No mention if Anyanwu is 100% recovered from the car accident he was in. I guess we can assume that he is.

I see the center we recruited out of Georgia last year is leaving North Carolina. We offered him and of course we have the Georgia connection. Walker Kessler is the name.

MilleniaBear said:

---

I see the center we recruited out of Georgia last year is leaving North Carolina. We offered him and of course we have the Georgia connection. Walker Kessler is the name.

---

Not sure about the "Georgia connection." Our last signed recruit from Georgia asked out of his LOI as soon we hired Fox.

At this point the 2021 class looks better to me than Fox's two previous classes looked. However we had a respectable (under the circumstances) 2019-20 record to induce them to choose Cal. I wonder what we're telling 2022 recruits about our 2020-21 record and what kind of 2022 class we'll end up with.

So Anyanwu is a 6'7" 215 PF and Alajiki is a 6'7" 240 SG?

It will be interesting to see them at Cal and what positions they up playing.

calumnus said:

---

So Anyanwu is a 6'7" 215 PF and Alajiki is a 6'7" 240 SG?

It will be interesting to see them at Cal and what positions they up playing.

---

Yes. Anyanwu has much more of an inside game and Alajiki has more of a perimeter game. It would be better if Alajiki could loan Anyanwu 25 pounds, but it does not work that way.

stu said:

---

At this point the 2021 class looks better to me than Fox's two previous classes looked. However we had a respectable (under the circumstances) 2019-20 record to induce them to choose Cal. I wonder what we're telling 2022 recruits about our 2020-21 record and what kind of 2022 class we'll end up with.

---

Based on what do they look better? I posted a clip of Alajiki in another thread. There is nothing new on the other two, but ...

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

sluggo said:

---

stu said:

---

At this point the 2021 class looks better to me than Fox's two previous classes looked. However we had a respectable (under the circumstances) 2019-20 record to induce them to choose Cal. I wonder what we're telling 2022 recruits about our 2020-21 record and what kind of 2022 class we'll end up with.

---

Based on what do they look better? I posted a clip of Alajiki in another thread. There is nothing new on the other two, but ...

---

Based on very little - just a few 3-star and 4-star ratings from people I don't know. But that looks better than the 2019 Fox recruits and 3 guys looks better than 2 2020 recruits. Of course I won't know until I see them play at Cal.

I'm more concerned about the 2022 class because our 2020-21 record is going to be a tough sell.

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

That is bleak. I can't say I ever saw Fox's Georgia teams, but they do not sound fun. For Cal the two best scorers remaining probably only have one year (one for sure has only one). Celestine is maybe a third option on a decent team. And after that there is little scoring. Have I mentioned Cal needs a new coach?

This article has Roberson 1st team All-State....it also mentions Anyanwu later in the story....https://www.calhisports.com/2021/04/04/boys-bb-primer-top-all-state-players/

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

Stanford Jonah said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

That is bleak. I can't say I ever saw Fox's Georgia teams, but they do not sound fun. For Cal the two best scorers remaining probably only have one year (one for sure has only one). Celestine is maybe a third option on a decent team. And after that there is little scoring. Have I mentioned Cal needs a new coach?

---

Cal under Monty played Fox's Georgia team once.

---

did Cal win?

HoopDreams said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like thYes,at

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

That is bleak. I can't say I ever saw Fox's Georgia teams, but they do not sound fun. For Cal the two best scorers remaining probably only have one year (one for sure has only one). Celestine is maybe a third option on a decent team. And after that there is little scoring. Have I mentioned Cal needs a new coach?

---

Cal under Monty played Fox's Georgia team once.

---

did Cal win?

---

Yes, Cal blew them out on a neutral court. But Cal had a clear coaching advantage.

bearmanpg said:

---

This article has Roberson 1st team All-State....it also mentions Anyanwu later in the story....https://www.calhisports.com/2021/04/04/boys-bb-primer-top-all-state-players/

---

Is Anyanwu even playing his senior year? Good to see Roberson make first team all state.

