That is probably a pay cut too....man it must feel hot in the Men's Basketball office.....
Is Fox just playing out the string?
19,476 Views |
172 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by socaltownie
Jeff82 said:Seems obvious that Johnson saw the handwriting on the wall for this season, and wanted to get out so he doesn't get besmirched. Nothing to be done. Just have to hope that somehow the team performs better than it appears on paper they're going to.stu said:This thread now has more than 100 posts. Add the number of posts in the "Dennis Gates" thread and the "Fox is now officially on the clock" thread and the total exceeds the last "NCAA Tournament" thread.CalLifer said:
And, in a not very good look for Fox:
Not a very good look for Fox.
Is this now an open staff position? If so, it will be interesting to see how Fox fills it.
when did Johnson leave the program???Time elapsed between leaving and taking his new gig?
calumnus said:Jeff82 said:Seems obvious that Johnson saw the handwriting on the wall for this season, and wanted to get out so he doesn't get besmirched. Nothing to be done. Just have to hope that somehow the team performs better than it appears on paper they're going to.stu said:This thread now has more than 100 posts. Add the number of posts in the "Dennis Gates" thread and the "Fox is now officially on the clock" thread and the total exceeds the last "NCAA Tournament" thread.CalLifer said:
And, in a not very good look for Fox:
Not a very good look for Fox.
Is this now an open staff position? If so, it will be interesting to see how Fox fills it.
It's been an open position for a while with absolutely no scuttlebutt/rumors/excitement. Or, in Fox terms, standard operating procedure.
Mr. Fox, please... don't fill the position. Leave it open. The next guy will fill it.calumnus said:Jeff82 said:Seems obvious that Johnson saw the handwriting on the wall for this season, and wanted to get out so he doesn't get besmirched. Nothing to be done. Just have to hope that somehow the team performs better than it appears on paper they're going to.stu said:This thread now has more than 100 posts. Add the number of posts in the "Dennis Gates" thread and the "Fox is now officially on the clock" thread and the total exceeds the last "NCAA Tournament" thread.CalLifer said:
And, in a not very good look for Fox:
Not a very good look for Fox.
Is this now an open staff position? If so, it will be interesting to see how Fox fills it.
bearmanpg said:
That is probably a pay cut too....man it must feel hot in the Men's Basketball office.....
Trent Johnson had a lot more success than Mark Fox before he settled into mediocrity or worse. CSUN is the type of job and pay Mark Fox would normally get after getting canned at Georgia and is the type of job he will land after he eventually gets fired from Cal.
calumnus said:bearmanpg said:
That is probably a pay cut too....man it must feel hot in the Men's Basketball office.....
Trent Johnson had a lot more success than Mark Fox before he settled into mediocrity or worse. CSUN is the type of job and pay Mark Fox would normally get after getting canned at Georgia and is the type of job he will land after he eventually gets fired from Cal.
Maybe Fox's friend is keeping the Northridge seat warm, so that Fox can slide over there after collecting his buyout from Cal?
BearSD said:calumnus said:bearmanpg said:
That is probably a pay cut too....man it must feel hot in the Men's Basketball office.....
Trent Johnson had a lot more success than Mark Fox before he settled into mediocrity or worse. CSUN is the type of job and pay Mark Fox would normally get after getting canned at Georgia and is the type of job he will land after he eventually gets fired from Cal.
Maybe Fox's friend is keeping the Northridge seat warm, so that Fox can slide over there after collecting his buyout from Cal?
Wonder if Trent sold his Bay Area house?
...and how many does he get?
4thGenCal said:Thanks Sluggo and I agree on your points of 2 - 4 and maybe the last one as well. Fox would desire to play faster per his comments, its just that he conceded that with his roster the first 2 seasons he would not be at all competitive (defined as having a chance to win with less than 5 minutes to go). The roster lacked sufficient depth, minimal athleticism, and truly skilled open floor ball handlers. He often referred to his good friend - current HC at Nebraska who told him "I like our offensive scoring output" and Fox would smile and say and how many games did you win or have a chance of winning (they had an even worse season in the Big10). He has been frustrated that AK runs out of gas (thus gets in early foul trouble), Lars regresses in games from his practice effectiveness, and the lack of a physical defense, with proper rotations. The team simply would not have been close trying a faster pace than a game designed to be in the 60's. However yes - that is a necessary goal to attract the players of today, but to not underestimate the academic hurdles to gain admission, is the basis for understanding how tough it is to get those types of players.sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
These are the ways I think he has gone wrong since coming to Cal. First, he needed to play at a faster pace. Maybe if he had success like Tony Bennett he could walk it up. But no top recruit prefers a slower pace. You can mention excuses like grades and no practice facility, but I think this is huge and it is his fault. I don't care if that is not what he likes. Second, he had to do everything he could to keep his top player. If that is beneath him then he is in the wrong business. Third, he needed to hire an offensive guru assistant as the offensive executions of his teams is awful. He showed in the first year that he could teach defense, but one has to know their strengths and weaknesses. Fourth, he needed a better recruiting strategy. Mine would be Bay Area, Southern California and foreign. Perhaps foreigners were not realistic during the pandemic, but one has to question the assistant coach who has those roots. It is amazing he did not hire a west coast recruiting specialist given he had no west coach ties. If he did not have money he needed to give someone a chance who was young or from the outside. Running around chasing randoms and semi-randoms is work, but it was not going to get him anywhere.
