Socal: We both come from the mean courts of Lowell.

bearister said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Socal: I am disappointed in your insolence and sophomoric arrogance toward SF City Bear. He has been playing and analyzing basketball all his life. He has forgotten more basketball than you will ever know..Go to your room without supper.

---

As he well knows, SFCityBear is one of my very favorite posters. Unfortunately, my finger won't allow me to press the star on any post with your name on it. When I get close to hitting the star my finger jerks away like a divining stick that just located water elsewhere.

---

hahahaha!
where is the button for 5 stars?

...wasn't "player development" supposed to be a Fox strong suit?

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...wasn't "player development" supposed to be a Fox strong suit?

---

According to who? There was little evidence of that at Georgia, certainly on a macro scale. The players that went on to the NBA were highly rated recruits.

I would say that Brown has shown improvement under Fox. Maybe Paris Austin last year. I know some say Kelly too, but I think he was more underutilized by Jones and Fox in prior years.

Jeff82 said:

---

I will make my stock response, which is that we should have hired DeCuire instead of Martin, in order to stay within Monty's system, which had generated some success. If we had gotten Poetl, there's a good chance we might have been as successful for the one year as we were with Rabb and Brown, and it would have been within the established framework. In my opinion, Martin was never going to stay at Cal long term, no matter what happened. That's not his history.

By hiring Martin instead of DeCuire, we basically severed what had been our identity from Monty. Now, we have no identity as a program, which just makes recruiting that much more difficult. Assuming Fox does not make some significant improvement this year and is removed, we should go with a younger coach and deal with the growing pains to try and get on some kind of defined path for the program.

---

While I agree that the problem with Martin was more his hasty departure than his hire, I can't agree we should have hired DeCuire. In retrospect it's easy to see that Martin never intended to stay in Berkeley any longer than it took for him to find a more desirable gig, it's also easy to see the opportunity to land an established coach with recruiting chops at a reasonable salaries a better choice than an unproven assistant. DeCuire's results at Montana, while not bad, have hardly been predictive of surefire success at the PowerFive level. In any event, the real issue with Cal's success (or lack thereof) is that there is no institutional drive for athletic excellence. We have shown over the years all across the athletic spectrum that we are willing to settle for "good enough".

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

socal, that's some weak sh-t. Sure SFCity Bear is old school, but he posts a decent, thoughtul evaluation, and opinion on what he liked to see Cal do, and you have to get harsh with him.
If you have an issue with his statements how about addressing them with an intelligent response and leave all the wise ass comments behind?
The theory has a lot of good points. In Cal's case it just might be a little easier to emulate Virginia's approach as opposed to Kentucky. Still, right now Cal has dropped so low as a target for good players that either case is much of a long shot. With the new transfer rules college basketball is becoming more and more like a professional minor league, and its leaving a school with Cal's parameters without much to work with.

---

I have REPEATEDLY cited my issues with SFCB - that the reference point to 1960 bears or college basketball of really anything about the past 10 years is near meaningless and pointless. I frankly am Deadly tired of writing the same **** over and over again.

3 key (but perhaps not the only change but 3 key one) are:
1) the rise of the one and done's
2) the grad (and now undergrad) transfer market.
3) our disagreement about the metric of sucess. SCFB wants conference championships. While nice, I KNOW the measure of success that 99% of the fanbase in the NCAA cares about is tournament invitations and progress in the tournament. There is a venn diagram that overlaps with conference success but not entirely. Far more crushing for me is watching Cal get CREAMED in the tournament as it draws, for the umpteenth time, a seed of death. Let me tell you, watching Cal fail 4 times in a row to make it across half court against UCON in UCON is a soul crushing and tramua inducing experience. Ditto playing OK in OK City. We could go on with some other greatest hits from our tournament seeding.

Why do I believe that.

1) Because Mike K. does. Originally Duke was all in, with his choice from the best of the best kids waiting to be coached up by probably (or perhaps no argument) greatest college coach and teacher of our lifetime. He found that didn't work - that the delta between the kids he got and the kids that were athletically talented enough to be drafted after one year was too great. So the greatest coach and teacher of our time is all in for Duke getting one and dones. I tend to believe that data, as represented by actions of experts, is damm telling.