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearmanpg said:

---

This article has Roberson 1st team All-State....it also mentions Anyanwu later in the story....https://www.calhisports.com/2021/04/04/boys-bb-primer-top-all-state-players/

---

Is Anyanwu even playing his senior year? Good to see Roberson make first team all state.

---

THe article mentioned that it wasn't clear whether Anyanwu would be eligible to play, based on his legal issues.

socaliganbear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like thYes,at

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

That is bleak. I can't say I ever saw Fox's Georgia teams, but they do not sound fun. For Cal the two best scorers remaining probably only have one year (one for sure has only one). Celestine is maybe a third option on a decent team. And after that there is little scoring. Have I mentioned Cal needs a new coach?

---

Cal under Monty played Fox's Georgia team once.

---

did Cal win?

---

Yes, Cal blew them out on a neutral court. But Cal had a clear coaching advantage.

---

Yeah, that was Fox's most talented Georgia team with Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. We beat them 70-46. Georgia was actually leading by 3 with about 5 minutes left in the first half.

calumnus said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like thYes,at

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

That is bleak. I can't say I ever saw Fox's Georgia teams, but they do not sound fun. For Cal the two best scorers remaining probably only have one year (one for sure has only one). Celestine is maybe a third option on a decent team. And after that there is little scoring. Have I mentioned Cal needs a new coach?

---

Cal under Monty played Fox's Georgia team once.

---

did Cal win?

---

Yes, Cal blew them out on a neutral court. But Cal had a clear coaching advantage.

---

Yeah, that was Fox's most talented Georgia team with Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. We beat them 70-46. Georgia was actually leading by 3 with about 5 minutes left in the first half.

---

Lol so sad

socaliganbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like thYes,at

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

That is bleak. I can't say I ever saw Fox's Georgia teams, but they do not sound fun. For Cal the two best scorers remaining probably only have one year (one for sure has only one). Celestine is maybe a third option on a decent team. And after that there is little scoring. Have I mentioned Cal needs a new coach?

---

Cal under Monty played Fox's Georgia team once.

---

did Cal win?

---

Yes, Cal blew them out on a neutral court. But Cal had a clear coaching advantage.

---

Yeah, that was Fox's most talented Georgia team with Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. We beat them 70-46. Georgia was actually leading by 3 with about 5 minutes left in the first half.

---

Lol so sad

---

In his post game comments Monty kind of tried to give Fox an excuse, but backhandedly dissed him.

I definitely did not think after that game "When Monty retires I hope we get Fox."

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

---

Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

---

Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.

---

We're on the same page with respect to Fox but disagree on Dykes. He was one of the hottest names at the time and if we didn't get him, another P5 school would have. Obviously it didn't work out with Dykes and I'm glad we moved on, but he's proven to be an above average HC at SMU, and I believe he would have accomplished more here if he wasn't hampered by a very low assistant compensation pool and unable to get approval for his top choice assistants, a problem that fortunately Wilcox hasn't had to deal with.

Big difference between hiring a proven dud (Fox) and hiring a hot commodity that doesn't pan out.

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

---

Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.

---

We're on the same page with respect to Fox but disagree on Dykes. He was one of the hottest names at the time and if we didn't get him, another P5 school would have. Obviously it didn't work out with Dykes and I'm glad we moved on, but he's proven to be an above average HC at SMU, and I believe he would have accomplished more here if he wasn't hampered by a very low assistant compensation pool and unable to get approval for his top choice assistants, a problem that fortunately Wilcox hasn't had to deal with.

Big difference between hiring a proven dud (Fox) and hiring a hot commodity that doesn't pan out.

