It was the reign of Cuonzo Martin. He was a good guy, a good coach, and a talented recruiter. He failed to have NCAA success at Cal, and he failed to stay long enough to bring his plan to fruition. What was so bad about it was that he gave Cal fans the hope that it could all be done so simply: Recruit the best of the best players, teach them to play a tough help defense, and reduce the offense to mostly one on one play, either take it to the rim or shoot a three. His success was mostly in our hearts and our hopes, in exciting individual athletic plays, but not in winning any championships or making a run in the dance. Still, we look back on that and we say, "What could have been," and we think if only we got a coach who could recruit like that again, only get more of these fabulous recruits. We continue to dream, and not be realistic, not look for another less exciting path to success.

In our dreams, we don't accept reality. Reality is recruits are like race horses. They can get injured, get sick, have a bad night shooting a basketball. Just about every team just about every year has these things happen to their team, causing them to fail as a team, and fans wait until next year. It happens to Cal almost every year. Even this past season, Cal had almost no real depth. Cal's only top 100 ranked and best player gets injured, misses 7 games, plays hurt the rest of the way. One of Cal's bigs gets appendicitis, and misses 4 games, and takes more games to get back in shape. A promising athletic freshman was just beginning to warrant more playing time and gets a serious head injury, missing several games, and never returning to form. A promising freshman arrives still not in shape from a serious injury received in high school, and it takes almost to the end of the season before he is able to become a starter. And Cal becomes a last place team.

There is an American team currently doing well without the top recruits, the best of the best. Not as good as Duke or Kentucky does, but well enough for Cal fans to live with and love, I believe.

This major team has been on a 12 year run now, which includes winning 5 conference championships, 2 conference tournaments, receiving 8 invitations to the NCAA tournament, winning the NCAA championship once, reaching the regional final one other time, reaching the regional semi-final one other time, reaching the 3rd round one other time, and reaching the second round one other time. Would that be good enough for us?
I should think so.

Over those 12 years, the program has had 28 RSCI top 100 recruits, an average of just over two top 100 recruits per yearly roster. NONE of those recruits was ranked higher than #32 in the RSCI Composite rankings. NONE of those recruits was ranked as a 5-star recruit by individual services. NONE of those recruits was ranked in the top 10 recruits in their class. No one was a one and done or a two and done player. The program sent 10 players to the NBA. 6 of them were 4 year players and 4 of them were 3 year players. Two of their players transferred to another school, and later went to the NBA. 4 other recruits transferred to another school. Many of the recruits for this program were what we would call high 3-star to high 4-star recruits. Was that the coach's plan? I don't know.

The team, the program, is Virginia, of the ACC. Their coach is Tony Bennett.

I think that Cal should think like Virginia when planning a way forward, and stop dreaming of top 10 one and done players. We've been there, done that. What we got in 2016 was two key injuries and one player having a horrible night, and we lost to a team with no highly ranked recruits, mostly lowly ranked or unranked recruits. We got a 3rd place in the PAC12, and early exit in the PAC12 tournament, and a high seed in the NCAA, but no titles. No trophies. In order to win with top 10 recruits, one and done players, Cal would need to land class after class after class of top 10 recruits, to account for all the injuries, illnesses, and attrition from players leaving early every single season. Recruiting is like searching for a woman. There are those women you will spend a night with and those you would like to marry. I prefer Tony Bennett's approach to recruiting, because of Cal's high entrance requirements and other possible drawbacks which might be unique to Cal. I honestly don't think Cal can become Kentucky or Duke. But I think we might be able to become like Virginia. What do you think?

SFCityBear said:

---

It was the reign of Cuonzo Martin. He was a good guy, a good coach, and a talented recruiter. He failed to have NCAA success at Cal, and he failed to stay long enough to bring his plan to fruition. What was so bad about it was that he gave Cal fans the hope that it could all be done so simply: Recruit the best of the best players, teach them to play a tough help defense, and reduce the offense to mostly one on one play, either take it to the rim or shoot a three. His success was mostly in our hearts and our hopes, in exciting individual athletic plays, but not in winning any championships or making a run in the dance. Still, we look back on that and we say, "What could have been," and we think if only we got a coach who could recruit like that again, only get more of these fabulous recruits. We continue to dream, and not be realistic, not look for another less exciting path to success.

In our dreams, we don't accept reality. Reality is recruits are like race horses. They can get injured, get sick, have a bad night shooting a basketball. Just about every team just about every year has these things happen to their team, causing them to fail as a team, and fans wait until next year. It happens to Cal almost every year. Even this past season, Cal had almost no real depth. Cal's only top 100 ranked and best player gets injured, misses 7 games, plays hurt the rest of the way. One of Cal's bigs gets appendicitis, and misses 4 games, and takes more games to get back in shape. A promising athletic freshman was just beginning to warrant more playing time and gets a serious head injury, missing several games, and never returning to form. A promising freshman arrives still not in shape from a serious injury received in high school, and it takes almost to the end of the season before he is able to become a starter. And Cal becomes a last place team.

