Coaches come and go. A decent practice facility will be around for much longer.

That said, it's not either-or. A brilliant recruiter can overcome facilities, but then he must also be a competent coach and not hand out money like Sean Miller did.

Ideally:

Donors/somebody dedicate funds to a practice facility exclusive to men and women, or renovate/upgrade an existing court (or courts) and make it for the exclusive use of the two teams. (Those who have played a lot of pickup know how chancy it is to just show up and play. You never know how good the opposition will be ...)

Hire a young coach, get lucky in the hire, and get to .500 in conference. The young coach will, of course, leave for a better job, but then the odds of hiring another good young coach go up.

ClayK said:

---

Coaches come and go. A decent practice facility will be around for much longer.

That said, it's not either-or. A brilliant recruiter can overcome facilities, but then he must also be a competent coach and not hand out money like Sean Miller did.

Ideally:

Donors/somebody dedicate funds to a practice facility exclusive to men and women, or renovate/upgrade an existing court (or courts) and make it for the exclusive use of the two teams. (Those who have played a lot of pickup know how chancy it is to just show up and play. You never know how good the opposition will be ...)

Hire a young coach, get lucky in the hire, and get to .500 in conference. The young coach will, of course, leave for a better job, but then the odds of hiring another good young coach go up.

---

There is absolutely no question that there should be a court dedicated for the use of the basketball team. They should not have to show up and reserve a court like anyone else. They have a scholarship that is predicated on them putting in the work and they need the resources to do that. But a court is a court is a court. My objection is not to dedicating a court to them (as I made clear in my post). My objection is to building an expensive facility, taking up land/space that is at a premium on campus, for the sole purpose of taking recruits on visits to it and pointing to it and saying look how swanky our practice facility is. Cal should provide the necessary facilities. A court built specifically for them provides them no more benefit than a court in the RSF that may be next to others but is specifically dedicated for their use.

The fact that Cal has not figured out how to find a court that they dedicate to them is patently ridiculous, but the adequate response is to just do that, not to throw a bunch of money at something that doesn't provide a tangible benefit but that people think will look better to recruits.

Coach Fox will get at least one more year.

joe amos yaks said:

---

Coach Fox will get at least one more year.

---

So you're saying Five in total?

If the majority on this board has its way, Fox won't get a THIRD year, and if he does, they will want him fired during that year, no matter how well their team does. Or at least that is how it sounds.

"Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!"

SFCityBear said:

---

If the majority on this board has its way, Fox won't get a THIRD year, and if he does, they will want him fired during that year, no matter how well their team does. Or at least that is how it sounds.

---

If Fox were fired tomorrow I wouldn't complain, at least not before seeing his replacement. But I think that would come with a high cost. Of course there's the buyout but the results of 3 of the last 4 seasons and the current shape of the roster would also make it extremely difficult to identify and hire the right person to get our program back on track.

I wouldn't want to fire any coach in the middle of a season without cause on the order of cheating or abuse.

If we fire Fox at the end of the 2021-22 season then we'll be one more year into the disaster phase and finding a replacement will be even harder.

I see no good alternatives among the above. Another reason to hope for better results next season.

SFCityBear said:

---

If the majority on this board has its way, Fox won't get a THIRD year, and if he does, they will want him fired during that year, no matter how well their team does. Or at least that is how it sounds.

"Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!"

---

I think you may be reading the room wrong (or I may be - its a tough room). Here's what I'm seeing -

First off, the majority of this board have disappeared or are silent - so its hard to tell what their 'way' is. But at least some of those that remain HAVE provided metrics for retention - mostly in terms of W/Ls, end of year 3 standing or recruiting actions - so maybe NOT - 'no matter how well their team does'.

But it does seem like those metrics are unlikely to be achieved based on prior results (which tend to be the best indicator of future performance, but not a guarantee). My take is that most of those remaining on this board are simply getting ready for the inevitable.

I think the minority who want to retain FOX are the ones who are relying on the 'no matter how poorly their team does' doctrine. So far, the best metric that side has provided is a general 'coaches need X years to establish . . . '. But I have not yet heard anything specific to Fox or what he has done in two years to support that argument.

BeachedBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

If the majority on this board has its way, Fox won't get a THIRD year, and if he does, they will want him fired during that year, no matter how well their team does. Or at least that is how it sounds.

"Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!"

---

I think you may be reading the room wrong (or I may be - its a tough room). Here's what I'm seeing -

First off, the majority of this board have disappeared or are silent - so its hard to tell what their 'way' is. But at least some of those that remain HAVE provided metrics for retention - mostly in terms of W/Ls, end of year 3 standing or recruiting actions - so maybe NOT - 'no matter how well their team does'.

But it does seem like those metrics are unlikely to be achieved based on prior results (which tend to be the best indicator of future performance, but not a guarantee). My take is that most of those remaining on this board are simply getting ready for the inevitable.

I think the minority who want to retain FOX are the ones who are relying on the 'no matter how poorly their team does' doctrine. So far, the best metric that side has provided is a general 'coaches need X years to establish . . . '. But I have not yet heard anything specific to Fox or what he has done in two years to support that argument.

---

Thank you for providing a reasoned response. I chose not to respond not trusting myself to be reasoned.

Every other team has announced incoming transfers.

We are all in on football because we have to be. Hoops, no matter how much I/we love it, is at best second fiddle.

Fox is an OK coach but not a good fit IMHO because he isn't an elite recruiter. To do well here, our coach/staff needs to be elite recruiters for a variety of reasons.

Fox isn't going anywhere anytime soon because we simply can't afford to fire him. In retrospect, we probably should have kept Jones beause we would be in the same place results-wise and better off financially. Jones was a decent recruiter once he figured out who to target (and who not to target). The team was showing signs of life towards the end. He was never going to take us to the Final Four but perhaps he could have gotten us to top 8 in conference so the next coach wouldn't have as big a hole to dig out of

The issue with firing coaches every couple of years is that we dig ourselves a deeper and deeper hole to climb out of (players leaving, poor reputation program-wise, etc.), hence the need for elite recruiters to get results more quickly.

To be recruit better, our coaching staff is likely going to have to get their hands dirty (paying players/AAU coaches). Some (maybe many) here aren't willing to go there. This will always be a limiting factor. The field isn't level. Fox is a coach who won't go there.

So I hold out hope that Fox can eventually bring us up to a level of respectability so that when we fire him/he leaves, the next coach won't have to dig out of so big a hole.

Bear8995 said:

---

Fox isn't going anywhere anytime soon because we simply can't afford to fire him. In retrospect, we probably should have kept Jones beause we would be in the same place results-wise and better off financially. Jones was a decent recruiter once he figured out who to target (and who not to target). The team was showing signs of life towards the end. He was never going to take us to the Final Four but perhaps he could have gotten us to top 8 in conference so the next coach wouldn't have as big a hole to dig out of

---

What if it's donor $ that pays for buyouts? Then it is affordable, no?

