Cause really that is the only suspense right now - does he get canned next year or the year after and we can try our hand at another guy to try to execute the rebuild.

IIRC The guy that Mike Williams hired gets one more year (next year, right?) of salary (though surely we negotiated a buy out).

I'm guessing he gets one more season.

yes, we can probably only afford one buy-out at a time.

As for a fourth season, if next year's team isn't significantly improved from this year's, no way. Deeper question: What has our current AD learned about how to hire a basketball coach at this level?

Honestly, I think Knowlton and Fox got bailed out by Covid this year. While the apologists like to assert that we missed out on development time or whatever that for some reason didn't affect any other program despite us not even having a single game postponed, I firmly believe that if Haas wasn't closed to the public, there would have been so few fans attending Knowlton would have been forced to take some sort of action.

Just look at Cal basketball related message board activity this season as a barometer. It's been crickets all season with finally some activity after Bradley announced his intent to transfer. And I subscribe to the other 2 Cal sites as well.

Possibly, unfortunately. Don't want Knowlton making another hire, so need to get rid of him first. And let's give time for Gates, Paternack and other potential candidates to solidify their resumes.

Big C said:

---

As for a fourth season, if next year's team isn't significantly improved from this year's, no way. Deeper question: What has our current AD learned about how to hire a basketball coach at this level?

---

If Fox has no fourth season then Knowlton will know he made a mistake. I hope he's smart enough not to repeat it.

stu said:

---

Big C said:

---

As for a fourth season, if next year's team isn't significantly improved from this year's, no way. Deeper question: What has our current AD learned about how to hire a basketball coach at this level?

---

If Fox has no fourth season then Knowlton will know he made a mistake. I hope he's smart enough not to repeat it.

---

That's the thing: Some people can learn, self-assess and adapt. Others cannot. I have no idea about Knowlton.

My bar for keeping Fox beyond 2021-22 is close to a .500 conference record and a promising 2022 recruiting class. Losing Bradley makes the former less likely but worse waves a flaming red flag in the face of every 2022 recruit. So I'm not optimistic.

If Fox must be fired then I'm afraid we'll have a real challenge finding a replacement. The team will be on a 5-year losing streak and the remaining players will probably not be as good as those Jones left. That means total rebuild. At least we'll still be in a power conference and have our unique academics, culture, and location.

In hiring a coach I'd put a high priority on experience building a successful program from nothing, e.g. moving from D-2 to D-1 or resuscitating a corpse. That's different from what I'd want for replacing Montgomery or Martin.

You guys are missing the point. They have the coach and program they want. WIAF recently confirmed in no uncertain terms what has been anecdotally obvious for several years now:
There is no urgency to be competitive where it matters. None.

WalterSobchak said:

---

You guys are missing the point. They have the coach and program they want. WIAF recently confirmed in no uncertain terms what has been anecdotally obvious for several years now:
There is no urgency to be competitive where it matters. None.

---

I choose to believe that's no longer the case with Christ and Knowlton. Wasn't that a Dirks/Williams philosophy? Perhaps I'm overly-hopeful, but I've heard good things about Christ so far.

WalterSobchak said:

---

You guys are missing the point. They have the coach and program they want. WIAF recently confirmed in no uncertain terms what has been anecdotally obvious for several years now:
There is no urgency to be competitive where it matters. None.

---

So your answer is yes. I'm guessing you will be right.

pierrezo said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

You guys are missing the point. They have the coach and program they want. WIAF recently confirmed in no uncertain terms what has been anecdotally obvious for several years now:
There is no urgency to be competitive where it matters. None.

---

I choose to believe that's no longer the case with Christ and Knowlton. Wasn't that a Dirks/Williams philosophy? Perhaps I'm overly-hopeful, but I've heard good things about Christ so far.