---

Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with the Dykes hire but the biggest critics of that hire are huge fans of the Wilcox hire. They are similar, both up and coming coaches that we hoped could be successful HCs at the P5 level. At least Dykes had been a successful HC at a lower level.. It didn't help much with his selection of DC, but then he did do something about it: fired Buh and focused more recruiting effort on defense, which paid off In Wilcox x's first two years. Under Wilcox we are going into year 5 still hoping to not have one of the worst offenses in college football yet again. I do think this is the year.

calumnus said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like thYes,at

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

That is bleak. I can't say I ever saw Fox's Georgia teams, but they do not sound fun. For Cal the two best scorers remaining probably only have one year (one for sure has only one). Celestine is maybe a third option on a decent team. And after that there is little scoring. Have I mentioned Cal needs a new coach?

---

Cal under Monty played Fox's Georgia team once.

---

did Cal win?

---

Yes, Cal blew them out on a neutral court. But Cal had a clear coaching advantage.

---

Yeah, that was Fox's most talented Georgia team with Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. We beat them 70-46. Georgia was actually leading by 3 with about 5 minutes left in the first half.

---

Lol so sad

---

In his post game comments Monty kind of tried to give Fox an excuse, but backhandedly dissed him.

I definitely did not think after that game "When Monty retires I hope we get Fox."

---

I remember at halftime of the Cal-Notre Dame game, when the Fighting Irish held the Golden Bears (coached by the great Mike Montgomery) to five (5) points, I thought "When Monty retires I hope we get whoever-the-hell this Notre Dame coach is."

calumnus said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

---

Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.

---

We're on the same page with respect to Fox but disagree on Dykes. He was one of the hottest names at the time and if we didn't get him, another P5 school would have. Obviously it didn't work out with Dykes and I'm glad we moved on, but he's proven to be an above average HC at SMU, and I believe he would have accomplished more here if he wasn't hampered by a very low assistant compensation pool and unable to get approval for his top choice assistants, a problem that fortunately Wilcox hasn't had to deal with.

Big difference between hiring a proven dud (Fox) and hiring a hot commodity that doesn't pan out.

---

Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with the Dykes hire but the biggest critics of that hire are huge fans of the Wilcox hire. They are similar, both up and coming coaches that we hoped could be successful HCs at the P5 level. At least Dykes had been a successful HC at a lower level.. It didn't help much with his selection of DC, but then he did do something about it: fired Buh and focused more recruiting effort on defense, which paid off In Wilcox x's first two years. Under Wilcox we are going into year 5 still hoping to not have one of the worst offenses in college football yet again. I do think this is the year.

---

Dykes had not been a successful HC at a lower level. That is the problem that due diligence would have uncovered. He had one good year with a ton of fourth and fifth year players in the offensive two deep, had never had a high level of success at any level and didn't beat teams with winning records. I would argue that on close inspection he in some ways had the least accomplished resume of any head coach hired in the Pac-12 over a 20 year period.

When hired, Wilcox had been a coach on 6 teams that won 10 or more games. Dykes had been a coach on zero.

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

---

Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.

---

We're on the same page with respect to Fox but disagree on Dykes. He was one of the hottest names at the time and if we didn't get him, another P5 school would have. Obviously it didn't work out with Dykes and I'm glad we moved on, but he's proven to be an above average HC at SMU, and I believe he would have accomplished more here if he wasn't hampered by a very low assistant compensation pool and unable to get approval for his top choice assistants, a problem that fortunately Wilcox hasn't had to deal with.

Big difference between hiring a proven dud (Fox) and hiring a hot commodity that doesn't pan out.

---

Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with the Dykes hire but the biggest critics of that hire are huge fans of the Wilcox hire. They are similar, both up and coming coaches that we hoped could be successful HCs at the P5 level. At least Dykes had been a successful HC at a lower level.. It didn't help much with his selection of DC, but then he did do something about it: fired Buh and focused more recruiting effort on defense, which paid off In Wilcox x's first two years. Under Wilcox we are going into year 5 still hoping to not have one of the worst offenses in college football yet again. I do think this is the year.

---

Dykes had not been a successful HC at a lower level. That is the problem that due diligence would have uncovered. He had one good year with a ton of fourth and fifth year players in the offensive two deep, had never had a high level of success at any level and didn't beat teams with winning records. I would argue that on close inspection he in some ways had the least accomplished resume of any head coach hired in the Pac-12 over a 20 year period.