2) Because Grad transfers for plug a hole matter. This matters because those grad transfers bring 4 years of coaching and more maturity and even if you coach up Frosh and Soph they now are going against people older and with more skills.

3) I could not tell you who the Pac12 champion was from 3 years ago. I can tell you how many S16 teams we had. No one cares that UCLA finished I believe 4th or 5th that year.....which everyone remembers that Herrick won it and Tyus E did his coast to coast finger roll to advance.

ONe shinning moment baby. That is what I want. And no....I am 56 so not some youngin.....just no over the hill at 70+ with dreams of 1960 keeping me warm.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...wasn't "player development" supposed to be a Fox strong suit?

---

According to who? There was little evidence of that at Georgia, certainly on a macro scale. The players that went on to the NBA were highly rated recruits.

I would say that Brown has shown improvement under Fox. Maybe Paris Austin last year. I know some say Kelly too, but I think he was more underutilized by Jones and Fox in prior years.

---

If Mark Fox is any good at player development, this is the time to demonstrate it! Last off-season was tough, what with the COVID restrictions, but now we're returning a bunch of players at all positions. Player development is pretty much our one path forward right now.

As it looks like our only option, I'm willing to give Coach Fox the benefit of the doubt and assume he can develop players, but we will need to see something significant in the next 6-9 months. I'm talkin' guys like Kuany, Lars, Thorpe, Joel Brown, Hyder, Bowser, Celestine. That's seven guys right there. More than half of them are going to need to show that have been significantly "developed" this coming season... and that needs to manifest itself in some more wins.

Otherwise, time to move on.

---

This is where I am. He has to show development AND ink a class that gives hope.

Sadly I believe that really everyone that you list has some significant problems that are pretty fundamental to their game. I mean Brown can't shoot FTs and as a PG you need to shoot in the high 80s (or even better the 90s). Lars is slow and can't jump. KK is so raw and lacks basketball "sense" that you get from playing the game since being 4. Etc. etc. etc. If Fox can get success and productivity from that group he is a genius and then in recruiting he has to fill slots with talent and upgrades.

If you watch the Bears play without B&G color glasses (or even better, watch non Cal games with top 20 talent) the gaps are just huge. I mean - we don't have ANYONE next year that can create their own shot....and so expect a LOT of time clock violations and a lot of last second heaves and hopes. We should track THAT cause it is going be an epic stats compared to the rest of the conference.

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...wasn't "player development" supposed to be a Fox strong suit?

---

According to who? There was little evidence of that at Georgia, certainly on a macro scale. The players that went on to the NBA were highly rated recruits.

I would say that Brown has shown improvement under Fox. Maybe Paris Austin last year. I know some say Kelly too, but I think he was more underutilized by Jones and Fox in prior years.

---

If Mark Fox is any good at player development, this is the time to demonstrate it! Last off-season was tough, what with the COVID restrictions, but now we're returning a bunch of players at all positions. Player development is pretty much our one path forward right now.

As it looks like our only option, I'm willing to give Coach Fox the benefit of the doubt and assume he can develop players, but we will need to see something significant in the next 6-9 months. I'm talkin' guys like Kuany, Lars, Thorpe, Joel Brown, Hyder, Bowser, Celestine. That's seven guys right there. More than half of them are going to need to show that have been significantly "developed" this coming season... and that needs to manifest itself in some more wins.

Otherwise, time to move on.

---

This is where I am. He has to show development AND ink a class that gives hope.

Sadly I believe that really everyone that you list has some significant problems that are pretty fundamental to their game. I mean Brown can't shoot FTs and as a PG you need to shoot in the high 80s (or even better the 90s). Lars is slow and can't jump. KK is so raw and lacks basketball "sense" that you get from playing the game since being 4. Etc. etc. etc. If Fox can get success and productivity from that group he is a genius and then in recruiting he has to fill slots with talent and upgrades.