Bear8995 said:

---

We are all in on football because we have to be. Hoops, no matter how much I/we love it, is at best second fiddle.

---

True. To be clear, second fiddle in our hearts would be fine. The issue is it just doesn't make money and the likelihood that further investment will result materially increasing NET revenue is slim. That is the problem.

Quote:

---

Fox is an OK coach but not a good fit IMHO because he isn't an elite recruiter.

---

Fox is an okay coach. To be honest, I think some are inflating his coaching ability by comparing it to his recruiting ability. As in, his recruiting is poor so his redeeming quality must be his coaching. IMO, he is on par with Braun or Campanelli in "coaching".

Quote:

---

To do well here, our coach/staff needs to be elite recruiters for a variety of reasons.

---

I mostly agree, but I take issue with the word "elite". I'm not even sure what we want is an "elite" recruiter. We want the right recruiter. Cal has unique challenges and unique good qualities. We aren't going to succeed recruiting like Duke or Kentucky. The article about Dennis Gates plan to recruit to Cleveland State was impressive. His plan was specific to Cleveland State and it worked well. That plan wouldn't work at Kentucky. It wouldn't work at Cal. But it was extremely well designed to work at Cleveland State. We need someone to do that here. Not saying it is Gates, being able to design a plan for Cleveland State does not mean you can design one for Cal. Just saying we need someone who can do for Cal what he did for Cleveland State.

Quote:

---

Fox isn't going anywhere anytime soon because we simply can't afford to fire him.

---

We can afford whatever the donors wish to pay. Not saying I would pay anything if I were them, especially after just doing this two years ago, but the issue is the donors. If they were motivated, they'd pay it. They either haven't come to the conclusion that Fox needs to go or they don't have faith in Cal to improve the situation if they pay him off.

Quote:

---

In retrospect, we probably should have kept Jones beause we would be in the same place results-wise and better off financially.

---

That is what I've been saying. We should have fired Jones, but we shouldn't have fired him to do this. I have come to the conclusion that Cal should have Fox serve out his contract without extension and then move on. But if Cal is going to publicly act like success still matters, I'm going to comment based on that standard. And based on that standard, they should move on now.

Quote:

---

Jones was a decent recruiter once he figured out who to target (and who not to target). The team was showing signs of life towards the end. He was never going to take us to the Final Four but perhaps he could have gotten us to top 8 in conference so the next coach wouldn't have as big a hole to dig out of

---

I argued at the time there were 2 potential reasons to keep Jones. 1. you were giving up and going cheap; or 2. The end of Martin's tenure decimated the roster. Firing Jones risked decimating the roster again as it gave an excuse for players to transfer and recruits to get out of their LOI's before we had a chance to solidify things. Ultimately Jones was bad enough that it seemed like it outweighed reason #2. But it did decimate the roster yet again. If we don't get a top quality recruiting class come Fall signing period, or the underclassmen don't take great strides next season, I don't think this should be an impediment after next year. If, on the other hand, the underclassmen are showing more progress and the recruiting is improving, even if we are never going to get to the top half of conference, it might be worth another year to give the next coach a more stable roster and to save on the buyout.

Quote:

---

To be recruit better, our coaching staff is likely going to have to get their hands dirty (paying players/AAU coaches). Some (maybe many) here aren't willing to go there. This will always be a limiting factor. The field isn't level. Fox is a coach who won't go there.

---

Don't agree with this at all. First of all, people act like somehow dirty recruiting is new. IMO, recruiting was a lot dirtier in the old days. Back in the 70's Stanford had alums giving players "jobs" that let's just say paid a lot more than market value for what they were pretending to do. Before SAT minimums were put in, guys were illiterate. The first year when a paltry 700 was required, Nebraska lost 9 recruits due to not qualifying by that standard. Recruiting has always been a dirty business.

This goes back to the "elite recruiter" you mentioned above. Look, let's be honest here. It will be a miracle and flat out luck for Cal to be a consistent, elite basketball program. Frankly, getting dirty won't work. We simply can't get as dirty as others. Even if we got just as dirty, we will never have the resources to compete. Others have more alums willing to put more money to the cause. Getting dirty isn't the solution. We will just be third rate dirty.

Actually, we've seen good enough. Recruiting like Braun and coaching like Monty lead to our only conference championship in the modern era. Braun was not elite. He was fine. We can reasonably expect to recruit like that. And before we talk about the challenges of today's program, Braun had to recruit to a team that was banned from postseason and nationally humiliated. Braun had reasonable success on the court until he flat out played out the string. Now getting a coach like Monty is tougher, but we don't need that good. Do I think that formula leads us to top 10 finishes? No. Not without a lot of luck. (and Monty got that luck at Stanford after 8 years). But we can consistently place in the top half of conference, turn out some good players, and be an entertaining, competitive program.

edit:

What we DO need is a coach who is willing to deal with characters he might find unpleasant. There are certainly a lot of those on the AAU circuit. That is unfortunate, especially for the players because frankly they have little choice but to play ball. But while I don't think we need to make deals with them, we need to be willing to kiss their ring a bit. I think that was the main problem Monty encountered. I don't blame him for deciding he didn't want to deal with that, but I think it is the reality.

So we need to find the next Ben Braun -- too bad Cal wasn't looking for him in the last few weeks, because Cincinnati just hired him. And Cincinnati had that opening only because they fired a mediocre head coach after two seasons.

OaktownBear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

We are all in on football because we have to be. Hoops, no matter how much I/we love it, is at best second fiddle.

---

True. To be clear, second fiddle in our hearts would be fine. The issue is it just doesn't make money and the likelihood that further investment will result materially increasing NET revenue is slim. That is the problem.

Quote:

---

Fox is an OK coach but not a good fit IMHO because he isn't an elite recruiter.

---

Fox is an okay coach. To be honest, I think some are inflating his coaching ability by comparing it to his recruiting ability. As in, his recruiting is poor so his redeeming quality must be his coaching. IMO, he is on par with Braun or Campanelli in "coaching".

Quote:

---

To do well here, our coach/staff needs to be elite recruiters for a variety of reasons.

---

I mostly agree, but I take issue with the word "elite". I'm not even sure what we want is an "elite" recruiter. We want the right recruiter. Cal has unique challenges and unique good qualities. We aren't going to succeed recruiting like Duke or Kentucky. The article about Dennis Gates plan to recruit to Cleveland State was impressive. His plan was specific to Cleveland State and it worked well. That plan wouldn't work at Kentucky. It wouldn't work at Cal. But it was extremely well designed to work at Cleveland State. We need someone to do that here. Not saying it is Gates, being able to design a plan for Cleveland State does not mean you can design one for Cal. Just saying we need someone who can do for Cal what he did for Cleveland State.