---

WIAF posted this 1 week ago:

"Cal was the only conference school that even came close to breaking even this last C-19 impacted year, fundraising is way up, the basketball team sucks and very few people that matter care. I don't like what it is and even pointing this reality out is painful, but it is the AD's job to understand all this."

https://bearinsider.com/s/2636/matt-bradley-enters-the-transfer-portal/3/replies/1867061

pierrezo said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

You guys are missing the point. They have the coach and program they want. WIAF recently confirmed in no uncertain terms what has been anecdotally obvious for several years now:
There is no urgency to be competitive where it matters. None.

---

I choose to believe that's no longer the case with Christ and Knowlton. Wasn't that a Dirks/Williams philosophy? Perhaps I'm overly-hopeful, but I've heard good things about Christ so far.

---

I have heard good things about Christ too, but I really don't understand why she hired Knowlton.

Probably not.

socaltownie said:

---

Cause really that is the only suspense right now - does he get canned next year or the year after and we can try our hand at another guy to try to execute the rebuild.

IIRC The guy that Mike Williams hired gets one more year (next year, right?) of salary (though surely we negotiated a buy out).

---

You are asking the wrong question. He will absolutely get a fourth year. This is Cal. Barring something ethical, and I do not think Fox is the kind of guy to have an ethical violation, the only way he gets fired is if the players not only lose but completely and obviously tank or they walk into the AD's office en masse saying they are all leaving. Beyond Dykes straight up humiliating the AD, those are the only ways Cal coaches get fired.

The question for next year is does he get extended, for how long, and what are the buyout terms.

Cal has stupidly bought into this fiction that you can't have a coach with only 2 years on his contract because recruits will think the coach is on borrowed time. This is an immensely stupid concept for two reasons. 1. Every coach is on an annual contract. Period. Coaches get fired all the time with lots of time on their contract and recruits know that. 2. Coaches finishing in the bottom half of conference 3 years running are on the hot seat no matter what an AD says and recruits know that. The extension is just a different version of the dreaded vote of confidence.

But Cal falls for this agent ploy every time. If they don't this time it means one of two things:

1. Cal has finally gotten a brain. (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Yeah, okay)
2. Knowlton has gotten the point that Mike Williams got. Winning in basketball is a money losing proposition for Cal. Firing Jones and hiring Fox at almost twice the salary plus paying Jones buyout was an incredibly stupid financial move. Since Fox's salary is set, let him coach out the string, fire him, and pay someone 6 figures to coach. It doesn't matter if that hurts recruiting because we aren't trying to win. Fox will have killed Cal basketball because his failure will have proven to the new administration that the old one was right when they hired Jones. This, believe it or not is only the second worst option.

Now the other thing Cal can do is what they usually do. Extend him with full buyout. Then, not only does he get his fourth year, but the idiot apologists will be back for 1, 2, 3, 4 years saying "we can't afford to fire him now, so he won't be fired no matter what you say. So shut up and support the team". This despite all the times people have made this argument and been proven wrong when we have paid coachs' buyouts including just paying Dykes a full, long expensive buyout, not because he failed (though he did) but because he failed and humiliated the Cal administration by getting his extension and having his agent continue to trash Cal and shop him around. Fox will continue on as coach up until the point the players lay down and die on the court and then they will find the money to fire him. If Cal does this, it is the worst worst option. It means Cal will continue to trudge along, being stupid, paying twice the cost necessary to suck as badly as they do.

The best option you can hope for is Cal does what Sandy did once with Braun. Give a contract extension, but the buyout is not increased. It either stays at one year's salary or it stays at one year salary for the remainder of the original contract and goes even lower, like $500K after the original contract expires. Cal will still be too stupid or cheap to fire him, but will show some modicum of a brain and a desire to build a program that once in a while gets to .500 in conference. After year 5, they will finally figure out that Fox can't do that and they will have temporarily learned their lesson that paying more for a Fox type coach doesn't work and they will hire a cheap coach from mid major level with the hope of only increasing his salary if he wins. That is probably a 5% chance, but it is 4.9% more than you have now.

