NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Nice to get a conflicting opinion. But for the sake of conversation, didn't you notice that offensively the players really had a sense of purpose when interacting with the ball. It seemed instantaneous to me, as far as when to pass and when to move to the open spot. As opposed to watching Cal when the majority of the time, their offense seems so much more reactionary, every movement is just a split second delayed. The difference really stood out to me.

---

Yeah, I agree that compared to Cal the offense looked to have more purpose/intention. I think you're right.

But I'm skeptical of what my eyes from two games tell me, especially when comparing to Cal. I admit I have virtually no knowledge of the Horizon League, but based on what little research I've done, Cleveland State plays with a rotation of basically only juniors and seniors. I'm guessing not only does Cleveland State have more experienced players than a lot of the conference, but also more talented/athletic as opposed to Cal, which is probably the least talented/athletic team in the Pac-12. So, again, I'm not sure how much we should be comparing Cleveland State/Gates to Cal/Fox.

Since I haven't watched much beyond two games, I'd point more to the advanced stats. Cleveland State's offensive efficiency ranks No. 201 in KenPom (Cal's is No. 164), but their defense ranks No. 121 compared to Cal's No. 177). Looking at Horizon League-only games, Cleveland State had the conference's sixth-best offense, according to KenPom, and the second-best defense. Cleveland State also had two players make the league's all-defensive team, including the defensive player of the year.

---

Gates inherited a team that was 5-13 in conference, had lost 21 games in 4 straight seasons, and had a team GPA of 2.3. This year they are 16-4 in conference with a team GPA of 3.3. The athletic director said when he came in, half of the roster was in the transfer portal.

It is hard for me to believe that the team with that profile has the better players in the conference vs. being coached up. But if they do, that is an amazing job by Gates. 3 of his top 4 minutes per game players are in their first or second year (true they are juniors and seniors but they are transfers and Gates' guys). This is not a case where he inherited an experienced team that has been playing together for 4 years.

---

You kind of argue against yourself here. Without doing too much roster research, I'd say having half of the roster that went 5-13 in conference isn't much of a loss.

Here are the major contributors on this year's team:

Torrey Patton (Senior, played one year at Akron, then Indian Hills Junior College before joining Gates)
Tre Gomillion (Junior, played one year at Gordon State College before joining Gates)
D'Moi Hodge (Junior, played two years at State College of Florida before joining Gates this year)
Craig Beaudion (Senior, played two years at Colby Community College before joining Gates)
Algevon Eichelberger (Senior, played one year at DePaul before transferring before Gates was coach)
Deante Johnson (Junior, has played all years at Cleveland State, was on roster before Gates was coach)
Alec Oglesby (Frosh)
Jayson Woodrich (Frosh)
Yahel Hill (Junior, played two seasons at Tallahassee Community College before joining this year)

So, yeah, only two players already on the roster were already in place when Gates took over. As you can see, his main contributors/most production comes from the JuCo route.

I'm not saying Gates hasn't built an impressive roster or team or he isn't a good coach. He's clearly done and is all of those things. His name is going to be tied to many coaching vacancies this off-season. I'm saying Gates is still a risk for many power conference programs as it's a lot easier to pluck JuCo dudes that can play well in the Horizon League versus recruiting elite high schoolers into a power conference school. It's the risk you're always going to take by moving up a mid-major coach with little experience to a power conference school. There's no guarantee it works.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Nice to get a conflicting opinion. But for the sake of conversation, didn't you notice that offensively the players really had a sense of purpose when interacting with the ball. It seemed instantaneous to me, as far as when to pass and when to move to the open spot. As opposed to watching Cal when the majority of the time, their offense seems so much more reactionary, every movement is just a split second delayed. The difference really stood out to me.

---

Yeah, I agree that compared to Cal the offense looked to have more purpose/intention. I think you're right.

But I'm skeptical of what my eyes from two games tell me, especially when comparing to Cal. I admit I have virtually no knowledge of the Horizon League, but based on what little research I've done, Cleveland State plays with a rotation of basically only juniors and seniors. I'm guessing not only does Cleveland State have more experienced players than a lot of the conference, but also more talented/athletic as opposed to Cal, which is probably the least talented/athletic team in the Pac-12. So, again, I'm not sure how much we should be comparing Cleveland State/Gates to Cal/Fox.