The team has no chance this coming year. It is too late for him now. I maintain that Cal is one of the best academic schools in the world, has the best weather in the world and an interesting campus and urban environment. Someone else could make it work. (This is all pre-NIL, post-NIL who knows.)
This program in my view for the long term, needs a practice facility to entice the high end prospect (All top programs have one, as well as all but one in the conference) and needs an administration willing to take a few chances on the marginal student athlete (by providing the right support structure academically). Certainly we also need more donors stepping up, as that saying "money does not talk, it shouts" rings true. Football has the grid club and when needed funds are privately raised (not easily btw) they help retain key coaches, who otherwise would be poached away by our league competitors.
I agree that a faster pace would not make sense with horrible offensive efficiency. That was Wyking Jones' problem, but to Sluggo's point, the recruiting was better.
However, slow pace and bad offensive efficiency was characteristic of Fox's Georgia teams too. His preferred strategy has been slow pace, burn clock and then let your best player play hero ball. It has helped guys make SEC POY on teams with losing conference records.
When your team is less athletic, less deep, you create an offense and/or design plays to get your best players good shots. That is what a good X's and O's coach like Mike Montgomery did at Stanford before he started landing top talent. Montgomery always valued 3 pt shooters. Now all of basketball does, except Mark Fox apparently judging by the team he has assembled. Montgomery's personality turned off a lot of recruits, and he realized the game had passed him by in that respect, but he knew his basketball and his teams won, which can attract recruits, win games and please the fans.
It was only a few years ago we had 3 McDonalds All Americans on the team. Cuonzo Martin was able to recruit at a high level and attract top players to Cal without a practice facility. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. This complaining about Cal's disadvantages ignores all our advantages when in the right hands. Cuonzo's and Fox's basketball strategies were similarly deficient, but Cuonzo could recruit. Cal is not the problem. Practice facilities don't win games. Talented players who are well coached win games.
Fox combines the worst features for a Cal coach: 1) an old school personality and command and control coaching style that is so last century and is unattractive to recruits and even drives good players to transfer 2) a playing style and pace that is boring to watch and is unattractive to recruits and fans, 3) a lack of X's and O's acumen that could make up for talent deficiencies and allow you to increase the pace (get good looks earlier in the shot clock), 4) a lack of Weat Coast recruiting ties that have not improved, 5) a lack of social media savvy that could help him connect with recruits and fans, especially during a pandemic.
He is not a young, up and coming coach that we might just say we need to be patient with. He is a veteran coach with a long track record of exactly what we are seeing: mediocrity or worse.
All this focus on a dedicated practice faculty reminds me of late Tedford focus on spending $500 million on a stadium. Tedford's best teams were early, when he was a hot young coach with crappy facilities and excellent coaching. Cal attracts top talent when we have a good young coach.
Jason Kidd lead to the building of Haas, not the other way around. A dedicated practice faculty is a worthwhile project, but it is separate from the coach. The coach is single most important investment. Lack of a dedicated practice faculty should not be an excuse to retain a bad coach. A good coach will bring the excitement that will make raising money for a dedicated practice faculty much easier.
So true.calumnus said:
... The coach is single most important investment ...
Men's bball is a cluster and not worth anyone's time or money (unless you're a parent). Mark Fox was and always will be a stop-gap retread. Those that know college sports know this
Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:Thanks Sluggo and I agree on your points of 2 - 4 and maybe the last one as well. Fox would desire to play faster per his comments, its just that he conceded that with his roster the first 2 seasons he would not be at all competitive (defined as having a chance to win with less than 5 minutes to go). The roster lacked sufficient depth, minimal athleticism, and truly skilled open floor ball handlers. He often referred to his good friend - current HC at Nebraska who told him "I like our offensive scoring output" and Fox would smile and say and how many games did you win or have a chance of winning (they had an even worse season in the Big10). He has been frustrated that AK runs out of gas (thus gets in early foul trouble), Lars regresses in games from his practice effectiveness, and the lack of a physical defense, with proper rotations. The team simply would not have been close trying a faster pace than a game designed to be in the 60's. However yes - that is a necessary goal to attract the players of today, but to not underestimate the academic hurdles to gain admission, is the basis for understanding how tough it is to get those types of players.sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
These are the ways I think he has gone wrong since coming to Cal. First, he needed to play at a faster pace. Maybe if he had success like Tony Bennett he could walk it up. But no top recruit prefers a slower pace. You can mention excuses like grades and no practice facility, but I think this is huge and it is his fault. I don't care if that is not what he likes. Second, he had to do everything he could to keep his top player. If that is beneath him then he is in the wrong business. Third, he needed to hire an offensive guru assistant as the offensive executions of his teams is awful. He showed in the first year that he could teach defense, but one has to know their strengths and weaknesses. Fourth, he needed a better recruiting strategy. Mine would be Bay Area, Southern California and foreign. Perhaps foreigners were not realistic during the pandemic, but one has to question the assistant coach who has those roots. It is amazing he did not hire a west coast recruiting specialist given he had no west coach ties. If he did not have money he needed to give someone a chance who was young or from the outside. Running around chasing randoms and semi-randoms is work, but it was not going to get him anywhere.