Of course the best option is to fire him now. Second best option is to fire him after next year. Neither will happen though.

pierrezo said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

You guys are missing the point. They have the coach and program they want. WIAF recently confirmed in no uncertain terms what has been anecdotally obvious for several years now:
There is no urgency to be competitive where it matters. None.

---

I choose to believe that's no longer the case with Christ and Knowlton. Wasn't that a Dirks/Williams philosophy? Perhaps I'm overly-hopeful, but I've heard good things about Christ so far.

---

After decades of seeing chancellors and AD's come and go, it is time we realize that the common denominator here is the major donors. Major donors drive the bus and ours consistently drive it into the ditch.

Cal chose to take a non-revenue sports stance in the sixties. Our students and alums do not care about revenue sports. Our sports donors are either people who care about some Olympic sport or they are old dudes who think the path to success is to find a coach like Newell or Pappy to lead us in the 21st century. The guys that watched Fox's speech and lapped it up because in their day the coach was a hardass. Or they are people that just want to do good for the university and just write a check no questions asked.

I have no problem with the third group. Everyone needs people like that.

I have no problem with some of the Olympic sports group. If they want to fund it, fine. However, some of that group are holding us hostage. Like, for instance, demanding that we keep a men's crew team of like 50 because they want to do both recruit ringers from British, German and Australian boarding schools to win a national championship, AND let whoever wants to join from the general student body participate because that is what we did in their day. Meaning, men's crew requires twice the Title IX hit. Or they are the one's that keep us from cutting dead weight sports by threatening their contributions to the sports we need to keep. These guys are inflicting mortal wounds on the department.

The one's that actually seem to care do not seem to understand today's game. To win in revenue sports we badly need new blood in the major donor pool. However, it seems our younger uber wealthy alums either don't care or wisely give up the Cal athletic administration as a bad job.

Frankly, I'm not bitter about this. I think many here have got to accept some level of reality of who we are. Our alums, students, and faculty are just never going to be as amped as others to win in revenue sports. So trying to do what sports bluebloods do and expecting top ten finishes is just not going to work. Most of all because even if we get some commitment, we can't sustain it. We got commitment to spend 100's of millions of dollars on football, then we chose not to pay Tosh. All we did in getting that temporary commitment was to chuck all that money out a window because it didn't mean squat if we didn't follow up. And in hindsight we were never going to follow up.

My issue is that with a modicum of competence we can have some level of success. Monty level, or maybe even just Braun level. Stay in the top half of conference even if we don't rise to the top. There is no reason we can't do that. Beyond that, what would be nice is if Cal figured out that it is always going to be the equivalent of a bargain basement cheap owner and use what we have in spades - access to the smartest and most innovative people around - and figure out how we can improve our lot by tailoring everything to where we can get the most value for cheapest. Instead of trying to succeed in recruiting by aiming at kids that want to have 24/7 access to their own personal bench press machine, in a battle of attrition that we can never win, figure out what kids like what we have and the program that optimizes their success. If that is offensive lineman, build a football program around the offensive line. Because, right now we are a middle class guy at a rich man's auction. Yeah, USC and Oregon don't want to spend more for the prize, but every time we raise the paddle, they will up our bid ten fold. We can't win by simply increasing our bid. We have to capitalize on what they cannot offer.

Just hire a ***reasonably qualified*** young and hungry black coach, who has some links to the West Coast recruiting scene that can be developed, and who values the role of education in personal development.

Is that asking too much? Perhaps it is, I don't know.

Even if that person doesn't succeed as coach, Cal fans will be intrigued by his potential high ceiling, and it'll satisfy us for at least 4-5 years. Coach Fox is simply the very last thing this program wanted or needed.

Note: In my book, "reasonably qualified" excludes people like Wyking Jones or Decuire (the first time around). Although given the sad state of the program today, as opposed to 5 years ago, someone with Decuire's (the first time around) resume might be acceptable to me today.