If you watch the Bears play without B&G color glasses (or even better, watch non Cal games with top 20 talent) the gaps are just huge. I mean - we don't have ANYONE next year that can create their own shot....and so expect a LOT of time clock violations and a lot of last second heaves and hopes. We should track THAT cause it is going be an epic stats compared to the rest of the conference.

---

We were #306 in scoring with Bradley. It is reasonable to predict that this coming season Fox will slow down the offense even more and we will challenge for the honor of being the lowest scoring team in the country.

However, I think we will improve on defense. Fox seems to be adopting his Georgia strategy of bringing in second tier, lower skill but athletic players and exhorting them to play tough, physical defense. However he does not have the advantage of the talent rich Atlanta metro, UOG admissions and SEC refs. It just isn't a good model for Cal. I am sure all the experts will pick us for last, and rightly so.

My biggest concern is that the direction Fox is taking the program will leave his eventual replacement in a very bad place, far worse than when we fired Jones.

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...wasn't "player development" supposed to be a Fox strong suit?

---

According to who? There was little evidence of that at Georgia, certainly on a macro scale. The players that went on to the NBA were highly rated recruits.

I would say that Brown has shown improvement under Fox. Maybe Paris Austin last year. I know some say Kelly too, but I think he was more underutilized by Jones and Fox in prior years.

---

If Mark Fox is any good at player development, this is the time to demonstrate it! Last off-season was tough, what with the COVID restrictions, but now we're returning a bunch of players at all positions. Player development is pretty much our one path forward right now.

As it looks like our only option, I'm willing to give Coach Fox the benefit of the doubt and assume he can develop players, but we will need to see something significant in the next 6-9 months. I'm talkin' guys like Kuany, Lars, Thorpe, Joel Brown, Hyder, Bowser, Celestine. That's seven guys right there. More than half of them are going to need to show that have been significantly "developed" this coming season... and that needs to manifest itself in some more wins.

Otherwise, time to move on.

---

This is where I am. He has to show development AND ink a class that gives hope.

Sadly I believe that really everyone that you list has some significant problems that are pretty fundamental to their game. I mean Brown can't shoot FTs and as a PG you need to shoot in the high 80s (or even better the 90s). Lars is slow and can't jump. KK is so raw and lacks basketball "sense" that you get from playing the game since being 4. Etc. etc. etc. If Fox can get success and productivity from that group he is a genius and then in recruiting he has to fill slots with talent and upgrades.

If you watch the Bears play without B&G color glasses (or even better, watch non Cal games with top 20 talent) the gaps are just huge. I mean - we don't have ANYONE next year that can create their own shot....and so expect a LOT of time clock violations and a lot of last second heaves and hopes. We should track THAT cause it is going be an epic stats compared to the rest of the conference.

---

I surely agree with all of that: Players need to develop (despite their apparent flaws) this coming season AND recruiting needs to improve. I'm wearing the "B & G color glasses" right now because that is the way I like to spend my off-season when there are seemingly no other options on the table.

My point was... if Fox is actually good at player development, well, this is his golden opportunity to show it.

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

puget sound cal fan said:

---

...wasn't "player development" supposed to be a Fox strong suit?

---

According to who? There was little evidence of that at Georgia, certainly on a macro scale. The players that went on to the NBA were highly rated recruits.

I would say that Brown has shown improvement under Fox. Maybe Paris Austin last year. I know some say Kelly too, but I think he was more underutilized by Jones and Fox in prior years.

---

If Mark Fox is any good at player development, this is the time to demonstrate it! Last off-season was tough, what with the COVID restrictions, but now we're returning a bunch of players at all positions. Player development is pretty much our one path forward right now.

As it looks like our only option, I'm willing to give Coach Fox the benefit of the doubt and assume he can develop players, but we will need to see something significant in the next 6-9 months. I'm talkin' guys like Kuany, Lars, Thorpe, Joel Brown, Hyder, Bowser, Celestine. That's seven guys right there. More than half of them are going to need to show that have been significantly "developed" this coming season... and that needs to manifest itself in some more wins.

Otherwise, time to move on.