There is an American team currently doing well without the top recruits, the best of the best. Not as good as Duke or Kentucky does, but well enough for Cal fans to live with and love, I believe.

This major team has been on a 12 year run now, which includes winning 5 conference championships, 2 conference tournaments, receiving 8 invitations to the NCAA tournament, winning the NCAA championship once, reaching the regional final one other time, reaching the regional semi-final one other time, reaching the 3rd round one other time, and reaching the second round one other time. Would that be good enough for us?
I should think so.

Over those 12 years, the program has had 28 RSCI top 100 recruits, an average of just over two top 100 recruits per yearly roster. NONE of those recruits was ranked higher than #32 in the RSCI Composite rankings. NONE of those recruits was ranked as a 5-star recruit by individual services. NONE of those recruits was ranked in the top 10 recruits in their class. No one was a one and done or a two and done player. The program sent 10 players to the NBA. 6 of them were 4 year players and 4 of them were 3 year players. Two of their players transferred to another school, and later went to the NBA. 4 other recruits transferred to another school. Many of the recruits for this program were what we would call high 3-star to high 4-star recruits. Was that the coach's plan? I don't know.

The team, the program, is Virginia, of the ACC. Their coach is Tony Bennett.

I think that Cal should think like Virginia when planning a way forward, and stop dreaming of top 10 one and done players. We've been there, done that. What we got in 2016 was two key injuries and one player having a horrible night, and we lost to a team with no highly ranked recruits, mostly lowly ranked or unranked recruits. We got a 3rd place in the PAC12, and early exit in the PAC12 tournament, and a high seed in the NCAA, but no titles. No trophies. In order to win with top 10 recruits, one and done players, Cal would need to land class after class after class of top 10 recruits, to account for all the injuries, illnesses, and attrition from players leaving early every single season. Recruiting is like searching for a woman. There are those women you will spend a night with and those you would like to marry. I prefer Tony Bennett's approach to recruiting, because of Cal's high entrance requirements and other possible drawbacks which might be unique to Cal. I honestly don't think Cal can become Kentucky or Duke. But I think we might be able to become like Virginia. What do you think?



All it takes for Cal to emulate Virginia is for us to hire a Tony Bennett clone.

---

I agree that Virginia is a better program for Cal to emulate than Kentucky or Duke. There are LOTS of differences and gaps between Cal and UVA, but it is a good target.

A couple of the key differences, IMHO;

ACC Conference is much more basketball focused than Pac 12. The fans are much more supportive and the game experience is far better. And yes, the crowd does impact the teams performance. And conference impacts recruiting.

Tony Bennett is a Unicorn. If it was easy duplicate his success at UVA, many more places than Cal would be emulating it. Can Cal hire the next Tony Bennett? Doubtful in the near term - but he might be a better template than Fox or Cuonzo.

Recruiting UVA style also means player development. Cal has had only two coaches noted for player development (Newell and Monty - and Monty was known for utilizing his players well - more than really developing). When looking at coaching candidates, player development IS SOMETHING that can be identified and measured (at least subjectively).

And after we do a great job developing the player, they transfer to a big basketball school

Latest example: Remy Martin

BeachedBear said:

---

I agree that Virginia is a better program for Cal to emulate than Kentucky or Duke. There are LOTS of differences and gaps between Cal and UVA, but it is a good target.

A couple of the key differences, IMHO;

ACC Conference is much more basketball focused than Pac 12. The fans are much more supportive and the game experience is far better. And yes, the crowd does impact the teams performance. And conference impacts recruiting.

Tony Bennett is a Unicorn. If it was easy duplicate his success at UVA, many more places than Cal would be emulating it. Can Cal hire the next Tony Bennett? Doubtful in the near term - but he might be a better template than Fox or Cuonzo.

Recruiting UVA style also means player development. Cal has had only two coaches noted for player development (Newell and Monty - and Monty was known for utilizing his players well - more than really developing). When looking at coaching candidates, player development IS SOMETHING that can be identified and measured (at least subjectively).

---

DeCuire

HoopDreams said:

---

And after we do a great job developing the player, they transfer to a big basketball school

Latest example: Remy Martin

BeachedBear said:

---

I agree that Virginia is a better program for Cal to emulate than Kentucky or Duke. There are LOTS of differences and gaps between Cal and UVA, but it is a good target.

A couple of the key differences, IMHO;

ACC Conference is much more basketball focused than Pac 12. The fans are much more supportive and the game experience is far better. And yes, the crowd does impact the teams performance. And conference impacts recruiting.