OK, folks, now this is where my MBA is going to show its value: Let's think totally outside the box. Cal should allow the Head Coach of the men's basketball team to live full time, rent free, in the University House on the Cal campus. While I've never been inside, I bet it's dope as hell. Carol Christ lives somewhere else, anyway. If needed, convert it to a mansion duplex and allow Wilcox to live in the other half. Am I joking about this? Not really. We need to be creative in our thinking.

Can't agree with this. Having a practice facility and other amenities are pretty much bare minimum these days for high-major programs. The fact that Cal is so far behind in obtaining these essentials is a microcosm of the current state of the program. You can't attract a desireable coach without these issues addressed unless the coach has a prior connection to the program.

OaktownBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

A penny wise and a pound foolish type of guy will focus on how long we should keep or replace Fox, when we should be talking about how to get a practice facility for basketball. No serious replacement would come to Cal to coach without a facility and what we would have to pay that coach will never return on the investment.

---

This board is fixated with building a practice facility. It is the same wrongheaded move that has plagued Cal. The money that would be devoted to a practice facility would be far more effectively used as an endowment to pay head coaches so we could be competitive in that market. Cal will never, ever, ever, ever, have the best facilities. Kids will not come here for that. Coaches will not come here for that.

The Chancellor needs to step in and make an already existing court the exclusive use of the basketball programs, whether that is the court at Haas or a court in RSF or wherever. If Cal builds a practice facility we'll win exactly zero more games.

I would point out that since we built the training facilities at the stadium, not only is our football team worse but we have plummeted down the Director's Cup standings. Athletes do not come to Cal for the facilities. They go to Oregon or USC for that. We have other selling points. We need to use them.

Trying to keep up with the arms race of elite programs is essentially being like the Soviet Union in the 80's trying to win a military spending war with the US that they could never win and depriving other areas of the funding, thus hastening their inevitable demise.

We need to spend smart. Saying "they have a practice facility. we need one too." is not spending smart especially when we flat out see how little building a giant new facility up the hill helped us.

---

Just saw that Dennis Gates is a rumored candidate for the Cincinnati job. Should be interesting to see what happens there.

OaktownBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

A penny wise and a pound foolish type of guy will focus on how long we should keep or replace Fox, when we should be talking about how to get a practice facility for basketball. No serious replacement would come to Cal to coach without a facility and what we would have to pay that coach will never return on the investment.

---

This board is fixated with building a practice facility. It is the same wrongheaded move that has plagued Cal. The money that would be devoted to a practice facility would be far more effectively used as an endowment to pay head coaches so we could be competitive in that market. Cal will never, ever, ever, ever, have the best facilities. Kids will not come here for that. Coaches will not come here for that.

The Chancellor needs to step in and make an already existing court the exclusive use of the basketball programs, whether that is the court at Haas or a court in RSF or wherever. If Cal builds a practice facility we'll win exactly zero more games.

I would point out that since we built the training facilities at the stadium, not only is our football team worse but we have plummeted down the Director's Cup standings. Athletes do not come to Cal for the facilities. They go to Oregon or USC for that. We have other selling points. We need to use them.

Trying to keep up with the arms race of elite programs is essentially being like the Soviet Union in the 80's trying to win a military spending war with the US that they could never win and depriving other areas of the funding, thus hastening their inevitable demise.

We need to spend smart. Saying "they have a practice facility. we need one too." is not spending smart especially when we flat out see how little building a giant new facility up the hill helped us.

---

Thank you.

OaktownBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

A penny wise and a pound foolish type of guy will focus on how long we should keep or replace Fox, when we should be talking about how to get a practice facility for basketball. No serious replacement would come to Cal to coach without a facility and what we would have to pay that coach will never return on the investment.

---

This board is fixated with building a practice facility. It is the same wrongheaded move that has plagued Cal. The money that would be devoted to a practice facility would be far more effectively used as an endowment to pay head coaches so we could be competitive in that market. Cal will never, ever, ever, ever, have the best facilities. Kids will not come here for that. Coaches will not come here for that.

The Chancellor needs to step in and make an already existing court the exclusive use of the basketball programs, whether that is the court at Haas or a court in RSF or wherever. If Cal builds a practice facility we'll win exactly zero more games.