---

This is where I am. He has to show development AND ink a class that gives hope.

Sadly I believe that really everyone that you list has some significant problems that are pretty fundamental to their game. I mean Brown can't shoot FTs and as a PG you need to shoot in the high 80s (or even better the 90s). Lars is slow and can't jump. KK is so raw and lacks basketball "sense" that you get from playing the game since being 4. Etc. etc. etc. If Fox can get success and productivity from that group he is a genius and then in recruiting he has to fill slots with talent and upgrades.

If you watch the Bears play without B&G color glasses (or even better, watch non Cal games with top 20 talent) the gaps are just huge. I mean - we don't have ANYONE next year that can create their own shot....and so expect a LOT of time clock violations and a lot of last second heaves and hopes. We should track THAT cause it is going be an epic stats compared to the rest of the conference.

---

I surely agree with all of that: Players need to develop (despite their apparent flaws) this coming season AND recruiting needs to improve. I'm wearing the "B & G color glasses" right now because that is the way I like to spend my off-season when there are seemingly no other options on the table.

My point was... if Fox is actually good at player development, well, this is his golden opportunity to show it.

---

It is that, plus hope the freshmen are underrated and surprise. I've said we need 2 wings to emerge, but really we really just need 1 guy to emerge to pair with Celestine to give us a reasonable starting 5.

socaltownie said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

socal, that's some weak sh-t. Sure SFCity Bear is old school, but he posts a decent, thoughtul evaluation, and opinion on what he liked to see Cal do, and you have to get harsh with him.
If you have an issue with his statements how about addressing them with an intelligent response and leave all the wise ass comments behind?
The theory has a lot of good points. In Cal's case it just might be a little easier to emulate Virginia's approach as opposed to Kentucky. Still, right now Cal has dropped so low as a target for good players that either case is much of a long shot. With the new transfer rules college basketball is becoming more and more like a professional minor league, and its leaving a school with Cal's parameters without much to work with.

---

I have REPEATEDLY cited my issues with SFCB - that the reference point to 1960 bears or college basketball of really anything about the past 10 years is near meaningless and pointless. I frankly am Deadly tired of writing the same **** over and over again.

3 key (but perhaps not the only change but 3 key one) are:
1) the rise of the one and done's
2) the grad (and now undergrad) transfer market.
3) our disagreement about the metric of sucess. SCFB wants conference championships. While nice, I KNOW the measure of success that 99% of the fanbase in the NCAA cares about is tournament invitations and progress in the tournament. There is a venn diagram that overlaps with conference success but not entirely. Far more crushing for me is watching Cal get CREAMED in the tournament as it draws, for the umpteenth time, a seed of death. Let me tell you, watching Cal fail 4 times in a row to make it across half court against UCON in UCON is a soul crushing and tramua inducing experience. Ditto playing OK in OK City. We could go on with some other greatest hits from our tournament seeding.

Why do I believe that.

1) Because Mike K. does. Originally Duke was all in, with his choice from the best of the best kids waiting to be coached up by probably (or perhaps no argument) greatest college coach and teacher of our lifetime. He found that didn't work - that the delta between the kids he got and the kids that were athletically talented enough to be drafted after one year was too great. So the greatest coach and teacher of our time is all in for Duke getting one and dones. I tend to believe that data, as represented by actions of experts, is damm telling.

2) Because Grad transfers for plug a hole matter. This matters because those grad transfers bring 4 years of coaching and more maturity and even if you coach up Frosh and Soph they now are going against people older and with more skills.

3) I could not tell you who the Pac12 champion was from 3 years ago. I can tell you how many S16 teams we had. No one cares that UCLA finished I believe 4th or 5th that year.....which everyone remembers that Herrick won it and Tyus E did his coast to coast finger roll to advance.

ONe shinning moment baby. That is what I want. And no....I am 56 so not some youngin.....just no over the hill at 70+ with dreams of 1960 keeping me warm.

---

oh really?

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

bearister said:

---

Martin was not a good coach. He mismanaged both Rabb and Brown. All season long he let Jalen dribble straight down the center of the key knocking defenders over like so many bowling pins. By the end of the season Brown did a lot of sitting as his charging fouls piled up.