Since I haven't watched much beyond two games, I'd point more to the advanced stats. Cleveland State's offensive efficiency ranks No. 201 in KenPom (Cal's is No. 164), but their defense ranks No. 121 compared to Cal's No. 177). Looking at Horizon League-only games, Cleveland State had the conference's sixth-best offense, according to KenPom, and the second-best defense. Cleveland State also had two players make the league's all-defensive team, including the defensive player of the year.

---

Gates inherited a team that was 5-13 in conference, had lost 21 games in 4 straight seasons, and had a team GPA of 2.3. This year they are 16-4 in conference with a team GPA of 3.3. The athletic director said when he came in, half of the roster was in the transfer portal.

It is hard for me to believe that the team with that profile has the better players in the conference vs. being coached up. But if they do, that is an amazing job by Gates. 3 of his top 4 minutes per game players are in their first or second year (true they are juniors and seniors but they are transfers and Gates' guys). This is not a case where he inherited an experienced team that has been playing together for 4 years.

---

You kind of argue against yourself here. Without doing too much roster research, I'd say having half of the roster that went 5-13 in conference isn't much of a loss.

Here are the major contributors on this year's team:

Torrey Patton (Senior, played one year at Akron, then Indian Hills Junior College before joining Gates)
Tre Gomillion (Junior, played one year at Gordon State College before joining Gates)
D'Moi Hodge (Junior, played two years at State College of Florida before joining Gates this year)
Craig Beaudion (Senior, played two years at Colby Community College before joining Gates)
Algevon Eichelberger (Senior, played one year at DePaul before transferring before Gates was coach)
Deante Johnson (Junior, has played all years at Cleveland State, was on roster before Gates was coach)
Alec Oglesby (Frosh)
Jayson Woodrich (Frosh)
Yahel Hill (Junior, played two seasons at Tallahassee Community College before joining this year)

So, yeah, only two players already on the roster were already in place when Gates took over. As you can see, his main contributors/most production comes from the JuCo route.

I'm not saying Gates hasn't built an impressive roster or team or he isn't a good coach. He's clearly done and is all of those things. His name is going to be tied to many coaching vacancies this off-season. I'm saying Gates is still a risk for many power conference programs as it's a lot easier to pluck JuCo dudes that can play well in the Horizon League versus recruiting elite high schoolers into a power conference school. It's the risk you're always going to take by moving up a mid-major coach with little experience to a power conference school. There's no guarantee it works.

---

I don't see how I am arguing against myself. He inherited an incredibly awful roster. I doubt that in his second year he has been able to assemble a roster that goes from weakest in the league to best. But if you are correct and he has, that was an amazing job. And assembling a talented, cohesive roster is at least half the job

What he lost is irrelevant. What he had is relevant. So he had a roster leftover from 4 straight 21 loss teams and even out of that half left. So he started with virtually nothing

---

Jeff82 said:

---

The issue with Gates is the issue that always occurs, can he recruit at a successful level for a Power 5 school, especially one like Cal where there are challenges because of the entrance/academic requirements.

---

Quote:

---

You said (referencing the article) that half the roster was in the transfer portal, yet you also say he "inherited an incredibly awful roster." I'm not sure how both of those things can exist unless by "incredibly awful roster" you mean basically a non-existent one.

---

Quote:

---

And I don't agree with your last point. He built a roster in a way that clearly works at Cleveland State and in the Horizon League, but that model doesn't necessarily translate to Cal or the Pac-12. It could. But, again, that's the risk with a mid-major coach with only two years of head coaching experience.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Nice to get a conflicting opinion. But for the sake of conversation, didn't you notice that offensively the players really had a sense of purpose when interacting with the ball. It seemed instantaneous to me, as far as when to pass and when to move to the open spot. As opposed to watching Cal when the majority of the time, their offense seems so much more reactionary, every movement is just a split second delayed. The difference really stood out to me.

---

Yeah, I agree that compared to Cal the offense looked to have more purpose/intention. I think you're right.

But I'm skeptical of what my eyes from two games tell me, especially when comparing to Cal. I admit I have virtually no knowledge of the Horizon League, but based on what little research I've done, Cleveland State plays with a rotation of basically only juniors and seniors. I'm guessing not only does Cleveland State have more experienced players than a lot of the conference, but also more talented/athletic as opposed to Cal, which is probably the least talented/athletic team in the Pac-12. So, again, I'm not sure how much we should be comparing Cleveland State/Gates to Cal/Fox.

