatever that means. Travis now has had that experience as head coach at Montana, and he has a record of 8 seasons there as good or better than a lot of big name D1 coaches who had coached Montana: Mike Montgomery, Larry Kristowiak, Wayne Tinkle, Jud Heathcote, and Blaine Taylor. I'd be much more likely now to support DeCuire than Dennis Gates, as much as I liked Gates when he played at Cal.

Gates needs more head coaching experience to be qualified for the Cal job. I am curious how so many of you are so ready to throw Mark Fox under the bus ASAP, after only 2 years on the job, and at the same time, you are so willing hire Dennis Gates to be the Cal head coach, with so little information to go on. He has had only 2 years in a head coaching job, in a conference not close to the level of the one Fox is now coaching in.

If you want to change coaches, fine, but please get one with 5-10 years experience as a head coach, and let's not be looking at assistant coaches. I don't think the "window" on Gates will close any time soon, but I do think the window on DeCuire might be closing.

---

I'm not specifically arguing for Gates as I have not followed his career, but I think you are being unrealistic here.

Cal pays one of the lowest salaries in any power conference. Our program is not well supported. We will never have a fan base or alumni base that is as rabid about basketball as most other power conferences. Unless we find our own Phil Knight, we don't have a donor base willing to invest in basketball as much as many others. All my life I've seen Cal sports fans talk about what Cal should be. It hasn't changed in my lifetime. Cal has never been willing to invest what others will since the era of big money and big television began.

What Cal will do is bring in a coach at a reasonably low salary figure and invest more if they achieve success and that success gets a fan response. They did that with Tedford. They did that with the Campanelli/Bozeman era. And to be clear on the latter, Campanelli was a more proven coaching commodity, but he never would have gotten the program to a point where there would be heavy investment without Bozeman's recruiting. (Or whatever you want to call what Bozeman was doing to get players here)

What that means is that Cal needs to take some chances on guys that others will not. Every coach Cal hires is going to be someone that either few power conference teams want or that has a particular affinity for the Cal job. Monty was a massive outlier. He wanted to return to coaching, stay in the Bay Area, be in a power conference, and not start again at Stanford. It was pretty much Cal or nothing. That isn't walking in the door again.

My issue with hiring a coach with a profile like Fox's is not that he will be worse than a Decuire or a Gates. It is he had his chance at this level and his results were not acceptable. Like in all things, when people move up a level, some step up and are able to succeed and some can't. Fox was a great hire for Georgia. The record he had at Nevada made him absolutely worth seeing if he could step up to the next level. But he got that chance. For 9 years. He didn't step up. I would absolutely hire him for a mid major program. There is too much evidence that he will not translate to a power conference program. There is specifically way too much evidence he can't meaningfully impact recruiting

Decuire and Gates on paper are no better than Fox the day he left Nevada. Gates is clearly not as proven. But they haven't had their shot to step up yet. That is the big unknown. How they will respond. With Fox, it isn't an unknown anymore. With Fox the only thing you have to hang your hat on is change of scenery.

With Cal's strategy, hiring a coach is always a crapshoot. So, frankly, I think the strategy has got to change to a if you are going to fail, fail fast strategy to maximize dice rolls. Hiring a retread and giving them 5 or more years to see if they turn things around does not maximize your chances. Hire young and cheap with a contract you can get out of and see if the young prospect develops.

That is not the strategy I would employ everywhere, but we have got to stop strategizing as if we are not Cal. Billy Beane can't act like he is gm of the Yankees and say his strategy would work if A's ownership paid more or if the A's had 30k people at their games instead of 10k. He has to do what works best with an owner that is the stingiest around because that is his reality.

Or to use another analogy, you don't get rich on poorly performing utility stocks. You don't get rich on okay performing, safe blue chip stocks unless you are already rich. You get rich by being earlier than the market in identifying an innovative but risky company that you put your money in because you have done the research to believe in them. Cal doesn't have money. Cal has access to brilliant and successful people. They should be using that access to find those innovative coaches on the way up.

The problem is that while Cal has a brilliant faculty and a brilliant student body and brilliant alums, at least for my entire association they have had an administration that performs like it collectively has half the IQ of a lobotomized DMV lifer.

---

Agreed - It will come down the major donors putting up enough money to cover the required package - namely a 5 year deal for $15M+. Alternative is an experienced head coach with very good results, who knows Cal process well, sees Cal as his dream job and is a tireless recruiter. Joe Pasternak fits that box. However Coach Fox is set with Cal for the next 2 seasons (baring a complete fold as in this season results etc). Bottom line unfortunately while we do have some passionate basketball supporters, we don't have enough people willing to donate substantial monies. I know as I frequently am approached for all sorts of projects. I enjoy reading the thread and the various viewpoints.

OaktownBear said:

---

My issue with hiring a coach with a profile like Fox's is not that he will be worse than a Decuire or a Gates. It is he had his chance at this level and his results were not acceptable. Like in all things, when people move up a level, some step up and are able to succeed and some can't. Fox was a great hire for Georgia. The record he had at Nevada made him absolutely worth seeing if he could step up to the next level. But he got that chance. For 9 years. He didn't step up. I would absolutely hire him for a mid major program. There is too much evidence that he will not translate to a power conference program. There is specifically way too much evidence he can't meaningfully impact recruiting

---

Overall excellent post, but the bolded part above is particularly relevant to the next 12 months (NOT THREE YEARS). I don't think Fox should be replaced with anyone following the Covid season. Just poor optics for a program that needs to look attractive to potential coaches. But he is at his last chance and years 1 and 2 didn't demonstrate that the program is dramatically improving.

Next season, FOX really needs to show me something that indicates that he has grown or adapted or found a rabbit's foot or something. Getting to mid conference and near the bubble is simply the shiny side of the coin that OTB describes above. For me something special includes:

Project players like K2, Lars, Thorpe, Klonaras need to show dramatic improvement next season.
Bradley needs to be Bradley and Anticevich, Kelly, Brown, Hyder, need to be consistent P12 starter level players.
'21/'22 Frosh need to be better than the last few years Frosh.
'22/'23 Recruits need to better than the last few years Recruits.

Not impossible - and many coaches in P5 do it every season (absolutely vs relatively). But this would likely be Fox's best coaching season since leaving Nevada. For me, that justifies letting his contract continue* - otherwise, just more evidence that something like that will never happen and time to move on.

*To see if years 4 and 5 are continued improvement over year 3 or just a one season rabbits foot. If we make NCAA in year 3 and past first weekend in year 4 or 5 - then I would think FOX has changed. I really hope that happens, but I'm not betting on it.