Cal was at a major disadvantage in the last 2 minutes of every close game because of coaching.

Raab was, rightly or wrongly (probably the latter), projected to be a high First Rounder after his first Cal season. He cost himself millions by sticking around a 2nd year in a rudderless offense which exposed his weaknesses.

Martin will make bank and leave a trail of broken hearts wherever he goes.

---

I agree with you that he mismanaged Rabb. I can only imagine what Monty would have done with that front court of Rabb and King.

As for Brown, he over used him, and didn't get him the ball on the move enough. Instead just handing him the ball and telling him to go one on one.

But the biggest coaching mistake he made was not using his shooters enough. Two elite shooters on that team and hardly a set or play that featured them... and we are talking about during the Curry era (3 point shooting was hardly a secret)

---

I think the biggest mistake was having an offensive scheme based entirely on "TAKE IT TO THE RIM", but you're correct that he did misuse his shooters. I remember watching Jabari Bird stand out in the corner waiting for a pass from Wallace that, of course, rarely came.

---

Except that happened with Wallace under Monty too. He was not an ideal PG but he was a better option than Singer and his assists per game nearly doubled under Cuonzo (and Cobb's graduation, which coincided with Monty's retirement).

---

Tyrone Wallace Assists per 100 possessions
Frosh 5.6
Soph 5.2
Junior 6.9
Senior 8.0

Wallace's assists increased significantly his junior and senior years under Martin.

socaltownie said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

socal, that's some weak sh-t. Sure SFCity Bear is old school, but he posts a decent, thoughtul evaluation, and opinion on what he liked to see Cal do, and you have to get harsh with him.
If you have an issue with his statements how about addressing them with an intelligent response and leave all the wise ass comments behind?
The theory has a lot of good points. In Cal's case it just might be a little easier to emulate Virginia's approach as opposed to Kentucky. Still, right now Cal has dropped so low as a target for good players that either case is much of a long shot. With the new transfer rules college basketball is becoming more and more like a professional minor league, and its leaving a school with Cal's parameters without much to work with.

---

I have REPEATEDLY cited my issues with SFCB - that the reference point to 1960 bears or college basketball of really anything about the past 10 years is near meaningless and pointless. I frankly am Deadly tired of writing the same **** over and over again.

3 key (but perhaps not the only change but 3 key one) are:
1) the rise of the one and done's
2) the grad (and now undergrad) transfer market.
3) our disagreement about the metric of sucess. SCFB wants conference championships. While nice, I KNOW the measure of success that 99% of the fanbase in the NCAA cares about is tournament invitations and progress in the tournament. There is a venn diagram that overlaps with conference success but not entirely. Far more crushing for me is watching Cal get CREAMED in the tournament as it draws, for the umpteenth time, a seed of death. Let me tell you, watching Cal fail 4 times in a row to make it across half court against UCON in UCON is a soul crushing and tramua inducing experience. Ditto playing OK in OK City. We could go on with some other greatest hits from our tournament seeding.

Why do I believe that.

1) Because Mike K. does. Originally Duke was all in, with his choice from the best of the best kids waiting to be coached up by probably (or perhaps no argument) greatest college coach and teacher of our lifetime. He found that didn't work - that the delta between the kids he got and the kids that were athletically talented enough to be drafted after one year was too great. So the greatest coach and teacher of our time is all in for Duke getting one and dones. I tend to believe that data, as represented by actions of experts, is damm telling.

2) Because Grad transfers for plug a hole matter. This matters because those grad transfers bring 4 years of coaching and more maturity and even if you coach up Frosh and Soph they now are going against people older and with more skills.

3) I could not tell you who the Pac12 champion was from 3 years ago. I can tell you how many S16 teams we had. No one cares that UCLA finished I believe 4th or 5th that year.....which everyone remembers that Herrick won it and Tyus E did his coast to coast finger roll to advance.

ONe shinning moment baby. That is what I want. And no....I am 56 so not some youngin.....just no over the hill at 70+ with dreams of 1960 keeping me warm.