Since I haven't watched much beyond two games, I'd point more to the advanced stats. Cleveland State's offensive efficiency ranks No. 201 in KenPom (Cal's is No. 164), but their defense ranks No. 121 compared to Cal's No. 177). Looking at Horizon League-only games, Cleveland State had the conference's sixth-best offense, according to KenPom, and the second-best defense. Cleveland State also had two players make the league's all-defensive team, including the defensive player of the year.

---

Gates inherited a team that was 5-13 in conference, had lost 21 games in 4 straight seasons, and had a team GPA of 2.3. This year they are 16-4 in conference with a team GPA of 3.3. The athletic director said when he came in, half of the roster was in the transfer portal.

It is hard for me to believe that the team with that profile has the better players in the conference vs. being coached up. But if they do, that is an amazing job by Gates. 3 of his top 4 minutes per game players are in their first or second year (true they are juniors and seniors but they are transfers and Gates' guys). This is not a case where he inherited an experienced team that has been playing together for 4 years.

---

You kind of argue against yourself here. Without doing too much roster research, I'd say having half of the roster that went 5-13 in conference isn't much of a loss.

Here are the major contributors on this year's team:

Torrey Patton (Senior, played one year at Akron, then Indian Hills Junior College before joining Gates)
Tre Gomillion (Junior, played one year at Gordon State College before joining Gates)
D'Moi Hodge (Junior, played two years at State College of Florida before joining Gates this year)
Craig Beaudion (Senior, played two years at Colby Community College before joining Gates)
Algevon Eichelberger (Senior, played one year at DePaul before transferring before Gates was coach)
Deante Johnson (Junior, has played all years at Cleveland State, was on roster before Gates was coach)
Alec Oglesby (Frosh)
Jayson Woodrich (Frosh)
Yahel Hill (Junior, played two seasons at Tallahassee Community College before joining this year)

So, yeah, only two players already on the roster were already in place when Gates took over. As you can see, his main contributors/most production comes from the JuCo route.

I'm not saying Gates hasn't built an impressive roster or team or he isn't a good coach. He's clearly done and is all of those things. His name is going to be tied to many coaching vacancies this off-season. I'm saying Gates is still a risk for many power conference programs as it's a lot easier to pluck JuCo dudes that can play well in the Horizon League versus recruiting elite high schoolers into a power conference school. It's the risk you're always going to take by moving up a mid-major coach with little experience to a power conference school. There's no guarantee it works.

---

I don't see how I am arguing against myself. He inherited an incredibly awful roster. I doubt that in his second year he has been able to assemble a roster that goes from weakest in the league to best. But if you are correct and he has, that was an amazing job. And assembling a talented, cohesive roster is at least half the job

What he lost is irrelevant. What he had is relevant. So he had a roster leftover from 4 straight 21 loss teams and even out of that half left. So he started with virtually nothing

---

Let me be more explicit. When Cal fired Tom Holmoe, general consensus was the roster he was leaving was total crap. When Cal was banned from post season, most people laughed saying it wouldn't matter. When Tedford took over we would have gone to a bowl if we weren't banned. It turns out we had several future NFL players on that roster including a couple first round draft picks and some All Pros. The hindsight narrative is that Holmoe left him a great roster.

Coaching makes a difference. You can't just look at a game and say - that side has the better players independent of coaching. So, yes, I seriously doubt a team with 2 contributors and not very big ones at that, that were on the team 2 years ago cobbled together the most talented roster in the conference with transfers by the start of their second season.

Call me dubious on that. I think they may look like that because of coaching just as the same guys who looked like the least talented team in the conference under Holmoe looked very talented one year later under Tedford.

But again, if he went from last to first in talent by the start of his second season, all the more reason he should be hired at the next level.

---

You said (referencing the article) that half the roster was in the transfer portal, yet you also say he "inherited an incredibly awful roster." I'm not sure how both of those things can exist unless by "incredibly awful roster" you mean basically a non-existent one.

And I don't agree with your last point. He built a roster in a way that clearly works at Cleveland State and in the Horizon League, but that model doesn't necessarily translate to Cal or the Pac-12. It could. But, again, that's the risk with a mid-major coach with only two years of head coaching experience.

I'm interested to see if Miami fires Larrangara and potentially looks at Gates considering his recent ties to Florida.