The team has no chance this coming year. It is too late for him now. I maintain that Cal is one of the best academic schools in the world, has the best weather in the world and an interesting campus and urban environment. Someone else could make it work. (This is all pre-NIL, post-NIL who knows.)
This program in my view for the long term, needs a practice facility to entice the high end prospect (All top programs have one, as well as all but one in the conference) and needs an administration willing to take a few chances on the marginal student athlete (by providing the right support structure academically). Certainly we also need more donors stepping up, as that saying "money does not talk, it shouts" rings true. Football has the grid club and when needed funds are privately raised (not easily btw) they help retain key coaches, who otherwise would be poached away by our league competitors.
I agree that a faster pace would not make sense with horrible offensive efficiency. That was Wyking Jones' problem, but to Sluggo's point, the recruiting was better.
However, slow pace and bad offensive efficiency was characteristic of Fox's Georgia teams too. His preferred strategy has been slow pace, burn clock and then let your best player play hero ball. It has helped guys make SEC POY on teams with losing conference records.
When your team is less athletic, less deep, you create an offense and/or design plays to get your best players good shots. That is what a good X's and O's coach like Mike Montgomery did at Stanford before he started landing top talent. Montgomery always valued 3 pt shooters. Now all of basketball does, except Mark Fox apparently judging by the team he has assembled. Montgomery's personality turned off a lot of recruits, and he realized the game had passed him by in that respect, but he knew his basketball and his teams won, which can attract recruits, win games and please the fans.
It was only a few years ago we had 3 McDonalds All Americans on the team. Cuonzo Martin was able to recruit at a high level and attract top players to Cal without a practice facility. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. This complaining about Cal's disadvantages ignores all our advantages when in the right hands. Cuonzo's and Fox's basketball strategies were similarly deficient, but Cuonzo could recruit. Cal is not the problem. Practice facilities don't win games. Talented players who are well coached win games.
Fox combines the worst features for a Cal coach: 1) an old school personality and command and control coaching style that is so last century and is unattractive to recruits and even drives good players to transfer 2) a playing style and pace that is boring to watch and is unattractive to recruits and fans, 3) a lack of X's and O's acumen that could make up for talent deficiencies and allow you to increase the pace (get good looks earlier in the shot clock), 4) a lack of Weat Coast recruiting ties that have not improved, 5) a lack of social media savvy that could help him connect with recruits and fans, especially during a pandemic.
He is not a young, up and coming coach that we might just say we need to be patient with. He is a veteran coach with a long track record of exactly what we are seeing: mediocrity or worse.
All this focus on a dedicated practice faculty reminds me of late Tedford focus on spending $500 million on a stadium. Tedford's best teams were early, when he was a hot young coach with crappy facilities and excellent coaching. Cal attracts top talent when we have a good young coach.
Jason Kidd lead to the building of Haas, not the other way around. A dedicated practice faculty is a worthwhile project, but it is separate from the coach. The coach is single most important investment. Lack of a dedicated practice faculty should not be an excuse to retain a bad coach. A good coach will bring the excitement that will make raising money for a dedicated practice faculty much easier.
A practice facility is crucial to signing the highly sought after player - to ignore that factor is simply naive to the desires of those top players and ignores the huge recruiting disadvantage that is emphasized by ALL schools in our conf. In fact there is only one other Power 5 Conf school that does not have their own practice facility. Further to this - All of the conf schools practice gym scheduling, is controlled by the Athletic dept. Cal has RSF for use, but must coordinate thru RSF for scheduling( and availability is often tied to off hours). Yes occasionally Cal closes on the once/decade type local star (very rare btw) and that happened with Ivan Rabb and Cuonzo, who deserves credit for that, along with the joint recruiting effort to land Jaylen. JBird also was the rare local star who really wanted to stay local given his strong family ties. Not disagreeing on not firing a coach due to lack of the dedicated practice facility - just wanted to emphasize how important this facility is, to convincing top talent to truly consider/select Cal.