Quote:

---

Fox isn't going anywhere anytime soon because we simply can't afford to fire him.

---

We can afford whatever the donors wish to pay. Not saying I would pay anything if I were them, especially after just doing this two years ago, but the issue is the donors. If they were motivated, they'd pay it. They either haven't come to the conclusion that Fox needs to go or they don't have faith in Cal to improve the situation if they pay him off.

Quote:

---

In retrospect, we probably should have kept Jones beause we would be in the same place results-wise and better off financially.

---

That is what I've been saying. We should have fired Jones, but we shouldn't have fired him to do this. I have come to the conclusion that Cal should have Fox serve out his contract without extension and then move on. But if Cal is going to publicly act like success still matters, I'm going to comment based on that standard. And based on that standard, they should move on now.

Quote:

---

Jones was a decent recruiter once he figured out who to target (and who not to target). The team was showing signs of life towards the end. He was never going to take us to the Final Four but perhaps he could have gotten us to top 8 in conference so the next coach wouldn't have as big a hole to dig out of

---

I argued at the time there were 2 potential reasons to keep Jones. 1. you were giving up and going cheap; or 2. The end of Martin's tenure decimated the roster. Firing Jones risked decimating the roster again as it gave an excuse for players to transfer and recruits to get out of their LOI's before we had a chance to solidify things. Ultimately Jones was bad enough that it seemed like it outweighed reason #2. But it did decimate the roster yet again. If we don't get a top quality recruiting class come Fall signing period, or the underclassmen don't take great strides next season, I don't think this should be an impediment after next year. If, on the other hand, the underclassmen are showing more progress and the recruiting is improving, even if we are never going to get to the top half of conference, it might be worth another year to give the next coach a more stable roster and to save on the buyout.

Quote:

---

To be recruit better, our coaching staff is likely going to have to get their hands dirty (paying players/AAU coaches). Some (maybe many) here aren't willing to go there. This will always be a limiting factor. The field isn't level. Fox is a coach who won't go there.

---

Don't agree with this at all. First of all, people act like somehow dirty recruiting is new. IMO, recruiting was a lot dirtier in the old days. Back in the 70's Stanford had alums giving players "jobs" that let's just say paid a lot more than market value for what they were pretending to do. Before SAT minimums were put in, guys were illiterate. The first year when a paltry 700 was required, Nebraska lost 9 recruits due to not qualifying by that standard. Recruiting has always been a dirty business.

This goes back to the "elite recruiter" you mentioned above. Look, let's be honest here. It will be a miracle and flat out luck for Cal to be a consistent, elite basketball program. Frankly, getting dirty won't work. We simply can't get as dirty as others. Even if we got just as dirty, we will never have the resources to compete. Others have more alums willing to put more money to the cause. Getting dirty isn't the solution. We will just be third rate dirty.

Actually, we've seen good enough. Recruiting like Braun and coaching like Monty lead to our only conference championship in the modern era. Braun was not elite. He was fine. We can reasonably expect to recruit like that. And before we talk about the challenges of today's program, Braun had to recruit to a team that was banned from postseason and nationally humiliated. Braun had reasonable success on the court until he flat out played out the string. Now getting a coach like Monty is tougher, but we don't need that good. Do I think that formula leads us to top 10 finishes? No. Not without a lot of luck. (and Monty got that luck at Stanford after 8 years). But we can consistently place in the top half of conference, turn out some good players, and be an entertaining, competitive program.

edit:

What we DO need is a coach who is willing to deal with characters he might find unpleasant. There are certainly a lot of those on the AAU circuit. That is unfortunate, especially for the players because frankly they have little choice but to play ball. But while I don't think we need to make deals with them, we need to be willing to kiss their ring a bit. I think that was the main problem Monty encountered. I don't blame him for deciding he didn't want to deal with that, but I think it is the reality.

---

I want more than an entertaining, competitive program and "good enough." I want to f'img win, and win a lot. To get to what you want, sure, we could play it clean and maybe get there with some luck. I want us to be all in. That isn't possible now.

Donors see what we all see. No energy or excitement. It will take a lot of faith for someone to step up. I don't see that happening. Are you willing to write even a small check to buy Fox out? I'm not.

We need football to kick *ss first and then we can focus on hoops. That is why I write my (very small) checks to football. IMHO, that is our only chance to eventually be good at hoops.

One problem is that with Covid continuing, we are unlikely to see many fans in the stands indoors this coming year no matter how much we win or lose. With those financial results looming, we will not be in a position for a buy-out. Will just have to ride it out and see if there is any major improvement on the court next season.

Bear8995 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

We are all in on football because we have to be. Hoops, no matter how much I/we love it, is at best second fiddle.

---

True. To be clear, second fiddle in our hearts would be fine. The issue is it just doesn't make money and the likelihood that further investment will result materially increasing NET revenue is slim. That is the problem.

Quote:

---

Fox is an OK coach but not a good fit IMHO because he isn't an elite recruiter.

---

Fox is an okay coach. To be honest, I think some are inflating his coaching ability by comparing it to his recruiting ability. As in, his recruiting is poor so his redeeming quality must be his coaching. IMO, he is on par with Braun or Campanelli in "coaching".

Quote:

---

To do well here, our coach/staff needs to be elite recruiters for a variety of reasons.

---

I mostly agree, but I take issue with the word "elite". I'm not even sure what we want is an "elite" recruiter. We want the right recruiter. Cal has unique challenges and unique good qualities. We aren't going to succeed recruiting like Duke or Kentucky. The article about Dennis Gates plan to recruit to Cleveland State was impressive. His plan was specific to Cleveland State and it worked well. That plan wouldn't work at Kentucky. It wouldn't work at Cal. But it was extremely well designed to work at Cleveland State. We need someone to do that here. Not saying it is Gates, being able to design a plan for Cleveland State does not mean you can design one for Cal. Just saying we need someone who can do for Cal what he did for Cleveland State.

Quote:

---

Fox isn't going anywhere anytime soon because we simply can't afford to fire him.

---

We can afford whatever the donors wish to pay. Not saying I would pay anything if I were them, especially after just doing this two years ago, but the issue is the donors. If they were motivated, they'd pay it. They either haven't come to the conclusion that Fox needs to go or they don't have faith in Cal to improve the situation if they pay him off.

Quote:

---

In retrospect, we probably should have kept Jones beause we would be in the same place results-wise and better off financially.