---

Quote:

---

Your last point about Fox is an interesting one as I now wonder what you think his ceiling is. It's interesting to me because I personally never saw Fox as a high-ceiling guy (even after last year). To me, last year was exactly why you hire a coach like Fox. He immediately raises the FLOOR of your program. So, again to me, this year is more concerning from the fact that I thought bringing in Fox would basically keep the floor of Cal's program respectable. It changes nothing about my expectations of ceiling, but it does change my expectations of floor, if that makes sense.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

You said (referencing the article) that half the roster was in the transfer portal, yet you also say he "inherited an incredibly awful roster." I'm not sure how both of those things can exist unless by "incredibly awful roster" you mean basically a non-existent one.

---

I think the point was that the team he inherited went 5-13 in conference the previous year (and 21+ overall), and half of that team was in the transfer portal. So the team had performed extremely poorly and half of them were looking elsewhere.

Now it's certainly possible that it was incredibly talented but undercoached, but I think that's also a bit belied by the fact that the many of the key contributors were people Gates brought in ( based on your list). So through some combination of better coaching and recruiting (both key pillars of the job), Gates has won the conference tournament and made the NCAA tournament in just his second year.

Quote:

---

And I don't agree with your last point. He built a roster in a way that clearly works at Cleveland State and in the Horizon League, but that model doesn't necessarily translate to Cal or the Pac-12. It could. But, again, that's the risk with a mid-major coach with only two years of head coaching experience.

---

That's certainly a valid point. However, Gates is at least aware of the specifics of High-D1 recruiting (from his time at FSU under Hamilton) and is also aware of what it takes to succeed at a place like Cal (or, more correctly, at Cal itself) due to his having played and graduated from here. You could also argue that he understood what recruits he needed to focus on at Cleveland St and has assembled a roster of players who are among the most talented in that league 2 years after arriving, and that he's smart enough to know what types of recruits to target if he were to come to a place like Cal (and how well could he sell them on Cal, having graduated from Cal himself?). But that is a big unknown, I agree.

And I'm definitely guilty of fixating on Gates because of his connection to Cal, but I would have been happy if we had gone with Travis DeCuire, and would still have had less apprehension with Joe Pasternak (tho the Arizona stink gives me a little bit of pause). I was very much hoping that Fox, after settling the team down and showing improvement in year 1, would build on that. But this year has been such a regression that I'm really just down on his ceiling and I don't have much hope that we won't be going through this exercise again (searching for a coach) soon.

---

Yeah, totally. He's done an incredible job of bringing in contributors and coaching them. He's getting national attention for the short work he's done. No doubt there.

To your second point, I think what you point out are his most attractive qualities in a potential fit with Cal, which we've all learned is very important. His time at Cleveland State is cool, but what makes him more intriguing to me for Cal is his time playing and coaching at Cal and all of his years with Hamilton (although, I'm an unabashed Hamilton fanboy).

Your last point about Fox is an interesting one as I now wonder what you think his ceiling is. It's interesting to me because I personally never saw Fox as a high-ceiling guy (even after last year). To me, last year was exactly why you hire a coach like Fox. He immediately raises the FLOOR of your program. So, again to me, this year is more concerning from the fact that I thought bringing in Fox would basically keep the floor of Cal's program respectable. It changes nothing about my expectations of ceiling, but it does change my expectations of floor, if that makes sense.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

The issue with Gates is the issue that always occurs, can he recruit at a successful level for a Power 5 school, especially one like Cal where there are challenges because of the entrance/academic requirements.

---

Mark Few is not coming here. There is an issue with every coach that Cal will be able to hire. The question is do you take a chance on a guy who has done extraordinary things at a lower level or that you might be able to identify through a search process, or do you hire an already unsuccessful retread that a search firm spits out at you.

Gates graduated in 3 years and got accepted into a Cal grad program so he could start his masters under schollie. His team has improved from a 2.3 GPA that he inherited to a 3.3 GPA in 2 years. I think he can manage the academics. The same people who sat across from him and said no chance sat across from Wyking and said that is my guy. Their experience was functionally he same - if anything the length of Jones career without him getting a sniff at a head coaching job was a good indicator that he was not the guy. Let's be honest. If Cal had never hired Jones, no one was ever going to.

---

&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fallergykidsdoc%2Fstatus%2F735182210429489153&tbnid=kMzV_CwpsMbY3M&vet=12ahUKEwixxLqM_qbvAhXM654KHTHNBJ8QMygLegUIARC_AQ..i&docid=psIzL_pmf9IRWM&w=750&h=489&q=caveman%20lawyer&hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwixxLqM_qbvAhXM654KHTHNBJ8QMygLegUIARC_AQNathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Nice to get a conflicting opinion. But for the sake of conversation, didn't you notice that offensively the players really had a sense of purpose when interacting with the ball. It seemed instantaneous to me, as far as when to pass and when to move to the open spot. As opposed to watching Cal when the majority of the time, their offense seems so much more reactionary, every movement is just a split second delayed. The difference really stood out to me.