Football analogy not relative to this discussion, despite a few years of solid recruiting under Tedford - JT desperately sought the charge to get the new stadium because of the tremendous recruiting disadvantage the program had with the horrible stadium/training center then in place. In fact w/o going back to ancient history - Cal after the new stadium was built, had the #5 class verbally committed until the Toshgate issues played out. And the upgraded facilities played then and most recently are steadily paying recruiting dividends.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Talent wins, in the long run and in the short run.
If my team has more talent than yours, I want as many possessions as possible because luck is likely to even out. (Take three-point shooting: If I have better three-point shooters than you, I can still miss a lot of shots during a particular stretch of a game. But the more shots we both take, the greater the likelihood that my better shooters will be more effective than yours. Similar logic applies to all skills.)
So the last thing I want, if I have a talent deficit, is the fastest pace possible. I want the slowest pace possible to maximize my chances of a small sample size working in my favor. The more possessions, the more likely talent will tell.
And again, Xs and Os are vastly overrated. If my defenders can keep your ballhandlers from penetrating off the dribble, then I will always have help and be able to handle any kind of motion (switching, whatever). And if you have a player or two who is a weak offensive player, my defender on that player can just stand in the lane and disrupt whatever you're trying to do offensively.
Granted, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but athleticism erases skills, and if you can't break defenders down off the dribble, you're going to have trouble scoring enough to win.
If my team has more talent than yours, I want as many possessions as possible because luck is likely to even out. (Take three-point shooting: If I have better three-point shooters than you, I can still miss a lot of shots during a particular stretch of a game. But the more shots we both take, the greater the likelihood that my better shooters will be more effective than yours. Similar logic applies to all skills.)
So the last thing I want, if I have a talent deficit, is the fastest pace possible. I want the slowest pace possible to maximize my chances of a small sample size working in my favor. The more possessions, the more likely talent will tell.
And again, Xs and Os are vastly overrated. If my defenders can keep your ballhandlers from penetrating off the dribble, then I will always have help and be able to handle any kind of motion (switching, whatever). And if you have a player or two who is a weak offensive player, my defender on that player can just stand in the lane and disrupt whatever you're trying to do offensively.
Granted, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but athleticism erases skills, and if you can't break defenders down off the dribble, you're going to have trouble scoring enough to win.
Thank you.
ClayK said:
Talent wins, in the long run and in the short run.
If my team has more talent than yours, I want as many possessions as possible because luck is likely to even out. (Take three-point shooting: If I have better three-point shooters than you, I can still miss a lot of shots during a particular stretch of a game. But the more shots we both take, the greater the likelihood that my better shooters will be more effective than yours. Similar logic applies to all skills.)
So the last thing I want, if I have a talent deficit, is the fastest pace possible. I want the slowest pace possible to maximize my chances of a small sample size working in my favor. The more possessions, the more likely talent will tell.
And again, Xs and Os are vastly overrated. If my defenders can keep your ballhandlers from penetrating off the dribble, then I will always have help and be able to handle any kind of motion (switching, whatever). And if you have a player or two who is a weak offensive player, my defender on that player can just stand in the lane and disrupt whatever you're trying to do offensively.
Granted, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but athleticism erases skills, and if you can't break defenders down off the dribble, you're going to have trouble scoring enough to win.
Playing a faster open court style also generally favors the more athletic team
Less athletic teams usually want to limit fast breaks, set their half court defense, and grind it out
I agree about talent. That's why I'm concerned about the direction of Cal's program.ClayK said:
... Granted, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but athleticism erases skills, and if you can't break defenders down off the dribble, you're going to have trouble scoring enough to win.
Regarding Xs and Os, I remember the Oregon State teams coached by Ralph Miller. They had plenty of talent (Radford, Blume, Johnson) but got great shots from unbelievably crisp passing rather than penetration off the dribble. It was hard to root against them even when they were blowing us off the court because it was so beautiful to watch.
HoopDreams said:ClayK said:
Talent wins, in the long run and in the short run.
If my team has more talent than yours, I want as many possessions as possible because luck is likely to even out. (Take three-point shooting: If I have better three-point shooters than you, I can still miss a lot of shots during a particular stretch of a game. But the more shots we both take, the greater the likelihood that my better shooters will be more effective than yours. Similar logic applies to all skills.)
So the last thing I want, if I have a talent deficit, is the fastest pace possible. I want the slowest pace possible to maximize my chances of a small sample size working in my favor. The more possessions, the more likely talent will tell.
And again, Xs and Os are vastly overrated. If my defenders can keep your ballhandlers from penetrating off the dribble, then I will always have help and be able to handle any kind of motion (switching, whatever). And if you have a player or two who is a weak offensive player, my defender on that player can just stand in the lane and disrupt whatever you're trying to do offensively.
Granted, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but athleticism erases skills, and if you can't break defenders down off the dribble, you're going to have trouble scoring enough to win.