---

Ok SoCal, I understand where you are coming from, I'm a little older than you but I started watching Cal in the late 60's. Lets face it, as time has progressed its been getting harder and harder for the "have nots" in college basketball to have any serious chance of making any noise close to a final four. The advent of the ESPN-type media coverage has made in nothing short of a semi pro basketball league.
In the last 20 years the only college team that I can think of that really came out of nowhere is Gonzaga. Lets face it, everything kind of fell into place for them. They ended up with a coach who had what it takes in both coaching AND recruiting. Hell, even St. Marys whose had some really good seasons still got themelves beat down pretty bad in some of their tournament appearances.
What I'm really saying is no matter what approach Cal takes, its gonna take some crazy luck for them to ever be an elite team. Cal, Wake Forest, Georgia, Minnesota, Kansas State are all part of that long list of teams that will never do any serious damages unless a series of unseen and lucky circumstances come their way. And I think that SFCB felt that a few years back Virginia was a member of this list. It sucks, but it is what it is.

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

bearister said:

---

Martin was not a good coach. He mismanaged both Rabb and Brown. All season long he let Jalen dribble straight down the center of the key knocking defenders over like so many bowling pins. By the end of the season Brown did a lot of sitting as his charging fouls piled up.

Cal was at a major disadvantage in the last 2 minutes of every close game because of coaching.

Raab was, rightly or wrongly (probably the latter), projected to be a high First Rounder after his first Cal season. He cost himself millions by sticking around a 2nd year in a rudderless offense which exposed his weaknesses.

Martin will make bank and leave a trail of broken hearts wherever he goes.

---

I agree with you that he mismanaged Rabb. I can only imagine what Monty would have done with that front court of Rabb and King.

As for Brown, he over used him, and didn't get him the ball on the move enough. Instead just handing him the ball and telling him to go one on one.

But the biggest coaching mistake he made was not using his shooters enough. Two elite shooters on that team and hardly a set or play that featured them... and we are talking about during the Curry era (3 point shooting was hardly a secret)

---

I think the biggest mistake was having an offensive scheme based entirely on "TAKE IT TO THE RIM", but you're correct that he did misuse his shooters. I remember watching Jabari Bird stand out in the corner waiting for a pass from Wallace that, of course, rarely came.

---

Except that happened with Wallace under Monty too. He was not an ideal PG but he was a better option than Singer and his assists per game nearly doubled under Cuonzo (and Cobb's graduation, which coincided with Monty's retirement).

---

Tyrone Wallace Assists per 100 possessions
Frosh 5.6
Soph 5.2
Junior 6.9
Senior 8.0

Wallace's assists increased significantly his junior and senior years under Martin.

---

My criticism (which I still stand by) was of Martin's offensive scheme and I used Wallace's performance as an example. That's not the same thing as criticizing Wallace who, it could be argued, was following his coaches instructions. In fact, I'll add another element to this criticizm: what's the point of having a "take it to the rim" offense when your primary FT shooters have FT percentages of: 64.9% (Wallace), 65.4% (Brown), 66.9% (Rabb)? Those are Jr High numbers.

I always thought Martin was a product of his Big 10 experience. He was a front-line player and in the Big 10, forwards drove to the hoop, rebounded hard, and played bruising defense. That's the way he played and that's the way he coached. For him, Matthews and Bird were primarily decoys to open things up for his front line and I think that was short-sighted

---

1) He got the highest see in like forever wiht that approach
2) It is hard to predict with any certainty how Martin would have adjusted to the difference in how PAC 12 and Big 10 refs call games. Many of those charging calls on Brown go the other way or are even no calls in the Big 10.
3) If I remember (but the years blur) is that Brown predated the flopping rule. I would love to go back and take a look at how many charges he picked up from flops that the Pac 12 was HORRIBLE for falling for.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

socal, that's some weak sh-t. Sure SFCity Bear is old school, but he posts a decent, thoughtul evaluation, and opinion on what he liked to see Cal do, and you have to get harsh with him.
If you have an issue with his statements how about addressing them with an intelligent response and leave all the wise ass comments behind?
The theory has a lot of good points. In Cal's case it just might be a little easier to emulate Virginia's approach as opposed to Kentucky. Still, right now Cal has dropped so low as a target for good players that either case is much of a long shot. With the new transfer rules college basketball is becoming more and more like a professional minor league, and its leaving a school with Cal's parameters without much to work with.