When hired, Wilcox had been a coach on 6 teams that won 10 or more games. Dykes had been a coach on zero.

---

Derailing the thread here, but there's not much to discuss with respect to Cal BB right now anyway.

Dykes actually had two good years at LA Tech - 8 wins and first place in the WAC his second year followed by 9 wins in his third year. IIRC they lost to Mac and SJSU for the title in his 3rd year. Obviously, this is all subjective, but I see that as more valuable experience for a HC position than being a defensive assistant on several winning teams.

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

---

Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.

---

We're on the same page with respect to Fox but disagree on Dykes. He was one of the hottest names at the time and if we didn't get him, another P5 school would have. Obviously it didn't work out with Dykes and I'm glad we moved on, but he's proven to be an above average HC at SMU, and I believe he would have accomplished more here if he wasn't hampered by a very low assistant compensation pool and unable to get approval for his top choice assistants, a problem that fortunately Wilcox hasn't had to deal with.

Big difference between hiring a proven dud (Fox) and hiring a hot commodity that doesn't pan out.

---

Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with the Dykes hire but the biggest critics of that hire are huge fans of the Wilcox hire. They are similar, both up and coming coaches that we hoped could be successful HCs at the P5 level. At least Dykes had been a successful HC at a lower level.. It didn't help much with his selection of DC, but then he did do something about it: fired Buh and focused more recruiting effort on defense, which paid off In Wilcox x's first two years. Under Wilcox we are going into year 5 still hoping to not have one of the worst offenses in college football yet again. I do think this is the year.

---

Dykes had not been a successful HC at a lower level. That is the problem that due diligence would have uncovered. He had one good year with a ton of fourth and fifth year players in the offensive two deep, had never had a high level of success at any level and didn't beat teams with winning records. I would argue that on close inspection he in some ways had the least accomplished resume of any head coach hired in the Pac-12 over a 20 year period.

When hired, Wilcox had been a coach on 6 teams that won 10 or more games. Dykes had been a coach on zero.

---

Derailing the thread here, but there's not much to discuss with respect to Cal BB right now anyway.

Dykes actually had two good years at LA Tech - 8 wins and first place in the WAC his second year followed by 9 wins in his third year. IIRC they lost to Mac and SJSU for the title in his 3rd year. Obviously, this is all subjective, but I see that as more valuable experience for a HC position than being a defensive assistant on several winning teams.

---

yeah, I just don't see 8-5 at a non-power school as impressive. Further, those 2 years LaTech had a roster with the highest rated recruits in its conference - recruits for the most part he didn't bring in. He had the most talent and experience on his roster in the conference - something that was never going to happen at Cal.

As for the last point, we just disagree. Of course I would rather have a HC with top ten finishes and 10-12 win seasons. But when I can't have that, a coach who has coached on 6 power conference teams that finished in the top 10 with 10 or more wins (5 as a DC) is a better bet than a coach that once won 9 games as a HC of a non power conference team. All day. Every day. 9 wins is just not special. No reason to think that is going to improve. A coordinator who has been a part of success at the highest level, especially 5 times, may not make the jump, but there is at least a reasonable chance he has learned something from the top coaches he has worked for that he can bring to the table.

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

---

Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.

---

We're on the same page with respect to Fox but disagree on Dykes. He was one of the hottest names at the time and if we didn't get him, another P5 school would have. Obviously it didn't work out with Dykes and I'm glad we moved on, but he's proven to be an above average HC at SMU, and I believe he would have accomplished more here if he wasn't hampered by a very low assistant compensation pool and unable to get approval for his top choice assistants, a problem that fortunately Wilcox hasn't had to deal with.

Big difference between hiring a proven dud (Fox) and hiring a hot commodity that doesn't pan out.