Tony Bennett is a Unicorn. If it was easy duplicate his success at UVA, many more places than Cal would be emulating it. Can Cal hire the next Tony Bennett? Doubtful in the near term - but he might be a better template than Fox or Cuonzo.

Recruiting UVA style also means player development. Cal has had only two coaches noted for player development (Newell and Monty - and Monty was known for utilizing his players well - more than really developing). When looking at coaching candidates, player development IS SOMETHING that can be identified and measured (at least subjectively).

---

---

Excellent point.

Regarding Coach Martin at Cal.
There was also the continuing challenges of Cal's administrative procedures and delay that caused Coach Martin angst in pursuing his program. And not only the dismissal of his assistant coach over serious indiscretions.

Coach Martin was ready to fly even before the offer from uMO presented itself. This was followed by a well-meaning inexperienced AD making decisions that he was not qualified to make, and amounted to hiring a coach for OJT.

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.

---

Yeah - but the Travis vs. Martin thing is SO 20/20. Now if we actually could confirm that this was a Dirk's override of Sandy I will hold to your opinion but I COMPLETELY get why an AD, faced with a first time coach being elevated by a coach who had NOT been that long at Cal vs. a guy who just took his team to a S16 and had a decade in the top chair ended up going with Martin.

What IS clear is that Martin, for varied reasons, wears out his welcome. But I don't think that was clear until now as we see the natives at Mizzu grow restless.

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.

---

Reflecting on the bolded point . . .

If I'm going to give time to deal with growing pains, It better be for a younger coach with lots of upside versus an experienced coach without much proven success.

This I think is ultimately the problem with the Fox hire - that the upside just isn't there. Even if you think that Georgia is a very hard job (I have no opinions on it) the record of achievement at Nevada just wasn't there EITHER - and especially a record of building EXCITEMENT.

I am not saying full Joe Kapp but a key attribute of the next hire has to be someone with some charisma because building excitement about the program is critical and the new guy will be starting from ground zero.

The key factor for me is the idea that we would have gotten Jakob Poetl if Travis had been given the job. Although we'll never know, I still think part of Monty's motivation for retiring at that time was figuring that the AD would elevate Travis to get Poetl. That got upended when Martin was able to get Rabb, and Rabb was able to get Brown.

As you said it is 20/20 hindsight, but also a cautionary tale, I think, about what might happen if you veer drastically from the program path you're on, even if the alternative looks very attractive.

A. when a coach is successful, I think we should stay with that team if their is a legit candidate. Decuire was certainly a legit/strong candidate

B. when a coach is a failure, I think you should go a different direction

following the above approach, Cal should have hired Decuire when Monty retired

but approach A doesn't work when Martin left. You could argue he was a successful coach, but there were zero legit candidates on his staff. The fact that Cal hired the THIRD assistant who thought you could just roll out the ball and 'play fast' showed how completely unprepared WK was

Jeff82 said:

---

The key factor for me is the idea that we would have gotten Jakob Poetl if Travis had been given the job. Although we'll never know, I still think part of Monty's motivation for retiring at that time was figuring that the AD would elevate Travis to get Poetl. That got upended when Martin was able to get Rabb, and Rabb was able to get Brown.

As you said it is 20/20 hindsight, but also a cautionary tale, I think, about what might happen if you veer drastically from the program path you're on, even if the alternative looks very attractive.

---

Then I am also going to blame monty a bit. I watched how Steve Fisher paved the way for that move \at SDSU. Monty could have - including making Travis essentially "head coach in waiting".

I think that's a completely legitimate criticism. If it wasn't likely that we would get Poetl, then I agree taking Martin made sense, since we didn't really know then what I believe now, which is that he a decent guy with a great story, who in his career has gone into troubled coaching situations (Tennessee recruiting scandal, Missouri racial issues) and used them to get better contracts than his record or his eye-test coaching talent would normally justify. I didn't really see that at that time. In any case, the whole Martin-Jones detour put the program in a ditch that we still haven't really climbed out of. I think the only way to get out of it is to choose younger coaches, even if their resumes may not be ideal, and hope they can work into the job. I would even now probably say that it might have made more sense to leave Jones in, rather than hiring Fox, who I'm not sure can get the program to a place where it is attractive to a successor.

Jeff82 said:

---

I think that's a completely legitimate criticism. If it wasn't likely that we would get Poetl, then I agree taking Martin made sense, since we didn't really know then what I believe now, which is that he a decent guy with a great story, who in his career has gone into troubled coaching situations (Tennessee recruiting scandal, Missouri racial issues) and used them to get better contracts than his record or his eye-test coaching talent would normally justify. I didn't really see that at that time. In any case, the whole Martin-Jones detour put the program in a ditch that we still haven't really climbed out of. I think the only way to get out of it is to choose younger coaches, even if their resumes may not be ideal, and hope they can work into the job. I would even now probably say that it might have made more sense to leave Jones in, rather than hiring Fox, who I'm not sure can get the program to a place where it is attractive to a successor.