---

I have REPEATEDLY cited my issues with SFCB - that the reference point to 1960 bears or college basketball of really anything about the past 10 years is near meaningless and pointless. I frankly am Deadly tired of writing the same **** over and over again.

3 key (but perhaps not the only change but 3 key one) are:
1) the rise of the one and done's
2) the grad (and now undergrad) transfer market.
3) our disagreement about the metric of sucess. SCFB wants conference championships. While nice, I KNOW the measure of success that 99% of the fanbase in the NCAA cares about is tournament invitations and progress in the tournament. There is a venn diagram that overlaps with conference success but not entirely. Far more crushing for me is watching Cal get CREAMED in the tournament as it draws, for the umpteenth time, a seed of death. Let me tell you, watching Cal fail 4 times in a row to make it across half court against UCON in UCON is a soul crushing and tramua inducing experience. Ditto playing OK in OK City. We could go on with some other greatest hits from our tournament seeding.

Why do I believe that.

1) Because Mike K. does. Originally Duke was all in, with his choice from the best of the best kids waiting to be coached up by probably (or perhaps no argument) greatest college coach and teacher of our lifetime. He found that didn't work - that the delta between the kids he got and the kids that were athletically talented enough to be drafted after one year was too great. So the greatest coach and teacher of our time is all in for Duke getting one and dones. I tend to believe that data, as represented by actions of experts, is damm telling.

2) Because Grad transfers for plug a hole matter. This matters because those grad transfers bring 4 years of coaching and more maturity and even if you coach up Frosh and Soph they now are going against people older and with more skills.

3) I could not tell you who the Pac12 champion was from 3 years ago. I can tell you how many S16 teams we had. No one cares that UCLA finished I believe 4th or 5th that year.....which everyone remembers that Herrick won it and Tyus E did his coast to coast finger roll to advance.

ONe shinning moment baby. That is what I want. And no....I am 56 so not some youngin.....just no over the hill at 70+ with dreams of 1960 keeping me warm.

---

Ok SoCal, I understand where you are coming from, I'm a little older than you but I started watching Cal in the late 60's. Lets face it, as time has progressed its been getting harder and harder for the "have nots" in college basketball to have any serious chance of making any noise close to a final four. The advent of the ESPN-type media coverage has made in nothing short of a semi pro basketball league.
In the last 20 years the only college team that I can think of that really came out of nowhere is Gonzaga. Lets face it, everything kind of fell into place for them. They ended up with a coach who had what it takes in both coaching AND recruiting. Hell, even St. Marys whose had some really good seasons still got themelves beat down pretty bad in some of their tournament appearances.
What I'm really saying is no matter what approach Cal takes, its gonna take some crazy luck for them to ever be an elite team. Cal, Wake Forest, Georgia, Minnesota, Kansas State are all part of that long list of teams that will never do any serious damages unless a series of unseen and lucky circumstances come their way. And I think that SFCB felt that a few years back Virginia was a member of this list. It sucks, but it is what it is.

---

How can then the coach that got Cal positioned with its highest seed in like FOREVER, recruited the best local talent to come out of the East Bay since probably Kidd and landed a fantastic kid like Brown be considered "the worst thing to happen to cal"????

A minor quibble that we also have is over Monty teams. They were an absolute joy to watch December through February but Monty never built for the tournament - because with limited preparation and practice time teams have to revert to "vanilla" and that exposes lack of athleticism (and accentuates it when you got it). If you look even at the Furd teams they often "underperfromed" their sedding.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

socal, that's some weak sh-t. Sure SFCity Bear is old school, but he posts a decent, thoughtul evaluation, and opinion on what he liked to see Cal do, and you have to get harsh with him.
If you have an issue with his statements how about addressing them with an intelligent response and leave all the wise ass comments behind?
The theory has a lot of good points. In Cal's case it just might be a little easier to emulate Virginia's approach as opposed to Kentucky. Still, right now Cal has dropped so low as a target for good players that either case is much of a long shot. With the new transfer rules college basketball is becoming more and more like a professional minor league, and its leaving a school with Cal's parameters without much to work with.