---

Yeah, I agree that compared to Cal the offense looked to have more purpose/intention. I think you're right.

But I'm skeptical of what my eyes from two games tell me, especially when comparing to Cal. I admit I have virtually no knowledge of the Horizon League, but based on what little research I've done, Cleveland State plays with a rotation of basically only juniors and seniors. I'm guessing not only does Cleveland State have more experienced players than a lot of the conference, but also more talented/athletic as opposed to Cal, which is probably the least talented/athletic team in the Pac-12. So, again, I'm not sure how much we should be comparing Cleveland State/Gates to Cal/Fox.

Since I haven't watched much beyond two games, I'd point more to the advanced stats. Cleveland State's offensive efficiency ranks No. 201 in KenPom (Cal's is No. 164), but their defense ranks No. 121 compared to Cal's No. 177). Looking at Horizon League-only games, Cleveland State had the conference's sixth-best offense, according to KenPom, and the second-best defense. Cleveland State also had two players make the league's all-defensive team, including the defensive player of the year.

---

Gates inherited a team that was 5-13 in conference, had lost 21 games in 4 straight seasons, and had a team GPA of 2.3. This year they are 16-4 in conference with a team GPA of 3.3. The athletic director said when he came in, half of the roster was in the transfer portal.

It is hard for me to believe that the team with that profile has the better players in the conference vs. being coached up. But if they do, that is an amazing job by Gates. 3 of his top 4 minutes per game players are in their first or second year (true they are juniors and seniors but they are transfers and Gates' guys). This is not a case where he inherited an experienced team that has been playing together for 4 years.

---

You kind of argue against yourself here. Without doing too much roster research, I'd say having half of the roster that went 5-13 in conference isn't much of a loss.

Here are the major contributors on this year's team:

Torrey Patton (Senior, played one year at Akron, then Indian Hills Junior College before joining Gates)
Tre Gomillion (Junior, played one year at Gordon State College before joining Gates)
D'Moi Hodge (Junior, played two years at State College of Florida before joining Gates this year)
Craig Beaudion (Senior, played two years at Colby Community College before joining Gates)
Algevon Eichelberger (Senior, played one year at DePaul before transferring before Gates was coach)
Deante Johnson (Junior, has played all years at Cleveland State, was on roster before Gates was coach)
Alec Oglesby (Frosh)
Jayson Woodrich (Frosh)
Yahel Hill (Junior, played two seasons at Tallahassee Community College before joining this year)

So, yeah, only two players already on the roster were already in place when Gates took over. As you can see, his main contributors/most production comes from the JuCo route.

I'm not saying Gates hasn't built an impressive roster or team or he isn't a good coach. He's clearly done and is all of those things. His name is going to be tied to many coaching vacancies this off-season. I'm saying Gates is still a risk for many power conference programs as it's a lot easier to pluck JuCo dudes that can play well in the Horizon League versus recruiting elite high schoolers into a power conference school. It's the risk you're always going to take by moving up a mid-major coach with little experience to a power conference school. There's no guarantee it works.

---

I don't see how I am arguing against myself. He inherited an incredibly awful roster. I doubt that in his second year he has been able to assemble a roster that goes from weakest in the league to best. But if you are correct and he has, that was an amazing job. And assembling a talented, cohesive roster is at least half the job

What he lost is irrelevant. What he had is relevant. So he had a roster leftover from 4 straight 21 loss teams and even out of that half left. So he started with virtually nothing

---

Let me be more explicit. When Cal fired Tom Holmoe, general consensus was the roster he was leaving was total crap. When Cal was banned from post season, most people laughed saying it wouldn't matter. When Tedford took over we would have gone to a bowl if we weren't banned. It turns out we had several future NFL players on that roster including a couple first round draft picks and some All Pros. The hindsight narrative is that Holmoe left him a great roster.

Coaching makes a difference. You can't just look at a game and say - that side has the better players independent of coaching. So, yes, I seriously doubt a team with 2 contributors and not very big ones at that, that were on the team 2 years ago cobbled together the most talented roster in the conference with transfers by the start of their second season.

Call me dubious on that. I think they may look like that because of coaching just as the same guys who looked like the least talented team in the conference under Holmoe looked very talented one year later under Tedford.