I would point out that since we built the training facilities at the stadium, not only is our football team worse but we have plummeted down the Director's Cup standings. Athletes do not come to Cal for the facilities. They go to Oregon or USC for that. We have other selling points. We need to use them.

Trying to keep up with the arms race of elite programs is essentially being like the Soviet Union in the 80's trying to win a military spending war with the US that they could never win and depriving other areas of the funding, thus hastening their inevitable demise.

We need to spend smart. Saying "they have a practice facility. we need one too." is not spending smart especially when we flat out see how little building a giant new facility up the hill helped us.

---

I agree with this, except the players do need a place they can access to work on their game on their own. For all I know, they have that now. A designated court at RSF might do. A court at Hearst Gym or Clark Kerr?
Then at some point a light construction court on the roof of the RSF with views of the City and the Golden Gate.

Fox "will absolutely get a fourth year"?

If we finish alone in last place again, as we did this year, and there is not a major recruiting coup (like the Campo PG and/or the O'Dowd big), I can't see Fox surviving to Year Four. Knowlton would face too much pressure from your friends the major donors, plus the never-to-be-undersold influence of a couple of dozen posters on Bear Insider. As the guy that hired Fox, Knowlton might have to go, as well, unless football has a breakout season.

socaliganbear said:

---

The dedicated facility issue is not one of a luxury wish list item that the elites are in some arms race over. That was probably right 10 years ago. It's no longer a luxury item, it's just an expectation of pretty much every D1 major program. In other words, no one will expect Cal to have the basketball facilities that Oregon or Kentucky have. But having worse facilities than most Mountain West programs will present limitations and raise questions of credibility and legitimacy.

For football, I can't imagine trying our hand at the rebuild with the old facilities. Or trying to hold onto Wilcox. It's not an arms race thing anymore.

---

Paying coaches more than we do isn't a luxury item either.

Here's what Nevada has for men's and women's basketball. Nothing lavish or over the top. No arms race, just serious facilities for a school wanting to provide a serious commitment to their basketball players. Somehow, the flagship university of California can't figure out how to do the same.

https://nevadawolfpack.com/facilities/ramon-sessions-performance-center/22

socaliganbear said:

---

The dedicated facility issue is not one of a luxury wish list item that the elites are in some arms race over. That was probably right 10 years ago. It's no longer a luxury item, it's just an expectation of pretty much every D1 major program. In other words, no one will expect Cal to have the basketball facilities that Oregon or Kentucky have. But having worse facilities than most Mountain West programs will present limitations and raise questions of credibility and legitimacy.

For football, I can't imagine trying our hand at the rebuild with the old facilities. Or trying to hold onto Wilcox. It's not an arms race thing anymore.

---

Agree. The other thing about spending on a facility, we're pretty sure of what we're getting: a darn practice facility. Money spent on a coach is more of a crap shoot (especially if it's done like we did last time).

As an interim step, I like the idea proposed by OTB and Calumnus of at least getting a dedicated court... SOMETHING.

So why is it an "either or" proposition? Why can't we have standard (not bells and whistles like the "elite" programs) facilities and amenities AND pay decent money for a good coaching prospect (not even talking about a proven coach or a retread like Fox)?

This isn't asking for much, IMO. The facilities issue is something that is paid for mostly by donor money.

OaktownBear said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Can't agree with this. Having a practice facility and other amenities are pretty much bare minimum these days for high-major programs. The fact that Cal is so far behind in obtaining these essentials is a microcosm of the current state of the program. You can't attract a desireable coach without these issues addressed unless the coach has a prior connection to the program.

OaktownBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

A penny wise and a pound foolish type of guy will focus on how long we should keep or replace Fox, when we should be talking about how to get a practice facility for basketball. No serious replacement would come to Cal to coach without a facility and what we would have to pay that coach will never return on the investment.