---

That is what I've been saying. We should have fired Jones, but we shouldn't have fired him to do this. I have come to the conclusion that Cal should have Fox serve out his contract without extension and then move on. But if Cal is going to publicly act like success still matters, I'm going to comment based on that standard. And based on that standard, they should move on now.

Quote:

---

Jones was a decent recruiter once he figured out who to target (and who not to target). The team was showing signs of life towards the end. He was never going to take us to the Final Four but perhaps he could have gotten us to top 8 in conference so the next coach wouldn't have as big a hole to dig out of

---

I argued at the time there were 2 potential reasons to keep Jones. 1. you were giving up and going cheap; or 2. The end of Martin's tenure decimated the roster. Firing Jones risked decimating the roster again as it gave an excuse for players to transfer and recruits to get out of their LOI's before we had a chance to solidify things. Ultimately Jones was bad enough that it seemed like it outweighed reason #2. But it did decimate the roster yet again. If we don't get a top quality recruiting class come Fall signing period, or the underclassmen don't take great strides next season, I don't think this should be an impediment after next year. If, on the other hand, the underclassmen are showing more progress and the recruiting is improving, even if we are never going to get to the top half of conference, it might be worth another year to give the next coach a more stable roster and to save on the buyout.

Quote:

---

To be recruit better, our coaching staff is likely going to have to get their hands dirty (paying players/AAU coaches). Some (maybe many) here aren't willing to go there. This will always be a limiting factor. The field isn't level. Fox is a coach who won't go there.

---

Don't agree with this at all. First of all, people act like somehow dirty recruiting is new. IMO, recruiting was a lot dirtier in the old days. Back in the 70's Stanford had alums giving players "jobs" that let's just say paid a lot more than market value for what they were pretending to do. Before SAT minimums were put in, guys were illiterate. The first year when a paltry 700 was required, Nebraska lost 9 recruits due to not qualifying by that standard. Recruiting has always been a dirty business.

This goes back to the "elite recruiter" you mentioned above. Look, let's be honest here. It will be a miracle and flat out luck for Cal to be a consistent, elite basketball program. Frankly, getting dirty won't work. We simply can't get as dirty as others. Even if we got just as dirty, we will never have the resources to compete. Others have more alums willing to put more money to the cause. Getting dirty isn't the solution. We will just be third rate dirty.

Actually, we've seen good enough. Recruiting like Braun and coaching like Monty lead to our only conference championship in the modern era. Braun was not elite. He was fine. We can reasonably expect to recruit like that. And before we talk about the challenges of today's program, Braun had to recruit to a team that was banned from postseason and nationally humiliated. Braun had reasonable success on the court until he flat out played out the string. Now getting a coach like Monty is tougher, but we don't need that good. Do I think that formula leads us to top 10 finishes? No. Not without a lot of luck. (and Monty got that luck at Stanford after 8 years). But we can consistently place in the top half of conference, turn out some good players, and be an entertaining, competitive program.

edit:

What we DO need is a coach who is willing to deal with characters he might find unpleasant. There are certainly a lot of those on the AAU circuit. That is unfortunate, especially for the players because frankly they have little choice but to play ball. But while I don't think we need to make deals with them, we need to be willing to kiss their ring a bit. I think that was the main problem Monty encountered. I don't blame him for deciding he didn't want to deal with that, but I think it is the reality.

---

I want more than an entertaining, competitive program and "good enough." I want to f'img win, and win a lot. To get to what you want, sure, we could play it clean and maybe get there with some luck. I want us to be all in. That isn't possible now.

Donors see what we all see. No energy or excitement. It will take a lot of faith for someone to step up. I don't see that happening. Are you willing to write even a small check to buy Fox out? I'm not.

We need football to kick *ss first and then we can focus on hoops. That is why I write my (very small) checks to football. IMHO, that is our only chance to eventually be good at hoops.

---

I understand that is what you want. I don't blame you. But you are rooting for the wrong program. Cal's athletic program has been run incompetently for years. But the Cal community is a widely diverse community with widely diverse interests and football and basketball are a small part. The Cal community will NEVER have the interest or dedicate the resources or even agree the resources should be dedicated to football and basketball the way Alabama will. At its most competent, Bronty is about what you can expect. You can't be the Yankees on the A's payroll. You can be the A's, though. The difference is that it is possible a change of ownership turns the A's into the Warriors. But you can't change out the faculty, students and alums of the university. Your only hope is that some billionaire alum decides Csl football and basketball is his thing, fully funds athletics then goes to the academic side and pays them off to shut up about academics and allow recruiting violations, and I don't think there is enough money to do that.

To be clear, you should lobby as hard as you can for what you want. I think for your own sanity you should focus on pro sports where everyone is pulling for the same goal rather than Cal sports where for every one of you there are 5 rowing against you, But you should definitely keep lobbying. Personally, I've made my peace with the fact that Cal will not make the football playoffs or final four in my lifetime precisely because not nearly enough in the community want them to. We could get lucky some year, but I doubt it. I am happy to rail on the athletic department because their job is to make Cal the best it can be and they don't come close, but I can't criticize them for not achieving what those with 100 times the support achieve.

Lastly, I'm sorry if this bursts a bubble, but I suspect you know this. Wilcox is at best Bronty. I'd be thrilled if he turns out to be Bronty. I don't see the kind of winning you want in the cards there.

annarborbear said:

---

One problem is that with Covid continuing, we are unlikely to see many fans in the stands indoors this coming year no matter how much we win or lose. With those financial results looming, we will not be in a position for a buy-out. Will just have to ride it out and see if there is any major improvement on the court next season.

---

why would Covid have any impact on games played months after everyone is vaccinated?

OaktownBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

One problem is that with Covid continuing, we are unlikely to see many fans in the stands indoors this coming year no matter how much we win or lose. With those financial results looming, we will not be in a position for a buy-out. Will just have to ride it out and see if there is any major improvement on the court next season.

---

why would Covid have any impact on games played months after everyone is vaccinated?

---

We now have four variants spreading from parts of the world where people are not vaccinated. It is unclear whether the current vaccines will be effective against these variants, or how long the current protections will last. From a public health standpoint, we will be wise to continue as many safety measures as possible until we can see more progress and knowledge. It may end up being an individual choice, but many people will defer indoor gatherings for the foreseeable future.

annarborbear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

One problem is that with Covid continuing, we are unlikely to see many fans in the stands indoors this coming year no matter how much we win or lose. With those financial results looming, we will not be in a position for a buy-out. Will just have to ride it out and see if there is any major improvement on the court next season.

---

why would Covid have any impact on games played months after everyone is vaccinated?