Playing a faster open court style also generally favors the more athletic team
Less athletic teams usually want to limit fast breaks, set their half court defense, and grind it out
Agreed. The danger is it becomes chicken and egg. A coach who plays a plodding style because he has a less athletic team will generally have trouble attracting top athletes to play in his system.
Cuonzo varied the pace from plodding to middle of the road when he had talent.
Some of the best teams in the country last year: Baylor, Michigan, Houston, USC, Colorado, Loyola Chicago, Ohio State, UCLA played at relatively slow pace. They were all efficient on offense.
Good teams that played a fast tempo were Gonzaga, Illinois, Iowa, Illinois, Alabama, Florida State, Arkansas
Coach K, Mark Few and Mike Montgomery are coaches whose teams play/played relatively fast because:
1. They are purposeful on offense. They know what they want to do and execute to get a good shot early in the shot clock.
2. On defense they do not try to prevent any shot hoping the shot clock will expire, they take away your best shots and try to force/bait you into taking low percentage shots early in the shot clock.
The increased number of possessions then works to their favor.
Agree. I remember Monty saying "not all passes are good passes" and other things that demonstrated his strategy
He also was one of the best at getting his best players good shots, and coaching his players to accept their roles
He also was one of the best at getting his best players good shots, and coaching his players to accept their roles
calumnus said:HoopDreams said:ClayK said:
Talent wins, in the long run and in the short run.
If my team has more talent than yours, I want as many possessions as possible because luck is likely to even out. (Take three-point shooting: If I have better three-point shooters than you, I can still miss a lot of shots during a particular stretch of a game. But the more shots we both take, the greater the likelihood that my better shooters will be more effective than yours. Similar logic applies to all skills.)
So the last thing I want, if I have a talent deficit, is the fastest pace possible. I want the slowest pace possible to maximize my chances of a small sample size working in my favor. The more possessions, the more likely talent will tell.
And again, Xs and Os are vastly overrated. If my defenders can keep your ballhandlers from penetrating off the dribble, then I will always have help and be able to handle any kind of motion (switching, whatever). And if you have a player or two who is a weak offensive player, my defender on that player can just stand in the lane and disrupt whatever you're trying to do offensively.
Granted, some coaches are better at Xs and Os than others, but athleticism erases skills, and if you can't break defenders down off the dribble, you're going to have trouble scoring enough to win.
Playing a faster open court style also generally favors the more athletic team
Less athletic teams usually want to limit fast breaks, set their half court defense, and grind it out
Agreed. The danger is it becomes chicken and egg. A coach who plays a plodding style because he has a less athletic team will generally have trouble attracting top athletes to play in his system.
Cuonzo varied the pace from plodding to middle of the road when he had talent.
Some of the best teams in the country last year: Baylor, Michigan, Houston, USC, Colorado, Loyola Chicago, Ohio State, UCLA played at relatively slow pace. They were all efficient on offense.
Good teams that played a fast tempo were Gonzaga, Illinois, Iowa, Illinois, Alabama, Florida State, Arkansas
Coach K, Mark Few and Mike Montgomery are coaches whose teams play/played relatively fast because:
1. They are purposeful on offense. They know what they want to do and execute to get a good shot early in the shot clock.
2. On defense they do not try to prevent any shot hoping the shot clock will expire, they take away your best shots and try to force/bait you into taking low percentage shots early in the shot clock.
The increased number of possessions then works to their favor.
Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
HearstMining said:Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Just 5 years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team with the same admission standards. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. And that was with a coach who was not great with the X's and O's.
Admissions is very low on our current list of issues.
Always will be the isolated exception/recruiting situation - but to believe that admissions office standards for our basketball team is not a difficult hurdle to overcome, is simply being uninformed. Cuonzo was very frustrated that several key recruits who wanted to play for him were denied admissions and that was a key factor (not just the money and being closer to his home area) for his departure. Likewise straight from our past (WJ) and current staff, the lack of willingness to consider/admit talented sought after recruits is a big obstacle. With the exception of Stanford, every other conference member has easier acceptance standards and process than at Cal.calumnus said:HearstMining said:Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Just 5 years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team with the same admission standards. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. And that was with a coach who was not great with the X's and O's.
Admissions is very low on our current list of issues.
Weren't the current entrance requirements in place when Cuonzo took the Cal job?4thGenCal said:Always will be the isolated exception/recruiting situation - but to believe that admissions office standards for our basketball team is not a difficult hurdle to overcome, is simply being uninformed. Cuonzo was very frustrated that several key recruits who wanted to play for him were denied admissions and that was a key factor (not just the money and being closer to his home area) for his departure. Likewise straight from our past (WJ) and current staff, the lack of willingness to consider/admit talented sought after recruits is a big obstacle. With the exception of Stanford, every other conference member has easier acceptance standards and process than at Cal.calumnus said:HearstMining said:Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Just 5 years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team with the same admission standards. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. And that was with a coach who was not great with the X's and O's.