---

Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with the Dykes hire but the biggest critics of that hire are huge fans of the Wilcox hire. They are similar, both up and coming coaches that we hoped could be successful HCs at the P5 level. At least Dykes had been a successful HC at a lower level.. It didn't help much with his selection of DC, but then he did do something about it: fired Buh and focused more recruiting effort on defense, which paid off In Wilcox x's first two years. Under Wilcox we are going into year 5 still hoping to not have one of the worst offenses in college football yet again. I do think this is the year.

---

Dykes had not been a successful HC at a lower level. That is the problem that due diligence would have uncovered. He had one good year with a ton of fourth and fifth year players in the offensive two deep, had never had a high level of success at any level and didn't beat teams with winning records. I would argue that on close inspection he in some ways had the least accomplished resume of any head coach hired in the Pac-12 over a 20 year period.

When hired, Wilcox had been a coach on 6 teams that won 10 or more games. Dykes had been a coach on zero.

---

Derailing the thread here, but there's not much to discuss with respect to Cal BB right now anyway.

Dykes actually had two good years at LA Tech - 8 wins and first place in the WAC his second year followed by 9 wins in his third year. IIRC they lost to Mac and SJSU for the title in his 3rd year. Obviously, this is all subjective, but I see that as more valuable experience for a HC position than being a defensive assistant on several winning teams.

---

yeah, I just don't see 8-5 at a non-power school as impressive. Further, those 2 years LaTech had a roster with the highest rated recruits in its conference - recruits for the most part he didn't bring in. He had the most talent and experience on his roster in the conference - something that was never going to happen at Cal.

As for the last point, we just disagree. Of course I would rather have a HC with top ten finishes and 10-12 win seasons. But when I can't have that, a coach who has coached on 6 power conference teams that finished in the top 10 with 10 or more wins (5 as a DC) is a better bet than a coach that once won 9 games as a HC of a non power conference team. All day. Every day. 9 wins is just not special. No reason to think that is going to improve. A coordinator who has been a part of success at the highest level, especially 5 times, may not make the jump, but there is at least a reasonable chance he has learned something from the top coaches he has worked for that he can bring to the table.

---

Well in the 2012 La Tech season, 1 of their 3 losses was by 2 points to a Johnny Football led Texas A&M team. And the only other 2 losses were to Utah State and SJSU, which were both ranked 11 win teams. The WAC wasn't a pushover conference that season and those 9 wins were without playing in a bowl game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Louisiana_Tech_Bulldogs_football_team

Maybe you're right with respect to the personnel being relatively superior and seasoned in those couple years, but the 2012 La tech season was impressive and I recall there being a ton of hype and media around it at the time.

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

it's clear that Fox wants to add length and athletism and these 3 look like that

we will see how college ready they are in terms of skill level and playing within a structured offense/defense against equally as long and athletic opponents

---

Agreed. But it is very, very unclear how Cal will score. I hope Roberson has developed that part of his game.

---

Fox's Teams, Points Per Game Rankings:
Nevada
#157
#92
#29
#57
#122
Georgia
#184
#173
#306
#308
#232
#152
#239
#215
#301
Cal
#332
#310

As can be seen above, other than his initial teams at Nevada, his teams are generally very low scoring, among the lowest scoring in college basketball. That was true at Georgia and at Cal. His 3rd and 4th years at Georgia were almost as low scoring as his two years at Cal have been. Much of that is tempo, his teams generally are among the slowest playing teams in the country. Ken Pom had us at #322 this year.

The highest scoring team this year was Gonzaga.

At Georgia he generally focused on recruiting the recruit rich state of Georgia. He usually missed out on the top talent in the state so he settled for the second or third tier. Raw athletic talent, good size, but lower skill. He then just got them to play physical man to man defense (which the SEC permits) always emphasizing effort (win="we gave good effort tonight" lose="I thought the guys didn't give good effort tonight" ). Guys he thought weren't working hard, or shot too early in the shot clock, got benched. Georgia games could be brutal.

He appears to be adopting a similar strategy at Cal. It is not a bad fall back strategy, but it becomes self-fulfilling, because the top players don't want to play that way so you are forced to. I also think it is a bad fit for Cal student athletes. You need a coach that can take advantage of smarts. I also think PAC-12 refs punish physical play. I also destroys fan interest.