---

We now have four variants spreading from parts of the world where people are not vaccinated. It is unclear whether the current vaccines will be effective against these variants, or how long the current protections will last. From a public health standpoint, we will be wise to continue as many safety measures as possible until we can see more progress and knowledge. It may end up being an individual choice, but many people will defer indoor gatherings for the foreseeable future.

---

People are sufficiently weary of restrictions that by fall any restrictions will be solely by individual choice, or perhaps the choice of an individual business.

Also, given the antivax nuttery that spreads on social media like a plague, we will never see anything close to having everyone in the US vaccinated. It will probably end up at around 60% of adults.

BearSD said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

One problem is that with Covid continuing, we are unlikely to see many fans in the stands indoors this coming year no matter how much we win or lose. With those financial results looming, we will not be in a position for a buy-out. Will just have to ride it out and see if there is any major improvement on the court next season.

---

why would Covid have any impact on games played months after everyone is vaccinated?

---

We now have four variants spreading from parts of the world where people are not vaccinated. It is unclear whether the current vaccines will be effective against these variants, or how long the current protections will last. From a public health standpoint, we will be wise to continue as many safety measures as possible until we can see more progress and knowledge. It may end up being an individual choice, but many people will defer indoor gatherings for the foreseeable future.

---

People are sufficiently weary of restrictions that by fall any restrictions will be solely by individual choice, or perhaps the choice of an individual business.

Also, given the antivax nuttery that spreads on social media like a plague, we will never see anything close to having everyone in the US vaccinated. It will probably end up at around 60% of adults.

---

I could be wrong. But looking at the latest CDC guidelines and precautions, I just can't see them recommending large packed indoor gatherings with a lot of yelling and shouting any time soon. I am fully vaccinated myself, but am still expecting the need for a booster vaccination about six months from now.

Bear8995 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

We are all in on football because we have to be. Hoops, no matter how much I/we love it, is at best second fiddle.

---

True. To be clear, second fiddle in our hearts would be fine. The issue is it just doesn't make money and the likelihood that further investment will result materially increasing NET revenue is slim. That is the problem.

Quote:

---

Fox is an OK coach but not a good fit IMHO because he isn't an elite recruiter.

---

Fox is an okay coach. To be honest, I think some are inflating his coaching ability by comparing it to his recruiting ability. As in, his recruiting is poor so his redeeming quality must be his coaching. IMO, he is on par with Braun or Campanelli in "coaching".

Quote:

---

To do well here, our coach/staff needs to be elite recruiters for a variety of reasons.

---

I mostly agree, but I take issue with the word "elite". I'm not even sure what we want is an "elite" recruiter. We want the right recruiter. Cal has unique challenges and unique good qualities. We aren't going to succeed recruiting like Duke or Kentucky. The article about Dennis Gates plan to recruit to Cleveland State was impressive. His plan was specific to Cleveland State and it worked well. That plan wouldn't work at Kentucky. It wouldn't work at Cal. But it was extremely well designed to work at Cleveland State. We need someone to do that here. Not saying it is Gates, being able to design a plan for Cleveland State does not mean you can design one for Cal. Just saying we need someone who can do for Cal what he did for Cleveland State.

Quote:

---

Fox isn't going anywhere anytime soon because we simply can't afford to fire him.

---

We can afford whatever the donors wish to pay. Not saying I would pay anything if I were them, especially after just doing this two years ago, but the issue is the donors. If they were motivated, they'd pay it. They either haven't come to the conclusion that Fox needs to go or they don't have faith in Cal to improve the situation if they pay him off.

Quote:

---

In retrospect, we probably should have kept Jones beause we would be in the same place results-wise and better off financially.

---

That is what I've been saying. We should have fired Jones, but we shouldn't have fired him to do this. I have come to the conclusion that Cal should have Fox serve out his contract without extension and then move on. But if Cal is going to publicly act like success still matters, I'm going to comment based on that standard. And based on that standard, they should move on now.

Quote:

---

Jones was a decent recruiter once he figured out who to target (and who not to target). The team was showing signs of life towards the end. He was never going to take us to the Final Four but perhaps he could have gotten us to top 8 in conference so the next coach wouldn't have as big a hole to dig out of

---

I argued at the time there were 2 potential reasons to keep Jones. 1. you were giving up and going cheap; or 2. The end of Martin's tenure decimated the roster. Firing Jones risked decimating the roster again as it gave an excuse for players to transfer and recruits to get out of their LOI's before we had a chance to solidify things. Ultimately Jones was bad enough that it seemed like it outweighed reason #2. But it did decimate the roster yet again. If we don't get a top quality recruiting class come Fall signing period, or the underclassmen don't take great strides next season, I don't think this should be an impediment after next year. If, on the other hand, the underclassmen are showing more progress and the recruiting is improving, even if we are never going to get to the top half of conference, it might be worth another year to give the next coach a more stable roster and to save on the buyout.

Quote:

---

To be recruit better, our coaching staff is likely going to have to get their hands dirty (paying players/AAU coaches). Some (maybe many) here aren't willing to go there. This will always be a limiting factor. The field isn't level. Fox is a coach who won't go there.

---

Don't agree with this at all. First of all, people act like somehow dirty recruiting is new. IMO, recruiting was a lot dirtier in the old days. Back in the 70's Stanford had alums giving players "jobs" that let's just say paid a lot more than market value for what they were pretending to do. Before SAT minimums were put in, guys were illiterate. The first year when a paltry 700 was required, Nebraska lost 9 recruits due to not qualifying by that standard. Recruiting has always been a dirty business.

This goes back to the "elite recruiter" you mentioned above. Look, let's be honest here. It will be a miracle and flat out luck for Cal to be a consistent, elite basketball program. Frankly, getting dirty won't work. We simply can't get as dirty as others. Even if we got just as dirty, we will never have the resources to compete. Others have more alums willing to put more money to the cause. Getting dirty isn't the solution. We will just be third rate dirty.

Actually, we've seen good enough. Recruiting like Braun and coaching like Monty lead to our only conference championship in the modern era. Braun was not elite. He was fine. We can reasonably expect to recruit like that. And before we talk about the challenges of today's program, Braun had to recruit to a team that was banned from postseason and nationally humiliated. Braun had reasonable success on the court until he flat out played out the string. Now getting a coach like Monty is tougher, but we don't need that good. Do I think that formula leads us to top 10 finishes? No. Not without a lot of luck. (and Monty got that luck at Stanford after 8 years). But we can consistently place in the top half of conference, turn out some good players, and be an entertaining, competitive program.

edit:

What we DO need is a coach who is willing to deal with characters he might find unpleasant. There are certainly a lot of those on the AAU circuit. That is unfortunate, especially for the players because frankly they have little choice but to play ball. But while I don't think we need to make deals with them, we need to be willing to kiss their ring a bit. I think that was the main problem Monty encountered. I don't blame him for deciding he didn't want to deal with that, but I think it is the reality.