Admissions is very low on our current list of issues.
Your point seems to be that Cal's entrance requirements for athletes are excessive. But back prior to 2014 or whenever the requirements were lower, the Cal men's basketball grad rate was last in the Pac-12 and football was last among all Power-5 schools. If the current requirements are lowered, what will keep that from happening again? That's the real hurdle!
How do you take a recruit with a mediocre academic background, drop them in the extremely competitive Cal environment with faculty who are not inclined to accomodate the additional demands that athletics place on that kid and get them to progress towards graduation?
As Cuonzo pointed out to me - You take the occasional chance with the applicant who has endured unusual and very difficult upbringing (often lack thereof). Cuonzo said "If I was not given a chance into college where I played, I would not be where I am today". Young men can raise their academic game, when tutored and monitored. Cuonzo spoke with each professor of his players to ensure any reports of unexpected absence, required all his players to sit in the front rows, turn off all cell phones during class and keep his staff abreast of their class progress/assignment completions etc. Ben Braun generously donated a cumulative $250K over his existing contract to fund an additional tutor/academic support. Will there be a few who fail? likely - but there will be many more who will thrive and benefit via lifelong experiences gained at Cal.HearstMining said:Weren't the current entrance requirements in place when Cuonzo took the Cal job?4thGenCal said:Always will be the isolated exception/recruiting situation - but to believe that admissions office standards for our basketball team is not a difficult hurdle to overcome, is simply being uninformed. Cuonzo was very frustrated that several key recruits who wanted to play for him were denied admissions and that was a key factor (not just the money and being closer to his home area) for his departure. Likewise straight from our past (WJ) and current staff, the lack of willingness to consider/admit talented sought after recruits is a big obstacle. With the exception of Stanford, every other conference member has easier acceptance standards and process than at Cal.calumnus said:HearstMining said:Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Just 5 years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team with the same admission standards. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. And that was with a coach who was not great with the X's and O's.
Admissions is very low on our current list of issues.
Your point seems to be that Cal's entrance requirements for athletes are excessive. But back prior to 2014 or whenever the requirements were lower, the Cal men's basketball grad rate was last in the Pac-12 and football was last among all Power-5 schools. If the current requirements are lowered, what will keep that from happening again? That's the real hurdle!
How do you take a recruit with a mediocre academic background, drop them in the extremely competitive Cal environment with faculty who are not inclined to accomodate the additional demands that athletics place on that kid and get them to progress towards graduation?
Yes the entrance requirements are excessive and often penalize the young men who could handle the academic load and this greatly hampers our program from being able to compete for upper division results let alone for a title. Many examples could be given, one currently starting at OSU in our league. Classic football example that fortunately turned out well (but barely) was the QB Geoff Webb that transferred to Cal from Texas Tech. He had a 2.98gpa and patiently endured 6 months of admissions required follow up, interviews, paperwork all required as part of the appeal process for acceptance. At the very last day of deadline University acceptance - He and his Mom were driving to Colorado to reluctantly sign/move into campus to enroll. Dykes called him with about 3 hours before he would have arrived Colorado campus nd said "you have been accepted"!! Webb played a pivotal role for our team during his time here and when asked to speak at the Grid Club - greatly impressed the audience with his message about his positive experiences at Cal, both on the field and in the classroom.
There is zero reason why cal should have a higher academic requirement than UCLA
I might add UCSB
I might add UCSB
Let's be clear: everybody (including me) on this board wants to see the most talented football and basketball players get into Cal, see them be successful in their sports, and see them progress and eventually graduate. We also know that many of these recruits come from difficult backgrounds which frequently create a large educational gap between their peers at Cal and them.4thGenCal said:As Cuonzo pointed out to me - You take the occasional chance with the applicant who has endured unusual and very difficult upbringing (often lack thereof). Cuonzo said "If I was not given a chance into college where I played, I would not be where I am today". Young men can raise their academic game, when tutored and monitored. Cuonzo spoke with each professor of his players to ensure any reports of unexpected absence, required all his players to sit in the front rows, turn off all cell phones during class and keep his staff abreast of their class progress/assignment completions etc. Ben Braun generously donated a cumulative $250K over his existing contract to fund an additional tutor/academic support. Will there be a few who fail? likely - but there will be many more who will thrive and benefit via lifelong experiences gained at Cal.HearstMining said:Weren't the current entrance requirements in place when Cuonzo took the Cal job?4thGenCal said:Always will be the isolated exception/recruiting situation - but to believe that admissions office standards for our basketball team is not a difficult hurdle to overcome, is simply being uninformed. Cuonzo was very frustrated that several key recruits who wanted to play for him were denied admissions and that was a key factor (not just the money and being closer to his home area) for his departure. Likewise straight from our past (WJ) and current staff, the lack of willingness to consider/admit talented sought after recruits is a big obstacle. With the exception of Stanford, every other conference member has easier acceptance standards and process than at Cal.calumnus said:HearstMining said:Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Just 5 years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team with the same admission standards. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. And that was with a coach who was not great with the X's and O's.