But again, if he went from last to first in talent by the start of his second season, all the more reason he should be hired at the next level.

---

You said (referencing the article) that half the roster was in the transfer portal, yet you also say he "inherited an incredibly awful roster." I'm not sure how both of those things can exist unless by "incredibly awful roster" you mean basically a non-existent one.

And I don't agree with your last point. He built a roster in a way that clearly works at Cleveland State and in the Horizon League, but that model doesn't necessarily translate to Cal or the Pac-12. It could. But, again, that's the risk with a mid-major coach with only two years of head coaching experience.

I'm interested to see if Miami fires Larrangara and potentially looks at Gates considering his recent ties to Florida.

---

1. Yes, not having players is an awful roster. But you are frustratingly playing semantics here. You said his players were better and cited a rotation of juniors and seniors. Again if he walked in and had almost no players less than two years ago, and what few he had sucked, and they barely contribute now, how does he have better players than the best teams in his conference today? It is very unlikely and again if he did that it was amazing.

2. I didn't say he would necessarily translate. I said he should be hired by someone at the next level. Everyone in every profession who gets promoted has to prove they can do it at the next level. But people who have done extraordinary things at the level they are at deserve the chance to try. And if you want to actually hire someone who may succeed you have to take chances on people who have had tremendous success where they are. Especially when you aren't offering the best employment package around.

Those of you who are constantly talking about "risk" need a big reminder of the concept of "opportunity cost". When you hire an absolute zero at your level to reduce "risk", you lose, it is effectively like putting your entire portfolio in your checking account at quarter a percent interest because stocks could lose money. You are losing by dooming yourself to get less interest than almost everyone else in the market. Cal is going to sink 5 years into an obvious loser investment.

But, hey, if Cal took a chance on someone like Dennis Gates, we could be in last place right now. Er...last place worse than we are right now?

---

I went to journalism school. Semantics are important. Especially when I'm honestly trying to understand your perspective because I think it's important and interesting.

Just to be clear, I think Gates is a smart hire for a power conference program. But I think that has more to do with his time as an assistant at FSU than his couple of years at Cleveland State.

I'm almost more of a fan of hiring assistants from proven programs than mid-major head coaches. In Gates you get both. But, hey, I also thought Mike Hopkins was a super-smart hire for UW and that has tanked as of late.

---

Quote:

---

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wasn't as impressed. Like you, I watched Cleveland State the last two afternoons (the only Cleveland State games I remember watching in my life). I liked the defensive switching from the zone and more aggressive trapping zone to the man. That trapping zone definitely helped spur the comeback against Milwaukee but from my eyes, Cleveland State had the more talented and athletic team in each game.

---

Quote:

---

Gates inherited a team that was 5-13 in conference, had lost 21 games in 4 straight seasons, and had a team GPA of 2.3. This year they are 16-4 in conference with a team GPA of 3.3. The athletic director said when he came in, half of the roster was in the transfer portal.

It is hard for me to believe that the team with that profile has the better players in the conference vs. being coached up. But if they do, that is an amazing job by Gates. 3 of his top 4 minutes per game players are in their first or second year (true they are juniors and seniors but they are transfers and Gates' guys). This is not a case where he inherited an experienced team that has been playing together for 4 years.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

And I don't agree with your last point. He built a roster in a way that clearly works at Cleveland State and in the Horizon League, but that model doesn't necessarily translate to Cal or the Pac-12. It could. But, again, that's the risk with a mid-major coach with only two years of head coaching experience.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last point about Fox is an interesting one as I now wonder what you think his ceiling is. It's interesting to me because I personally never saw Fox as a high-ceiling guy (even after last year). To me, last year was exactly why you hire a coach like Fox. He immediately raises the FLOOR of your program. So, again to me, this year is more concerning from the fact that I thought bringing in Fox would basically keep the floor of Cal's program respectable. It changes nothing about my expectations of ceiling, but it does change my expectations of floor, if that makes sense.

---

So I guess my view of his ceiling now is being at the top of the bottom-dwellers and occasionally challenging for middle of the Pac, which is a tier below where I thought. His floor is a tier below that .

---

My idea of a ceiling for him is still in the top-four or so of the league and getting an NCAA birth every once in a while. But I can understand why this year would cause hesitation towards that. I just still think it was a weird year and need some more data points before I feel good dropping his ceiling in my own opinion.

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Frankly, Oaktown, I don't understand this whole discussion.