---

I want more than an entertaining, competitive program and "good enough." I want to f'img win, and win a lot. To get to what you want, sure, we could play it clean and maybe get there with some luck. I want us to be all in. That isn't possible now.

Donors see what we all see. No energy or excitement. It will take a lot of faith for someone to step up. I don't see that happening. Are you willing to write even a small check to buy Fox out? I'm not.

We need football to kick *ss first and then we can focus on hoops. That is why I write my (very small) checks to football. IMHO, that is our only chance to eventually be good at hoops.

---

I understand that is what you want. I don't blame you. But you are rooting for the wrong program. Cal's athletic program has been run incompetently for years. But the Cal community is a widely diverse community with widely diverse interests and football and basketball are a small part. The Cal community will NEVER have the interest or dedicate the resources or even agree the resources should be dedicated to football and basketball the way Alabama will. At its most competent, Bronty is about what you can expect. You can't be the Yankees on the A's payroll. You can be the A's, though. The difference is that it is possible a change of ownership turns the A's into the Warriors. But you can't change out the faculty, students and alums of the university. Your only hope is that some billionaire alum decides Csl football and basketball is his thing, fully funds athletics then goes to the academic side and pays them off to shut up about academics and allow recruiting violations, and I don't think there is enough money to do that.

To be clear, you should lobby as hard as you can for what you want. I think for your own sanity you should focus on pro sports where everyone is pulling for the same goal rather than Cal sports where for every one of you there are 5 rowing against you, But you should definitely keep lobbying. Personally, I've made my peace with the fact that Cal will not make the football playoffs or final four in my lifetime precisely because not nearly enough in the community want them to. We could get lucky some year, but I doubt it. I am happy to rail on the athletic department because their job is to make Cal the best it can be and they don't come close, but I can't criticize them for not achieving what those with 100 times the support achieve.

Lastly, I'm sorry if this bursts a bubble, but I suspect you know this. Wilcox is at best Bronty. I'd be thrilled if he turns out to be Bronty. I don't see the kind of winning you want in the cards there.

---

Gee, thanks for the advice. The pro teams I root for do well but they will never hold a place in my heart like the Bears do. Such is life for me.

I agree with muchof what you are saying. No bubble burst. To me, it comes down to leadership. Christ? Maybe. Knowlton? Don't think so. Fox? Don't think so. Wilcox? Maybe. I agree the sheer amount of incompetence over the years is staggering when one considers the overall results. But there are examples of outstanding leadership in athletics with limited resources, even at Cal (Clark, Durden, McKeever, women's gymnastics coaches, even Tedford at the beginning) so it can happen.

Finally, I don't know you but based on how much time you spend writing here and the emotion behind your posts, I'll just say that IMHO I don't think you are really at peace with things. I suspect you are like me. You f'ing love the Bears and die a little with every loss. Maybe for your health you should take your own advice and root elsewhere. You want to complain but don't seem to want to do anything about it. I'd prefer to try a different approach. Maybe that makes me stupid or crazy. I'm cool with that.

To be clear, I don't blame you. I get the anger. I get the despair. I sincerely hope you will find peace one way or another. Me? I'll keep doing what I can to help the Bears improve. If we get lucky, build something sustainable or never make it before I die, then at least I know I will have tried.

---

I absolutely 100% support you lobbying for the cause and my comment about following pro sports was not intended to tell you to give up. My intent was to tell you that you aren't going to get the Cal community to support playing as dirty as elite teams. You aren't going to get the Cal community to spend as much money as elite teams. You aren't going to get Cal alums to go to games, talk around the water cooler, devote a good portion of their lives to it like elite teams. You aren't going to get Bay Area media to cover college sports like elite teams. So for me, I don't think I can expect elite under those circumstances.

My emotion is not in not being elite. As an aside, I am an A's fan. I enjoy watching the A's. The A's are not winning a World Series unless they get extremely lucky because their owners are cheap ass blanks. What the rest of the organization does with that giant obstacle is amazing. I am at peace with watching a team that most years is in the running all season, in fact usually in the playoffs. Well, as a collective, the Cal community is a cheap ass owner. What I want is to be the A's.

Bronty won a conference championship. I don't think that is a low bar. I'm not looking for a final four. We aren't willing to do what others do.

My emotion is in not being the A's. It is in being humiliatingly stupid. Cal can't spend the most. Cal won't bend the rules or it's ethics the most. But Cal can be the smartest program out there. In fact there are Cal grads among the smartest in sports organizations at the highest level. I am emotional about the stupidity.

I am also emotional about the willingness to spend the maximum amount possible to lose. Pick a lane. Cheap losers or invest enough, with enough intelligence to be competent.

In fairness to football and basketball, most of the coaches you mentioned as successful are not dealing with resource disadvantage compared to their competitors. They all do an amazing job but you can't compare their outcomes against opponents who don't have close to the support disadvantages that football and basketball have. None of those coaches are facing 50 opponents with thousands of supporters making significant academic concessions and devoting millions to their teams.

annarborbear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

One problem is that with Covid continuing, we are unlikely to see many fans in the stands indoors this coming year no matter how much we win or lose. With those financial results looming, we will not be in a position for a buy-out. Will just have to ride it out and see if there is any major improvement on the court next season.

---

why would Covid have any impact on games played months after everyone is vaccinated?

---

We now have four variants spreading from parts of the world where people are not vaccinated. It is unclear whether the current vaccines will be effective against these variants, or how long the current protections will last. From a public health standpoint, we will be wise to continue as many safety measures as possible until we can see more progress and knowledge. It may end up being an individual choice, but many people will defer indoor gatherings for the foreseeable future.

---

People are sufficiently weary of restrictions that by fall any restrictions will be solely by individual choice, or perhaps the choice of an individual business.

Also, given the antivax nuttery that spreads on social media like a plague, we will never see anything close to having everyone in the US vaccinated. It will probably end up at around 60% of adults.

---

I could be wrong. But looking at the latest CDC guidelines and precautions, I just can't see them recommending large packed indoor gatherings with a lot of yelling and shouting any time soon. I am fully vaccinated myself, but am still expecting the need for a booster vaccination about six months from now.

---

California has literally announced that all businesses are opening up in June 15. They specifically included large scale indoor events as long as they require proof of testing or vaccination.

Barring a significant backslide or a failure of the vaccines, we will still take precautions but we are largely going back to normal.

I certainly recognize there is a chance that things happen and we have to change course, but chances are games should be open to those who are vaccinated and that is everyone who wants one.

Newsom did not make that announcement if he thought there was any chance he was going to reneg months closer to a recall campaign.