Admissions is very low on our current list of issues.
Your point seems to be that Cal's entrance requirements for athletes are excessive. But back prior to 2014 or whenever the requirements were lower, the Cal men's basketball grad rate was last in the Pac-12 and football was last among all Power-5 schools. If the current requirements are lowered, what will keep that from happening again? That's the real hurdle!
How do you take a recruit with a mediocre academic background, drop them in the extremely competitive Cal environment with faculty who are not inclined to accomodate the additional demands that athletics place on that kid and get them to progress towards graduation?
Yes the entrance requirements are excessive and often penalize the young men who could handle the academic load and this greatly hampers our program from being able to compete for upper division results let alone for a title. Many examples could be given, one currently starting at OSU in our league. Classic football example that fortunately turned out well (but barely) was the QB Geoff Webb that transferred to Cal from Texas Tech. He had a 2.98gpa and patiently endured 6 months of admissions required follow up, interviews, paperwork all required as part of the appeal process for acceptance. At the very last day of deadline University acceptance - He and his Mom were driving to Colorado to reluctantly sign/move into campus to enroll. Dykes called him with about 3 hours before he would have arrived Colorado campus nd said "you have been accepted"!! Webb played a pivotal role for our team during his time here and when asked to speak at the Grid Club - greatly impressed the audience with his message about his positive experiences at Cal, both on the field and in the classroom.
I supplied you with a some data: Cal's abysmal graduation rates for football and basketball players around 2014 which obviously drove the raising of admission standards to their current level. You replied with anecdotes about what Cuonzo Martin said and about Davis Webb's experience (pretty irrelevant as he applied to a graduate program so had already demonstrated he could succeed in college).
Your anecdotes didn't answer my question so I'll ask it once again: if the current admissions requirements are lowered, what will be in place to prevent the graduation rate dropping in the same way it did prior to 2014?
Here's a corollary: how does UCLA, with it's lower requirements, manage to keep their APR high? Answer: They don't! Until Mick Cronin arrived for the 2019-2020 season, UCLA's multi-year APR was down to 933, within an eyelash of the 930 threshold for penalties. No doubt as a result of that, Cronin apparently has incentive clauses in his contract if the team hits certain APR levels. Is that all it takes?
HearstMining said:
Here's a corollary: how does UCLA, with it's lower requirements, manage to keep their APR high? Answer: They don't! Until Mick Cronin arrived for the 2019-2020 season, UCLA's multi-year APR was down to 933, within an eyelash of the 930 threshold for penalties. No doubt as a result of that, Cronin apparently has incentive clauses in his contract if the team hits certain APR levels. Is that all it takes?
Not sure. I think it is a combination of things. But I also believe that it is possible (Martin showed it. Ditto Monty even just half trying) that we can recruit MUCH better than Fox.
My own opinion remains that Cal would be well served by an AA coach, with roots/relationships in Southern California, that understands UC system and thus is not starting from scratch.
It is so cool that hopefully we get to see if the AD gets that after our single digit win season that is coming next year and the end of the horrific Mark Fox experiment.
The current admissions requirements will not be lowered, the discussion was to enlighten the majority of readers/posters on this site of the immense difficulties the program has had over the years and currently faces with the unusually strict admissions policies. Its simply not a level "playing field" in our conference and this issue is a major factor in the ongoing performance on the court. Yes occasionally (Monty and Cuonzo total of 2 seasons) shine and excel - but that is exceedingly difficult and unrealistic to assume that can occur more than once every 8-10 seasons. Its sad but true - However, if the requirements could be slightly lowered (ie strongly consider the occasional 2.7-2.8 gpa inner city kid who faced unusual obstacles in HS) Cal would significantly improve the product on the court. By doing so - donor's, HC etc would need to create additional educational support/ full time tutor's, to ensure the class assignments were being met to satisfactory standards. The funds could certainly be raised. People naively point to Duke as an example of success with "stringent admission standards". Completely false assumption, Coach K for decades has had an agreement in place with the Chancellor, that the staff is allowed one scholarship player/season who does not meet the minimum levels of acceptance at the university. Only one? no, it means there are typically 2-3 players on each season's roster and the impact is huge.HearstMining said:Let's be clear: everybody (including me) on this board wants to see the most talented football and basketball players get into Cal, see them be successful in their sports, and see them progress and eventually graduate. We also know that many of these recruits come from difficult backgrounds which frequently create a large educational gap between their peers at Cal and them.4thGenCal said:As Cuonzo pointed out to me - You take the occasional chance with the applicant who has endured unusual and very difficult upbringing (often lack thereof). Cuonzo said "If I was not given a chance into college where I played, I would not be where I am today". Young men can raise their academic game, when tutored and monitored. Cuonzo spoke with each professor of his players to ensure any reports of unexpected absence, required all his players to sit in the front rows, turn off all cell phones during class and keep his staff abreast of their class progress/assignment completions etc. Ben Braun generously donated a cumulative $250K over his existing contract to fund an additional tutor/academic support. Will there be a few who fail? likely - but there will be many more who will thrive and benefit via lifelong experiences gained at Cal.HearstMining said:Weren't the current entrance requirements in place when Cuonzo took the Cal job?4thGenCal said:Always will be the isolated exception/recruiting situation - but to believe that admissions office standards for our basketball team is not a difficult hurdle to overcome, is simply being uninformed. Cuonzo was very frustrated that several key recruits who wanted to play for him were denied admissions and that was a key factor (not just the money and being closer to his home area) for his departure. Likewise straight from our past (WJ) and current staff, the lack of willingness to consider/admit talented sought after recruits is a big obstacle. With the exception of Stanford, every other conference member has easier acceptance standards and process than at Cal.calumnus said:HearstMining said:Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Just 5 years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team with the same admission standards. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. And that was with a coach who was not great with the X's and O's.