As we all well know now, the two important things in hiring a head men's basketball coach are 1) how well does he interview, and even more importantly, 2) how well is he going to get along with the AD. Knowlton made quite clear the importance of point 2 in his discussion of the Fox hire.

All this crap about recruiting, coaching up players, x's and o's, and worse yet, winning, it's all irrelevant. Points 1 and 2 are all that matter.

I used to think that, aside from certain baseline requirements that the coach either has or doesn't have, like integrity, treating players properly, and ability to maintain decent academics on the roster, the ability to win should be the most important criteria in hiring a basketball coach. Yes, it is hard to judge ability to win at the P-12 level when dealing with those who haven't coached at the P5 level before, but that's the beauty of what I now know. I now know the ability to win is irrelevant, so we don't need to worry about judging it in the hiring process.

Based on what I now know is the proper criteria for hiring a coach, Fox is the man for Cal. End of story.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Frankly, Oaktown, I don't understand this whole discussion.

As we all well know now, the two important things in hiring a head men's basketball coach are 1) how well does he interview, and even more importantly, 2) how well is he going to get along with the AD. Knowlton made quite clear the importance of point 2 in his discussion of the Fox hire.

All this crap about recruiting, coaching up players, x's and o's, and worse yet, winning, it's all irrelevant. Points 1 and 2 are all that matter.

I used to think that, aside from certain baseline requirements that the coach either has or doesn't have, like integrity, treating players properly, and ability to maintain decent academics on the roster, the ability to win should be the most important criteria in hiring a basketball coach. Yes, it is hard to judge ability to win at the P-12 level when dealing with those who haven't coached at the P5 level before, but that's the beauty of what I now know. I now know the ability to win is irrelevant, so we don't need to worry about judging it in the hiring process.

Based on what I now know is the proper criteria for hiring a coach, Fox is the man for Cal. End of story.

---

Disagree. Fox is good but he can't hold a candle to Tom Holmoe.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Nice to get a conflicting opinion. But for the sake of conversation, didn't you notice that offensively the players really had a sense of purpose when interacting with the ball. It seemed instantaneous to me, as far as when to pass and when to move to the open spot. As opposed to watching Cal when the majority of the time, their offense seems so much more reactionary, every movement is just a split second delayed. The difference really stood out to me.

---

Yeah, I agree that compared to Cal the offense looked to have more purpose/intention. I think you're right.

But I'm skeptical of what my eyes from two games tell me, especially when comparing to Cal. I admit I have virtually no knowledge of the Horizon League, but based on what little research I've done, Cleveland State plays with a rotation of basically only juniors and seniors. I'm guessing not only does Cleveland State have more experienced players than a lot of the conference, but also more talented/athletic as opposed to Cal, which is probably the least talented/athletic team in the Pac-12. So, again, I'm not sure how much we should be comparing Cleveland State/Gates to Cal/Fox.

Since I haven't watched much beyond two games, I'd point more to the advanced stats. Cleveland State's offensive efficiency ranks No. 201 in KenPom (Cal's is No. 164), but their defense ranks No. 121 compared to Cal's No. 177). Looking at Horizon League-only games, Cleveland State had the conference's sixth-best offense, according to KenPom, and the second-best defense. Cleveland State also had two players make the league's all-defensive team, including the defensive player of the year.

---

https://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/2021/03/scott-garretts-gamble-and-the-amazing-rise-of-cleveland-state-basketball-under-dennis-gates-terry-pluto.html

Gates inherited a team that was 5-13 in conference, had lost 21 games in 4 straight seasons, and had a team GPA of 2.3. This year they are 16-4 in conference with a team GPA of 3.3. The athletic director said when he came in, half of the roster was in the transfer portal.

It is hard for me to believe that the team with that profile has the better players in the conference vs. being coached up. But if they do, that is an amazing job by Gates. 3 of his top 4 minutes per game players are in their first or second year (true they are juniors and seniors but they are transfers and Gates' guys). This is not a case where he inherited an experienced team that has been playing together for 4 years.

A couple interesting points from the article:

Quote:

---

While CSU used a search firm for background checks, Garrett made the primary calls. He soon heard of Gates, a Chicago native who was a top assistant for legendary Florida State coach Leonard Hamilton.


Garrett not only was limited by the late start of the search and the recent dismal play of the CSU's team, but also by money.


He was going to pay about $280,000 a middle-of-the-pack salary for the Horizon League. But that's less that many assistants make at Power Five conferences.

---

ahem.

