drizzlybear said:OaktownBear said:drizzlybear said:OaktownBear said:Help Wanted. Goal post Movers. Please contact drizzly to apply.drizzlybear said:OMG, you are exhausting. I already taxed myself with my lengthy post to BDB.OaktownBear said:Look, I DO appreciate you responding in depth to BigDaddyBear, but this is why he characterized it as closing your eyes and hoping. You didn't answer BigDaddy's question. His question was "what do you see today that tells you he is the man to turn things around?" It was not "why aren't you ready to fire him?" This is a very important distinction to those of us on my side. We hear a lot of "these are the reasons why I'm not positive he is going to fail". We hear virtually nothing saying "Here are the reasons he is awesome and is going to put this program on track". We see the other side as approaching this like a criminal court case. We must get 12 out of 12 jurors to find a coach guilty of sucking beyond a reasonable doubt before we can fire the coach. We don't think that is the standard. The standard is, is this guy the one that will turn my program around. We hear a lot of reasons not to fire him. We hear virtually no one saying anything beyond give him a chance. We hear no one pointing to his record or attributes and saying "this is why he is the man to do it". Honestly, you probably did the most in the above post and if you break it down you did very little.drizzlybear said:
Your post accused me of closing my eyes and hoping, and of not being willing to address a burning house. I view those as unfair attacks, and not a serious consideration of my position. I gave a very lengthy response to another poster's (BigDaddyBear?) request for my view in the matter. If you're really interested in understanding and discussing my view on the matter, take a look at that post and let me know if you still have questions or want to have a respectful debate on any of the points therein.Quote:
First, I place some basic level of faith or benefit of the doubt in the people Cal has in place to make the hire in the first place. I understand that lots of people here do not have such faith in the individual nor the process used to hire Fox. I don't have that level of knowledge, so I start by assuming some basic level of competency at Cal.
See that IS closing your eyes specifically and generally. Specifically, all evidence points to the fact that Cal does not deserve that faith. I'm not even going to bother presenting evidence of that. So giving them that is eye closing.
Generally, I agree with your humility. But while you might not be better than they are, you can look at what people in the same position do and make a judgment. I will tell you that if Cal has to choose between me and Tom Holmoe to coach football, they should hire Tom Holmoe. But I will also tell you that I can easily tell that will be a disaster.Since the underlying assumption was eye closing, the follow up assumption is eye closing. Further, Knowlton was very explicit in his reasons for hiring Fox. There is no reason to assume anything beyond that. You should judge that, not assume he had good reasons. If you think his reasons were sound, fine. If you just assume there had to be sound reasons, that is eye closing.Quote:
Given that assumption, I assume there were good reasons for hiring him.But you do know enough to judge those paid handsomely against others paid handsomely.Quote:
I don't know enough about the situation to substitute my opinion for those with the responsibility and handsome pay to make those decisions.See, this is directly my point above. There is a difference between saying just because he has been mediocre doesn't mean he will continue to be mediocre and saying this is why he is going to be good. I disagree with your premise. Most mediocre coaches stay mediocre. If you want to hire a good coach, you hire a good coach. You don't hire a mediocre coach and hope he becomes a good one. And if you think one can learn, you don't hire a coach whose conference record has gotten worse 4 years in a row. That is not indicating improvement. But, I'm digressing. The point is that this is not an argument that he is the man for the job. It is an argument that it is possible that he is not not the man for the job.Quote:
At its most superficial level I see a guy who has had a good amount of experience as a high level college basketball coach, with mixed results of some success and some mediocrity. Mediocre prior results alone don't dictate my view as to what he might bring at this time. (If it did, then the Yankees should never have hired Joe Torre, the A's never hired Tony LaRussa, nor USC hired Pete Carroll, and Wayne a tinkle would've been long gone from Corvallis before he's now become a darling.) I am open to the possibility that people sometimes learn and improve from prior experiences. So I don't dismiss the hire out of hand from the outset, as it appears many do, and maybe including you.Except we know of candidates that were interested.Quote:
This also raises the point that Cal was not in a strong position to attract a coach in high demand.Then Cal lied to us. I can only take what they say at face value:Quote:
It might be the case that Cal's objective was not to select the coach who would get us to the promised land, but rather a coach who would get us out of the burning dumpster and into a place of competitive stability where we could maybe then attract the coach who could get us to the promised land.Quote:
Mark Fox is a man of unparalleled integrity with a proven record of success as a head basketball coach," athletic director Jim Knowlton said. "He is an inspiring leader, a teacher and an exceptional communicator who has displayed a strong commitment to developing the entire student-athlete on the court and off the court. We had an exceptional pool of candidates, and through the entire process, one person clearly rose to the top. I am excited to welcome Mark to the Cal family and look forward to him leading Cal men's basketball program to new heights. We want our teams to be exceptional, and I firmly believe that Mark is the person to lead us thereHey - THIS was a positive reason. Thank you. It is an extremely weak one. But thank you. Lots of coaches do this sort of thing, especially when they are fired. As an aside, Van Gundy is an okay coach but nothing to write home about. On top of that, Tom Holmoe worked more with Bill Walsh, a much better coach than Van Gundy, and fat lot that demonstrated.Quote:
I also was impressed with the work and experience Fox got in the year prior to coaching Cal. I think he was doing some sort of national team thing that had him on staff with Jeff Van Gundy whom I REALLY like, and others. I heard Fox was bringing into Cal practices well-respected coaches like Van Gundy and Mike Montgomery, etc. This seemed good.Positive again, if very faint.Quote:
Then, in Year 1, I thought Fox did a decent job with a super young and depleted roster.Positive. Very faint, but positive. Note, I did not argue that he should be fired after last year. I don't view it as positive but as a passing grade.Quote:
Anyway, back to Year 1, I thought the floor was raised pretty quickly despite a far less talented roster. And, IIRC, the team generally improved later in the season. So that reflected well on Fox's coachingQuote:
It's worth noting that none other than Jon Wilner (not known for being a Cal homer) voted Fox Pac12 Coach of the Year. And I believe that wasn't the only COY vote Fox received but can't verify
Wilner is an idiot. I have no idea if he got any other votes, but you or I can judge results as well as the next. There is no way a coach with that record should get any COY votes. That is more of an indictment on the Cal program than it is a positive.I heard Monty give glowing praise to Braun on television the year he got fired. Almost every telecast gives both coaches praise.Quote:
I do recall Fox receiving significant praise from the analysts on Pac12net.