---

I really want to embrace hope and say that last year was so disruptive and strange for a "development" coach that we need one more year of data on Fox. My head says otherwise but my heart knows he is here for at least another year so why not focus on the positive things that happened the last 30% of season 1.

What is, however, TERRIFYING, is that Fox is not showing any glimmers of hope when it comes to recruiting while others (see Wazzu) are. I get that college basketball, even more than non-SEC football, feels dirty as hell but I can't/don't believe that everyone outrecruiting cal is doing so because they have an unlimited amount of money to put in coffee cups.

mdbear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

I agree that Virginia is a better program for Cal to emulate than Kentucky or Duke. There are LOTS of differences and gaps between Cal and UVA, but it is a good target.

A couple of the key differences, IMHO;

ACC Conference is much more basketball focused than Pac 12. The fans are much more supportive and the game experience is far better. And yes, the crowd does impact the teams performance. And conference impacts recruiting.

Tony Bennett is a Unicorn. If it was easy duplicate his success at UVA, many more places than Cal would be emulating it. Can Cal hire the next Tony Bennett? Doubtful in the near term - but he might be a better template than Fox or Cuonzo.

Recruiting UVA style also means player development. Cal has had only two coaches noted for player development (Newell and Monty - and Monty was known for utilizing his players well - more than really developing). When looking at coaching candidates, player development IS SOMETHING that can be identified and measured (at least subjectively).

---

I have degrees from both Cal and Virginia and closely follow both basketball programs closely. I agree that it would be very difficult for Cal to use UVA as a model for all the reasons you mentioned. Virginia has a 15,000 seat state of the art stadium that it regularly sells out. I like Haas, but it is no match for the mega-arenas at ACC schools like UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, and UVA. Virginia also has incredibly wealth alumni who are willing to pay whatever it takes to keep Bennett (the benefactor who paid for the new arena is worth $5 billion). In addition, Bennett is indeed a unicorn. He plays a style of defense that no one can replicate. He sees talent where others do not. He has only signed one McDonald's All-American in his 12 years at UVA, but 11 of his players went to the NBA. Consider the fact that his freshman starting point guard in the national championship game (Kihei Clark) was not offered any other Division I scholarships. IMHO, Cal's problem is not the model but lousy coach hiring. First, we replaced Cuonzo with a coach who was clearly unqualified. Then we hired a coach who had been given nine years to succeed at Power Conference school and only made to the NCAA tournament twice (never advancing past the first round). The reality is that many coaches do turn programs around (just look at what Cal alum Dennis Gates is doing or what Nate Oats did at Alabama). Cal just has not been willing to take a chance on an up and coming young coach from a mid-major conference.

---

I spent some time at Virginia a couple years ago. Absolutely wonderful in just about every facet. My friend who joined me (and is AHEM - a Furd grad) has retired there.

I think the problem with Martin is that he thought he could keep getting one-and-dones, and when he realized he couldn't, because of the academic requirements, that just made it more certain he was going to bail. Would a deep tourney run instead of the loss to Hawaii have changed any of that? Doubtful, in my opinion.

I would say that the only really good thing that came out of Martin's tenure was having Brown here for the one year, because he is the kind of one-and-done we could occasionally get--the kid who realizes his one year in college is not going to substantially impact his future NBA earning potential, and decides to go where he will enjoy himself, and maybe learn something. No surprise that Brown was close to Shareef, who took a similar approach. My hope is that Brown will similarly mentor a kid or kids that are in a similar situation, who maybe will be the last part of the puzzle for a deep tourney run. Year-in and year-out, however, our success is going to depend on player development and maximizing the talent with flexible schemes, IMHO.

I was all in with Decuire, but then when Martin was hired I thought it was a great hire.

I liked Martin as a coach, and how he could sign elite players like Rabb and Brown, as well as get the players to buy into his tough defense approach. I think he misused our team which had 4 future NBA players, with the 5th starter a great shooter, and a solid 6th and 7th man.

I didn't like how he would too often swing for the fences on some academic risks, and then be left to scramble to find a player. That contributed to a thin bench and a bare cupboard when he left.

It didn't surprise me when he left, and I hated how he exited out the back door after the embarrassing effort in the NIT.

The fact that we got booted from the first round meant we got exactly zero recruiting bounce the next year

I was all in again with Decuire the second time too

The Chancellor overruled Sandy. bet on it. Many Cal players went to his office to plead for Travis. He refused to meet with them...

I know. He has memorized the plus/minus of the 1960 team and learned more than I ever will on the mean courts of lowell high.

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)

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.

Agree, and I can count on one hand how many successful pick and roll or ally ooop passes we executed to Rabb, the perfect player for both

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.

---

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).