---

This board is fixated with building a practice facility. It is the same wrongheaded move that has plagued Cal. The money that would be devoted to a practice facility would be far more effectively used as an endowment to pay head coaches so we could be competitive in that market. Cal will never, ever, ever, ever, have the best facilities. Kids will not come here for that. Coaches will not come here for that.

The Chancellor needs to step in and make an already existing court the exclusive use of the basketball programs, whether that is the court at Haas or a court in RSF or wherever. If Cal builds a practice facility we'll win exactly zero more games.

I would point out that since we built the training facilities at the stadium, not only is our football team worse but we have plummeted down the Director's Cup standings. Athletes do not come to Cal for the facilities. They go to Oregon or USC for that. We have other selling points. We need to use them.

Trying to keep up with the arms race of elite programs is essentially being like the Soviet Union in the 80's trying to win a military spending war with the US that they could never win and depriving other areas of the funding, thus hastening their inevitable demise.

We need to spend smart. Saying "they have a practice facility. we need one too." is not spending smart especially when we flat out see how little building a giant new facility up the hill helped us.

---

---

I remember at a company I worked for, we had a good year and a bunch of people were asking for a lot of great things that would make us competitive on the job market with other tech companies. On a company wide call, the CEO said. "I'd love to do all those things. They are great ideas. I just thought you'd all prefer salary increases". The requests stopped.

I'm betting that in attracting a coach, between a practice facility and an extra half mil with players having to keep a schedule, coach is going to take the half mil. Now, if we were paying 4-5 mil, maybe not. We aren't. I' not saying that a practice facility would not be a plus. I'm saying that it will not outweigh lower pay.

Further, there are a lot of mid major coaches making low to mid six figures that would love an opportunity. Yes, we have to dig a little deeper and maybe do some actual research to find the best one. If they win, they will presumably bring in more money and we can determine whether retaining that particular winning coach would be more likely by investing in a practice facility or increasing his salary.

When we have had good coaches we have succeeded. Improved facilities have not improved our performance nor have they improved our ability to hire coaches.

---

Big C said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

The dedicated facility issue is not one of a luxury wish list item that the elites are in some arms race over. That was probably right 10 years ago. It's no longer a luxury item, it's just an expectation of pretty much every D1 major program. In other words, no one will expect Cal to have the basketball facilities that Oregon or Kentucky have. But having worse facilities than most Mountain West programs will present limitations and raise questions of credibility and legitimacy.

For football, I can't imagine trying our hand at the rebuild with the old facilities. Or trying to hold onto Wilcox. It's not an arms race thing anymore.

---

Agree. The other thing about spending on a facility, we're pretty sure of what we're getting: a darn practice facility. Money spent on a coach is more of a crap shoot (especially if it's done like we did last time).

As an interim step, I like the idea proposed by OTB and Calumnus of at least getting a dedicated court... SOMETHING.

---

When they built the Kleeberger Field House and it's three basketball courts attached to the RSF but essentially right next to Haas, was it intended as a dedicated practice facility? Has anyone been in it?

The RSF now has 7 basketball courts, with 24/7 access for those with passes (including the players).

I don't know how the players view it (the critical factor) but that seems pretty good. I wouldn't mind there being other people around and security. I'd think the main thing would be having a court where the teams (men and women) have priority.

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

So why is it an "either or" proposition? Why can't we have standard (not bells and whistles like the "elite" programs) facilities and amenities AND pay decent money for a good coaching prospect (not even talking about a proven coach or a retread like Fox)?

This isn't asking for much, IMO. The facilities issue is something that is paid for mostly by donor money.

OaktownBear said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Can't agree with this. Having a practice facility and other amenities are pretty much bare minimum these days for high-major programs. The fact that Cal is so far behind in obtaining these essentials is a microcosm of the current state of the program. You can't attract a desireable coach without these issues addressed unless the coach has a prior connection to the program.

OaktownBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

A penny wise and a pound foolish type of guy will focus on how long we should keep or replace Fox, when we should be talking about how to get a practice facility for basketball. No serious replacement would come to Cal to coach without a facility and what we would have to pay that coach will never return on the investment.