These are not positives. These are other people's opinionsNot a positive. So so is optimistic. Monty's classes were clearly rated higher.Quote:
Meanwhile, the recruiting seemed so-so, but of course recruiting is usually a longer-term deal, and in any case, Cal was not in a strong position to attract top talent. So, as with Wilcox, I was/am patient on the recruiting issue. Fwiw, I'm encouraged by some of the recruits Fox has brought in so far. They seem to have the long-term potential akin to the players Mike Montgomery brought in.We radically disagree on this point. That is fine. We have discussed it. This is a positive, but I just don't see how you can claim it is a big one.Quote:
That brings us to this year. My impression of this year is that Cal was awful for the first third or more of the season. It was disappointing. I had hoped for Wilcox-like improvement; not meteoric, but steady. But then I thought the team played consistently decent basketball relative to its talent level over the last half of the season.Please stop. The 6 main players this year were 2 juniors, 1 senior, 2 graduates and a sophomore. They are not young or inexperienced. Yes, Covid interfered with practice in November.They have had virtually no interference since then. I'd estimate they had 80-100 days playing and practicing together with minimal Covid interference. This just sounds like a catch all excuse, but it isn't.Quote:
To me, not only am I patient enough to suffer a blip of a bad season for whatever reason, but I thought that this team was hit especially hard by covid and it seemed to make sense to what I felt I was seeing. Specifically, what this Cal team needed above anything else during the offseason was time on the court playing together. This team was young and what it needed above anything else, especially players like Brown, Kuany, and Lars who have great physical gifts but whose skills are very raw, was time on the court together. And that's precisely what COVID prevented. So, to me, not only do i have the patience to give a coach a bad year (and maybe even a second one if there should be another), I felt there's actually some reasonable explanation for this particular bad year. The fact that the team, IMO, improved relative to its competition over the course of the season again supported the theory that COVID impacts were particularly difficult for this team early in the season.Quote:
Unfortunately, on this board if you don't support firing the coach yesterday you are depicted as having no critical thinking and no standards for the coaching performance. That's not the case with me. For me, the jury is still out. Of course I'll support the coach as a fan, but I don't mind criticisms. What I do tend to respond to are posts that appear to me to be cheap or unreasonable shots. Unfortunately there's been a lot of those. But that gets misunderstood as an inability or unwillingness to have or state my own criticisms of the coach. In the face of relentless and high-shrill criticisms throughout this season, there hasn't been much space allowed for more nuanced discussion, unfortunately.
So what do you characterize as a cheap or unreasonable shot? Because I don't see a lot here. I see people arguing his performance is not good enough. I see people arguing he should be fired. If that is cheap and unreasonable, I'm sorry, what am I supposed to do? It feels like just shut up.
Again, I do appreciate you answering, but even so, I'm sorry, some of it sounds like saying things to say things. His recruiting is not "so-so". You want to say it is too early, fine, but it isn't on par with Monty. That is just incorrect so it doesn't seem like you actually critically thought about that. Working with someone like Van Gundy when you are out of work is not special. That doesn't seem like something that was critically thought about. Blaming Covid 3-4 months after it was an issue does not seem like something that was critically thought of. Having "faith" is by definition not critical thought.
But at least you are presenting something I can respond to. I can't respond to "You have to support the team", "If you don't have the money to pay the buy out, shut up". "He isn't getting fired now so what is the point?" "He deserves a chance". These are not arguments. There is nothing there I can respond to.
I have to go back to the unreasonable shot point. Because that is a key one for me. I have been on here for over 20 years. I've been on the fire the coach side and on the support the coach side. But one thing is consistent is that some on the support the coach side always treats the fire the coach side like petulant babies who always want to fire the coach and think there is some nobility in being on the support side. There are some fans that do just vent on the coach, but there are plenty that don't. Frankly, we have mostly purged the "fire the bum" crowd through apathy. I see a lot of detailed arguments and facts coming from the fire side right now and I see a lot of very loose arguments coming from other side. I have not taken cheap shots at Fox at all. I've said he was the wrong guy for this job. I have even said I would consider him for a mid major job.