Any idea when the mask requirement might lifted? I can wear a mask for a two hour basketball game but not going to a 4 hour football game if it is required.

oskidunker said:

---

Any idea when the mask requirement might lifted? I can wear a mask for a two hour basketball game but not going to a 4 hour football game if it is required.

---

Not for a very long time.

oskidunker said:

---

Any idea when the mask requirement might lifted? I can wear a mask for a two hour basketball game but not going to a 4 hour football game if it is required.

---

I can tell you that you won't need one on 9/11/21 at TCU

OaktownBear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

We are all in on football because we have to be. Hoops, no matter how much I/we love it, is at best second fiddle.

---

True. To be clear, second fiddle in our hearts would be fine. The issue is it just doesn't make money and the likelihood that further investment will result materially increasing NET revenue is slim. That is the problem.

Quote:

---

Fox is an OK coach but not a good fit IMHO because he isn't an elite recruiter.

---

Fox is an okay coach. To be honest, I think some are inflating his coaching ability by comparing it to his recruiting ability. As in, his recruiting is poor so his redeeming quality must be his coaching. IMO, he is on par with Braun or Campanelli in "coaching".

Quote:

---

To do well here, our coach/staff needs to be elite recruiters for a variety of reasons.

---

I mostly agree, but I take issue with the word "elite". I'm not even sure what we want is an "elite" recruiter. We want the right recruiter. Cal has unique challenges and unique good qualities. We aren't going to succeed recruiting like Duke or Kentucky. The article about Dennis Gates plan to recruit to Cleveland State was impressive. His plan was specific to Cleveland State and it worked well. That plan wouldn't work at Kentucky. It wouldn't work at Cal. But it was extremely well designed to work at Cleveland State. We need someone to do that here. Not saying it is Gates, being able to design a plan for Cleveland State does not mean you can design one for Cal. Just saying we need someone who can do for Cal what he did for Cleveland State.

Quote:

---

Fox isn't going anywhere anytime soon because we simply can't afford to fire him.

---

We can afford whatever the donors wish to pay. Not saying I would pay anything if I were them, especially after just doing this two years ago, but the issue is the donors. If they were motivated, they'd pay it. They either haven't come to the conclusion that Fox needs to go or they don't have faith in Cal to improve the situation if they pay him off.

Quote:

---

In retrospect, we probably should have kept Jones beause we would be in the same place results-wise and better off financially.

---

That is what I've been saying. We should have fired Jones, but we shouldn't have fired him to do this. I have come to the conclusion that Cal should have Fox serve out his contract without extension and then move on. But if Cal is going to publicly act like success still matters, I'm going to comment based on that standard. And based on that standard, they should move on now.

Quote:

---

Jones was a decent recruiter once he figured out who to target (and who not to target). The team was showing signs of life towards the end. He was never going to take us to the Final Four but perhaps he could have gotten us to top 8 in conference so the next coach wouldn't have as big a hole to dig out of

---

I argued at the time there were 2 potential reasons to keep Jones. 1. you were giving up and going cheap; or 2. The end of Martin's tenure decimated the roster. Firing Jones risked decimating the roster again as it gave an excuse for players to transfer and recruits to get out of their LOI's before we had a chance to solidify things. Ultimately Jones was bad enough that it seemed like it outweighed reason #2. But it did decimate the roster yet again. If we don't get a top quality recruiting class come Fall signing period, or the underclassmen don't take great strides next season, I don't think this should be an impediment after next year. If, on the other hand, the underclassmen are showing more progress and the recruiting is improving, even if we are never going to get to the top half of conference, it might be worth another year to give the next coach a more stable roster and to save on the buyout.

Quote:

---

To be recruit better, our coaching staff is likely going to have to get their hands dirty (paying players/AAU coaches). Some (maybe many) here aren't willing to go there. This will always be a limiting factor. The field isn't level. Fox is a coach who won't go there.

---

Don't agree with this at all. First of all, people act like somehow dirty recruiting is new. IMO, recruiting was a lot dirtier in the old days. Back in the 70's Stanford had alums giving players "jobs" that let's just say paid a lot more than market value for what they were pretending to do. Before SAT minimums were put in, guys were illiterate. The first year when a paltry 700 was required, Nebraska lost 9 recruits due to not qualifying by that standard. Recruiting has always been a dirty business.

This goes back to the "elite recruiter" you mentioned above. Look, let's be honest here. It will be a miracle and flat out luck for Cal to be a consistent, elite basketball program. Frankly, getting dirty won't work. We simply can't get as dirty as others. Even if we got just as dirty, we will never have the resources to compete. Others have more alums willing to put more money to the cause. Getting dirty isn't the solution. We will just be third rate dirty.

Actually, we've seen good enough. Recruiting like Braun and coaching like Monty lead to our only conference championship in the modern era. Braun was not elite. He was fine. We can reasonably expect to recruit like that. And before we talk about the challenges of today's program, Braun had to recruit to a team that was banned from postseason and nationally humiliated. Braun had reasonable success on the court until he flat out played out the string. Now getting a coach like Monty is tougher, but we don't need that good. Do I think that formula leads us to top 10 finishes? No. Not without a lot of luck. (and Monty got that luck at Stanford after 8 years). But we can consistently place in the top half of conference, turn out some good players, and be an entertaining, competitive program.

edit:

What we DO need is a coach who is willing to deal with characters he might find unpleasant. There are certainly a lot of those on the AAU circuit. That is unfortunate, especially for the players because frankly they have little choice but to play ball. But while I don't think we need to make deals with them, we need to be willing to kiss their ring a bit. I think that was the main problem Monty encountered. I don't blame him for deciding he didn't want to deal with that, but I think it is the reality.

---

I want more than an entertaining, competitive program and "good enough." I want to f'img win, and win a lot. To get to what you want, sure, we could play it clean and maybe get there with some luck. I want us to be all in. That isn't possible now.

Donors see what we all see. No energy or excitement. It will take a lot of faith for someone to step up. I don't see that happening. Are you willing to write even a small check to buy Fox out? I'm not.

We need football to kick *ss first and then we can focus on hoops. That is why I write my (very small) checks to football. IMHO, that is our only chance to eventually be good at hoops.

---

I understand that is what you want. I don't blame you. But you are rooting for the wrong program. Cal's athletic program has been run incompetently for years. But the Cal community is a widely diverse community with widely diverse interests and football and basketball are a small part. The Cal community will NEVER have the interest or dedicate the resources or even agree the resources should be dedicated to football and basketball the way Alabama will. At its most competent, Bronty is about what you can expect. You can't be the Yankees on the A's payroll. You can be the A's, though. The difference is that it is possible a change of ownership turns the A's into the Warriors. But you can't change out the faculty, students and alums of the university. Your only hope is that some billionaire alum decides Csl football and basketball is his thing, fully funds athletics then goes to the academic side and pays them off to shut up about academics and allow recruiting violations, and I don't think there is enough money to do that.