---

This board is fixated with building a practice facility. It is the same wrongheaded move that has plagued Cal. The money that would be devoted to a practice facility would be far more effectively used as an endowment to pay head coaches so we could be competitive in that market. Cal will never, ever, ever, ever, have the best facilities. Kids will not come here for that. Coaches will not come here for that.

The Chancellor needs to step in and make an already existing court the exclusive use of the basketball programs, whether that is the court at Haas or a court in RSF or wherever. If Cal builds a practice facility we'll win exactly zero more games.

I would point out that since we built the training facilities at the stadium, not only is our football team worse but we have plummeted down the Director's Cup standings. Athletes do not come to Cal for the facilities. They go to Oregon or USC for that. We have other selling points. We need to use them.

Trying to keep up with the arms race of elite programs is essentially being like the Soviet Union in the 80's trying to win a military spending war with the US that they could never win and depriving other areas of the funding, thus hastening their inevitable demise.

We need to spend smart. Saying "they have a practice facility. we need one too." is not spending smart especially when we flat out see how little building a giant new facility up the hill helped us.

---

---

I remember at a company I worked for, we had a good year and a bunch of people were asking for a lot of great things that would make us competitive on the job market with other tech companies. On a company wide call, the CEO said. "I'd love to do all those things. They are great ideas. I just thought you'd all prefer salary increases". The requests stopped.

I'm betting that in attracting a coach, between a practice facility and an extra half mil with players having to keep a schedule, coach is going to take the half mil. Now, if we were paying 4-5 mil, maybe not. We aren't. I' not saying that a practice facility would not be a plus. I'm saying that it will not outweigh lower pay.

Further, there are a lot of mid major coaches making low to mid six figures that would love an opportunity. Yes, we have to dig a little deeper and maybe do some actual research to find the best one. If they win, they will presumably bring in more money and we can determine whether retaining that particular winning coach would be more likely by investing in a practice facility or increasing his salary.

When we have had good coaches we have succeeded. Improved facilities have not improved our performance nor have they improved our ability to hire coaches.

---

---

Good luck with that.

socaliganbear said:

---

Here's what Nevada has for men's and women's basketball. Nothing lavish or over the top. No arms race, just serious facilities for a school wanting to provide a serious commitment to their basketball players. Somehow, the flagship university of California can't figure out how to do the same.

https://nevadawolfpack.com/facilities/ramon-sessions-performance-center/22

---

So maybe we can build the Jason Kidd/Jaylen Brown/Ryan Anderson/Lamond Murrary/Shareef Abdur-Rahim Practice Center?

Why is Ramon Sessions coughing up $1M for this but those guys aren't as far as I know?

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

The dedicated facility issue is not one of a luxury wish list item that the elites are in some arms race over. That was probably right 10 years ago. It's no longer a luxury item, it's just an expectation of pretty much every D1 major program. In other words, no one will expect Cal to have the basketball facilities that Oregon or Kentucky have. But having worse facilities than most Mountain West programs will present limitations and raise questions of credibility and legitimacy.

For football, I can't imagine trying our hand at the rebuild with the old facilities. Or trying to hold onto Wilcox. It's not an arms race thing anymore.

---

Agree. The other thing about spending on a facility, we're pretty sure of what we're getting: a darn practice facility. Money spent on a coach is more of a crap shoot (especially if it's done like we did last time).

As an interim step, I like the idea proposed by OTB and Calumnus of at least getting a dedicated court... SOMETHING.

---

When they built the Kleeberger Field House and it's three basketball courts attached to the RSF but essentially right next to Haas, was it intended as a dedicated practice facility? Has anyone been in it?

The RSF now has 7 basketball courts, with 24/7 access for those with passes (including the players).

I don't know how the players view it (the critical factor) but that seems pretty good. I wouldn't mind there being other people around and security. I'd think the main thing would be having a court where the teams (men and women) have priority.

---

That would be a place to start, for sure. Or. as they call it nowadays, a "floor".