---

I have REPEATEDLY cited my issues with SFCB - that the reference point to 1960 bears or college basketball of really anything about the past 10 years is near meaningless and pointless. I frankly am Deadly tired of writing the same **** over and over again.

3 key (but perhaps not the only change but 3 key one) are:
1) the rise of the one and done's
2) the grad (and now undergrad) transfer market.
3) our disagreement about the metric of sucess. SCFB wants conference championships. While nice, I KNOW the measure of success that 99% of the fanbase in the NCAA cares about is tournament invitations and progress in the tournament. There is a venn diagram that overlaps with conference success but not entirely. Far more crushing for me is watching Cal get CREAMED in the tournament as it draws, for the umpteenth time, a seed of death. Let me tell you, watching Cal fail 4 times in a row to make it across half court against UCON in UCON is a soul crushing and tramua inducing experience. Ditto playing OK in OK City. We could go on with some other greatest hits from our tournament seeding.

Why do I believe that.

1) Because Mike K. does. Originally Duke was all in, with his choice from the best of the best kids waiting to be coached up by probably (or perhaps no argument) greatest college coach and teacher of our lifetime. He found that didn't work - that the delta between the kids he got and the kids that were athletically talented enough to be drafted after one year was too great. So the greatest coach and teacher of our time is all in for Duke getting one and dones. I tend to believe that data, as represented by actions of experts, is damm telling.

2) Because Grad transfers for plug a hole matter. This matters because those grad transfers bring 4 years of coaching and more maturity and even if you coach up Frosh and Soph they now are going against people older and with more skills.

3) I could not tell you who the Pac12 champion was from 3 years ago. I can tell you how many S16 teams we had. No one cares that UCLA finished I believe 4th or 5th that year.....which everyone remembers that Herrick won it and Tyus E did his coast to coast finger roll to advance.

ONe shinning moment baby. That is what I want. And no....I am 56 so not some youngin.....just no over the hill at 70+ with dreams of 1960 keeping me warm.

---

Ok SoCal, I understand where you are coming from, I'm a little older than you but I started watching Cal in the late 60's. Lets face it, as time has progressed its been getting harder and harder for the "have nots" in college basketball to have any serious chance of making any noise close to a final four. The advent of the ESPN-type media coverage has made in nothing short of a semi pro basketball league.
In the last 20 years the only college team that I can think of that really came out of nowhere is Gonzaga. Lets face it, everything kind of fell into place for them. They ended up with a coach who had what it takes in both coaching AND recruiting. Hell, even St. Marys whose had some really good seasons still got themelves beat down pretty bad in some of their tournament appearances.
What I'm really saying is no matter what approach Cal takes, its gonna take some crazy luck for them to ever be an elite team. Cal, Wake Forest, Georgia, Minnesota, Kansas State are all part of that long list of teams that will never do any serious damages unless a series of unseen and lucky circumstances come their way. And I think that SFCB felt that a few years back Virginia was a member of this list. It sucks, but it is what it is.

---

The chances of an outsider achieving a nice run in the Big Dance are not quite lottery-level. Since 2010, these schools have made the final four: Butler (twice), VCU, Wichita St., Loyola (Chi), Texas Tech and Houston. Baylor rose from the dead over Scott Drew's tenure with an arc similar to Gonzaga's. For that matter, Gonzaga's first splash came when Few was still an assistant and they had been building under both of the coaches who preceded him. I would argue that Duke was already good before they started landing multiple 1/done guys and I suspect the impact of 1/dones will wane as the options to go pro straight out of HS expand but "free agency" opens another can of worms. None of which does much for Cal unless the basic attitude of the administration changes from one that is satisfied to play the lottery.