To be clear, you should lobby as hard as you can for what you want. I think for your own sanity you should focus on pro sports where everyone is pulling for the same goal rather than Cal sports where for every one of you there are 5 rowing against you, But you should definitely keep lobbying. Personally, I've made my peace with the fact that Cal will not make the football playoffs or final four in my lifetime precisely because not nearly enough in the community want them to. We could get lucky some year, but I doubt it. I am happy to rail on the athletic department because their job is to make Cal the best it can be and they don't come close, but I can't criticize them for not achieving what those with 100 times the support achieve.

Lastly, I'm sorry if this bursts a bubble, but I suspect you know this. Wilcox is at best Bronty. I'd be thrilled if he turns out to be Bronty. I don't see the kind of winning you want in the cards there.

---

Gee, thanks for the advice. The pro teams I root for do well but they will never hold a place in my heart like the Bears do. Such is life for me.

I agree with muchof what you are saying. No bubble burst. To me, it comes down to leadership. Christ? Maybe. Knowlton? Don't think so. Fox? Don't think so. Wilcox? Maybe. I agree the sheer amount of incompetence over the years is staggering when one considers the overall results. But there are examples of outstanding leadership in athletics with limited resources, even at Cal (Clark, Durden, McKeever, women's gymnastics coaches, even Tedford at the beginning) so it can happen.

Finally, I don't know you but based on how much time you spend writing here and the emotion behind your posts, I'll just say that IMHO I don't think you are really at peace with things. I suspect you are like me. You f'ing love the Bears and die a little with every loss. Maybe for your health you should take your own advice and root elsewhere. You want to complain but don't seem to want to do anything about it. I'd prefer to try a different approach. Maybe that makes me stupid or crazy. I'm cool with that.

To be clear, I don't blame you. I get the anger. I get the despair. I sincerely hope you will find peace one way or another. Me? I'll keep doing what I can to help the Bears improve. If we get lucky, build something sustainable or never make it before I die, then at least I know I will have tried.

---

I absolutely 100% support you lobbying for the cause and my comment about following pro sports was not intended to tell you to give up. My intent was to tell you that you aren't going to get the Cal community to support playing as dirty as elite teams. You aren't going to get the Cal community to spend as much money as elite teams. You aren't going to get Cal alums to go to games, talk around the water cooler, devote a good portion of their lives to it like elite teams. You aren't going to get Bay Area media to cover college sports like elite teams. So for me, I don't think I can expect elite under those circumstances.

My emotion is not in not being elite. As an aside, I am an A's fan. I enjoy watching the A's. The A's are not winning a World Series unless they get extremely lucky because their owners are cheap ass blanks. What the rest of the organization does with that giant obstacle is amazing. I am at peace with watching a team that most years is in the running all season, in fact usually in the playoffs. Well, as a collective, the Cal community is a cheap ass owner. What I want is to be the A's.

Bronty won a conference championship. I don't think that is a low bar. I'm not looking for a final four. We aren't willing to do what others do.

My emotion is in not being the A's. It is in being humiliatingly stupid. Cal can't spend the most. Cal won't bend the rules or it's ethics the most. But Cal can be the smartest program out there. In fact there are Cal grads among the smartest in sports organizations at the highest level. I am emotional about the stupidity.

I am also emotional about the willingness to spend the maximum amount possible to lose. Pick a lane. Cheap losers or invest enough, with enough intelligence to be competent.

In fairness to football and basketball, most of the coaches you mentioned as successful are not dealing with resource disadvantage compared to their competitors. They all do an amazing job but you can't compare their outcomes against opponents who don't have close to the support disadvantages that football and basketball have. None of those coaches are facing 50 opponents with thousands of supporters making significant academic concessions and devoting millions to their teams.

---

I just want to say that I love this new term 'Bronty'. I'm embracing it!

BeachedBear said:

---

I just want to say that I love this new term 'Bronty'. I'm embracing it!

---

annarborbear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

One problem is that with Covid continuing, we are unlikely to see many fans in the stands indoors this coming year no matter how much we win or lose. With those financial results looming, we will not be in a position for a buy-out. Will just have to ride it out and see if there is any major improvement on the court next season.

---

why would Covid have any impact on games played months after everyone is vaccinated?

---

We now have four variants spreading from parts of the world where people are not vaccinated. It is unclear whether the current vaccines will be effective against these variants, or how long the current protections will last. From a public health standpoint, we will be wise to continue as many safety measures as possible until we can see more progress and knowledge. It may end up being an individual choice, but many people will defer indoor gatherings for the foreseeable future.

---

People are sufficiently weary of restrictions that by fall any restrictions will be solely by individual choice, or perhaps the choice of an individual business.

Also, given the antivax nuttery that spreads on social media like a plague, we will never see anything close to having everyone in the US vaccinated. It will probably end up at around 60% of adults.

---

I could be wrong. But looking at the latest CDC guidelines and precautions, I just can't see them recommending large packed indoor gatherings with a lot of yelling and shouting any time soon. I am fully vaccinated myself, but am still expecting the need for a booster vaccination about six months from now.

---

The CDC won't recommend it, but state and local governments won't prohibit it, either.

You may be right about a booster being necessary, though. Given the number of variants spreading in different places and the extreme reluctance of our government to restrict international travel, it's likely that vaccine-resistant strains will be bouncing all around the US before the end of 2021.

Stanford Jonah said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

I want more than an entertaining, competitive program and "good enough." I want to f'img win, and win a lot. To get to what you want, sure, we could play it clean and maybe get there with some luck. I want us to be all in. That isn't possible now.

Donors see what we all see. No energy or excitement. It will take a lot of faith for someone to step up. I don't see that happening. Are you willing to write even a small check to buy Fox out? I'm not.

We need football to kick *ss first and then we can focus on hoops. That is why I write my (very small) checks to football. IMHO, that is our only chance to eventually be good at hoops.

---

I wish there were more of you. Unfortunately, there are a lot more SFCityBears than us in the Cal fanbase and pretty soon, there won't be much of a fanbase left.

---

I also think that the alumni (both young and middle aged) are just so unaware of what winning looks like that they just don't "get it". I can tell you just how ridiculous it is in San Diego when the aztecs are doing well. People say that sports don't matter - until you win and then the bizzaro american cultural DNA takes over and people, well educated people, go ga ga.

I am PRAYING (along with many) that Wilcox can get us there in a few years. I can't even imagine this board (or the entire cal community) if he could get us to a Rose Bowl.