This year we were #310 in points scored. However we were #141 in fewest points given up. I think Fox is prepared for points scored to decrease even further if he can field a team that holds our opponents to almost as few.

---

Calumnus, after reading a lot of your posts over the past several weeks, I get the sense that you've performed significantly more due diligence on Fox than Knowlton did before hiring him...

---

Cal's AD's have always focused too much on the interview or sometimes on 1 prior season. If Sandy had done remotely any due diligence on Dykes, he shouldn't have reached the interview stage at Cal.

---

We're on the same page with respect to Fox but disagree on Dykes. He was one of the hottest names at the time and if we didn't get him, another P5 school would have. Obviously it didn't work out with Dykes and I'm glad we moved on, but he's proven to be an above average HC at SMU, and I believe he would have accomplished more here if he wasn't hampered by a very low assistant compensation pool and unable to get approval for his top choice assistants, a problem that fortunately Wilcox hasn't had to deal with.

Big difference between hiring a proven dud (Fox) and hiring a hot commodity that doesn't pan out.

---

Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with the Dykes hire but the biggest critics of that hire are huge fans of the Wilcox hire. They are similar, both up and coming coaches that we hoped could be successful HCs at the P5 level. At least Dykes had been a successful HC at a lower level.. It didn't help much with his selection of DC, but then he did do something about it: fired Buh and focused more recruiting effort on defense, which paid off In Wilcox x's first two years. Under Wilcox we are going into year 5 still hoping to not have one of the worst offenses in college football yet again. I do think this is the year.

---

Dykes had not been a successful HC at a lower level. That is the problem that due diligence would have uncovered. He had one good year with a ton of fourth and fifth year players in the offensive two deep, had never had a high level of success at any level and didn't beat teams with winning records. I would argue that on close inspection he in some ways had the least accomplished resume of any head coach hired in the Pac-12 over a 20 year period.

When hired, Wilcox had been a coach on 6 teams that won 10 or more games. Dykes had been a coach on zero.

---

Derailing the thread here, but there's not much to discuss with respect to Cal BB right now anyway.

Dykes actually had two good years at LA Tech - 8 wins and first place in the WAC his second year followed by 9 wins in his third year. IIRC they lost to Mac and SJSU for the title in his 3rd year. Obviously, this is all subjective, but I see that as more valuable experience for a HC position than being a defensive assistant on several winning teams.

---

yeah, I just don't see 8-5 at a non-power school as impressive. Further, those 2 years LaTech had a roster with the highest rated recruits in its conference - recruits for the most part he didn't bring in. He had the most talent and experience on his roster in the conference - something that was never going to happen at Cal.

As for the last point, we just disagree. Of course I would rather have a HC with top ten finishes and 10-12 win seasons. But when I can't have that, a coach who has coached on 6 power conference teams that finished in the top 10 with 10 or more wins (5 as a DC) is a better bet than a coach that once won 9 games as a HC of a non power conference team. All day. Every day. 9 wins is just not special. No reason to think that is going to improve. A coordinator who has been a part of success at the highest level, especially 5 times, may not make the jump, but there is at least a reasonable chance he has learned something from the top coaches he has worked for that he can bring to the table.

---

Tom Holmoe was an assistant on a Walsh team that won the PAC-10 and Seifert's 49er Super Bowl Champion teams. It did not mean he was a good candidate to be a head coach. Football is different, if you have only coached one side of the ball it is a big step to be in charge of the whole thing. Especially if you come from the defensive side because so many of the HC's in game decisions relate to the offense. Having experience as a HC, even at a lower level, is critical, especially if you come from the defensive side.

Dykes's success as HC at Louisiana Tech and as OC at Arizona was easily good enough to be considered. However, there were guys I liked better. Guys that could better push and represent the Cal brand. I am still pissed that ASU hired Herm Edwards after so many Cal fans dismissed him as a candidate twice.