I don't cite Wilner because I think he's a genius, but at least I recognize and appreciate that it is actually his full-time job to be informed about these things, plus I know he has access to people and information that I don't. Also, it's my experience that he takes his voting responsibilities seriously and transparently. Still, if you want to completely dismiss his view that contradicts yours by calling him an idiot, then I guess that's just more you being you. My point in referencing him is to show one very prominent objectively non-Cal example of someone who believes Fox did an excellent job, indeed the best of all Pac12 coaches, in his first year at Cal. Call me an irrational Cal homer if you like, it's surely true, but you certainly can't call Wilner that (although I guess what you do then is call him an idiot).)By the way. Wilner does not have a vote for coach of the year. He does not have to take his "vote" seriously. He just wrote his unofficial post season awards in a column. The coach of the year award is voted on by coaches.Quote:
Falling: Cal Basketball
The Hotline will publish projections for the 2021-22 conference race later this month, once we gain clarity on the rosters.
Spoiler alert: The Bears will be picked last.
That was our lean immediately after the season, but it's obvious now that star guard Matt Bradley has entered the transfer portal.
Bradley was the only high-level talent on the roster, the only player who averaged more than 10 points per game the player who made everyone better. There's always a chance Bradley reverses course and returns for 2021-22, but we're assuming he's gone for good, desiring a change of scenery and chance for success.
In his three seasons, the Bears are 13-43 in conference play. Third-year coach Mark Fox needs help, immediately, but Cal lacks flexibility with the transfer portal because of the academic piece.
The outlook is gloomy in Berkeley.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/04/07/pac-12-stock-report-major-change-likely-for-intra-conference-transfer-policy-for-football-and-basketball-players/
Wait, are you dismissing Wilner's credibility but then simultaneously also citing Wilner to make a point? Talk about moving goal posts. I believe the only point you're proving is that you do indeed continue to take unfair shots. I have no idea what you're referring to by accusing me of "moving goal posts", but I am starting to enjoy how much my "jury's still out" position bothers you.
No dude. I don't care what Wilmer thinks. He stated the obvious and it doesn't bolster my point whatsoever. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MADE SUCH A BIG DEAL ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS THAT WILNER, a man paid for his expertise. A man who supposedly has sources (he doesn't) a man neutral to Cal, said Fox did a good job. YOU WERE THE ONE CHAMPIONING HIS CREDIBILITY AND YOU MADE IT A BIG PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT FOR FOX. I said he is an idiot and then you defended him some more.
I'm citing it as cratering your point. Either WILNER is a good source or he isn't. I say he isn't, BUT YOU SAY HE US. So your source just told you he sees us clearly in last next year and things look very bad. Not w what are you going to do with that? You can't cite him as a great source when he says what you want and ignore it when he doesn't. I think he is a lousy source and am happy to ignore him which would eviscerate your initial point. Or we can call him a good source which means Wilner has now changed his mind based on new info and sees our program being in the toilet, also eviscerating your point.
Further, when I then went back and looked, you totally misrepresented the COY thing. Fox didn't get any votes. A guy who wrote a column picked him as his choice and also in that column said he would face lots of derision for it.
Nope. Once again you've incorrectly assumed my argument, put words in my mouth, and then argued against those words you made up for me because apparently you can't adequately argue against the words I actually do say. Let me be clear: I have no problem with Wilner picking Cal, at this point in time, to finish in last place next season. So, no, I'm not the inconsistent one. You are the one who is making a big deal out of what Wilner says now, but calling him an idiot when his view is contrary to yours. Keep trying.
Also, even though you bold what I wrote, you continue to misunderstand it. I will repeat: I did not cite Wilner because I thought he was a genius. I cited him to provide an example of at least one prominent professional Pac12 voice who is not a Cal fan yet publicly stated that Fox did a good job his first year at Cal, and in fact selected Mark Fox for his Coach if the Year selection. This might break your brain because of how much you've invested yourself in an inaccurate perception of my opinion of Fox, but I actually do not agree with Wilner in that selection. I think Fox did a decent job in Year 1, but not COY level.
But go ahead, keep arguing against your fantasy of me. Btw, you still haven't come up with any basis for your "move the goal posts" shot. We're still waiting...
Wilner's opinion was goofy, Cronin deserved the COY he won last year, which he proved again this year.
The last time Cal scored fewer points per game than we did in Fox's first year (63.2) was 1984-85 (62.1) you know, the season that finally got the great Dick Kuchen fired.
The only way that last season looks "good" is possibly in relation to the prior year and prior coach who was also fired for reason.
Fox will be our coach another year. I think 12th again is likely, so I agree with Wilner on that, but I can't blame you or others if you want to be optimistic and think Fox can do better. Maybe UW will flame out again and we can grab 11th? Maybe if he gets us to 8th again Wilner votes for him to get COY.