Cleveland's athletic director got hired in April. Within a couple of months he realized the basketball team was a disaster. Though it was July he made the call and fired the coach. He then did the search himself.

As opposed to people excusing Knowlton because he had only been at Cal a year. As opposed to Knowlton having to be convinced to fire Jones. Instead of Knowlton having the search firm do everything, interviewing 2 guys and hiring the tired retread.

and:

Quote:

---

Garrett was impressed how Gates had a list of three assistants he planed to hire and why they fit at CSU: Rob Summers, Dickey Nutt and Ryan Sharbaugh. Soon after being named coach, Gates added former University of Akron star Dru Joyce III to his staff for a local connection.


"He talked about 'Win By Committee,' most guys not playing more than 24 minutes," said Garrett. "He had a plan for the academics. He explained his recruiting of 'non traditional junior college' players. Those were kids who had good grades out of high school, but were passed over by Division I schools."


It's everything you see with the Vikings.


"Dennis really wanted this job," said Garrett. "That was important, because it was going to be tough in the first few years or at least, I thought it would be."

---

This is the same guy rumor mongers at Cal accused of deliberately tanking the interview and not being prepared 2 years prior. But he was ready and passionate about a Horizon league job that pays $280K a year. If that is the case, we have to wonder what is wrong with us.

For those who would say he didn't have the necessary experience - maybe so. But we hired Wyking Jones.

As per usual, Cal sources are full of it. Bottom line, they had two guys with no head coaching experience who would work for cheap in front of them and they failed to see which one had the goods and they doubled down by falsely slamming the other guy to make their tired, lame pathetic give up hire look acceptable.

We got schooled by Cleveland State turning around their program with a guy who is our alum whom we had 2 chances to hire.

Can we hire Cleveland State's athletic director and make this a package deal?

---

calumnus said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

calumnus said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last point about Fox is an interesting one as I now wonder what you think his ceiling is. It's interesting to me because I personally never saw Fox as a high-ceiling guy (even after last year). To me, last year was exactly why you hire a coach like Fox. He immediately raises the FLOOR of your program. So, again to me, this year is more concerning from the fact that I thought bringing in Fox would basically keep the floor of Cal's program respectable. It changes nothing about my expectations of ceiling, but it does change my expectations of floor, if that makes sense.

---

So I guess my view of his ceiling now is being at the top of the bottom-dwellers and occasionally challenging for middle of the Pac, which is a tier below where I thought. His floor is a tier below that .

---

My idea of a ceiling for him is still in the top-four or so of the league and getting an NCAA birth every once in a while. But I can understand why this year would cause hesitation towards that. I just still think it was a weird year and need some more data points before I feel good dropping his ceiling in my own opinion.

---

You keep saying "this year." What in last year or in his 9 years at Georgia makes you think that? What is it about his coaching philosophy, personality or tactics that you think is attractive to recruits and/or will get Cal to the top 4 in the league?

---

Because he's finished top-four in the SEC (a better league) and made it to the NCAA tournament "once in a while" at UGA. I'm not saying he does that at Cal. And I'm not saying that's the baseline. I'm saying that's what I imagined his ceiling would be when he was hired and I still think that could be the case. Maybe not. Maybe this is too much of a rebuild for him. We'll see.

---

1. The SEC is not better overall. Maybe the last few years, but that only makes the record he just set for PAC-12 losses even worse.

2. I think you need to look at how he "succeeded" at Georgia and if that translates to Cal. I don't think the style of basketball he favors plays well here on the West Coast in the shadow of Kerr's Warriors. His management style does not play well in the Bay Area and with student-athletes who would otherwise be attracted to Cal.

Nothing I've seen from him makes me think he has a good chance of elevating us to a top 40 team on a regular basis. We will peak next year with Wyking's remaining players as seniors.

---

NathanAllen said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

And I don't agree with your last point. He built a roster in a way that clearly works at Cleveland State and in the Horizon League, but that model doesn't necessarily translate to Cal or the Pac-12. It could. But, again, that's the risk with a mid-major coach with only two years of head coaching experience.

---

Seems to be working well for Dana Altman, granted it likely wouldn't work well for Altman if he were at Cal.

---

I think you're thinking of traditional transfers and grad transfers. Over the past five seasons, Oregon has only had two JuCo players (Chris Duarte and Chris Boucher). But the Ducks have had an absolute slew of traditional transfers and grad transfers. Like, a ton. It's similar to the Musselman approach first at Nevada and now at Arkansas. Cleveland State's roster is built mainly on JuCo transfers.

---