Admissions is very low on our current list of issues.
Your point seems to be that Cal's entrance requirements for athletes are excessive. But back prior to 2014 or whenever the requirements were lower, the Cal men's basketball grad rate was last in the Pac-12 and football was last among all Power-5 schools. If the current requirements are lowered, what will keep that from happening again? That's the real hurdle!
How do you take a recruit with a mediocre academic background, drop them in the extremely competitive Cal environment with faculty who are not inclined to accomodate the additional demands that athletics place on that kid and get them to progress towards graduation?
Yes the entrance requirements are excessive and often penalize the young men who could handle the academic load and this greatly hampers our program from being able to compete for upper division results let alone for a title. Many examples could be given, one currently starting at OSU in our league. Classic football example that fortunately turned out well (but barely) was the QB Geoff Webb that transferred to Cal from Texas Tech. He had a 2.98gpa and patiently endured 6 months of admissions required follow up, interviews, paperwork all required as part of the appeal process for acceptance. At the very last day of deadline University acceptance - He and his Mom were driving to Colorado to reluctantly sign/move into campus to enroll. Dykes called him with about 3 hours before he would have arrived Colorado campus nd said "you have been accepted"!! Webb played a pivotal role for our team during his time here and when asked to speak at the Grid Club - greatly impressed the audience with his message about his positive experiences at Cal, both on the field and in the classroom.
I supplied you with a some data: Cal's abysmal graduation rates for football and basketball players around 2014 which obviously drove the raising of admission standards to their current level. You replied with anecdotes about what Cuonzo Martin said and about Davis Webb's experience (pretty irrelevant as he applied to a graduate program so had already demonstrated he could succeed in college).
Your anecdotes didn't answer my question so I'll ask it once again: if the current admissions requirements are lowered, what will be in place to prevent the graduation rate dropping in the same way it did prior to 2014?
Here's a corollary: how does UCLA, with it's lower requirements, manage to keep their APR high? Answer: They don't! Until Mick Cronin arrived for the 2019-2020 season, UCLA's multi-year APR was down to 933, within an eyelash of the 930 threshold for penalties. No doubt as a result of that, Cronin apparently has incentive clauses in his contract if the team hits certain APR levels. Is that all it takes?
Most schools weight their end of roster players/walk ons with strong academics, to help with the overall gpa etc, Cal simply does not have the marginal student athlete on their roster. The point is not to become an "Oregon/Kentucky/Kansas" bball factory, its wished, that by a modest and only case by case situation, take the chance on a student athlete who demonstrates character and resolve to succeed, while enduring unusual personal situations in HS.
Why do you say that Cal's admission standards "will not be lowered"? Do you mean, absent additional funds and additional full-time tutors, the standards will not be lowered?
If what you say is true, and I don't have any reason to doubt it, then Cal basketball will not be competitive until:
1) a dedicated practice facility is built or somehow created out of RSF square footage, and
2) sufficient funds are raised to hire additional full-time tutor(s) so that our admissions standards can be lowered to be in the same ballpark as our peers' admissions standards.
I used to be a small-sized donor, but I quit the moment they hired the unqualified Wyking Jones. Are the two needs above being communicated at all to potential donors? If not, why not?
Finally, why in the world should I continue to support Cal basketball if concrete steps aren't being taken to solve the two needs above?
To clarify - Current admission standards are highly unlikely to be lowered anytime soon for our student athletes - with or without additional funding for full-time tutors/educational support etc. The AD/dept have many pressing areas to pursue and that would be a prolonged back and forth process, using up political capital (if successful) that can only be used sporadically. Regarding #1 there are ongoing talks, planning, fund raising discussions to see this happen - timing is TBD, but it is a decent possibility. I would say donate as you are financially capable of, simply because 1) we are loyal to our university, 2) enjoy watching/supporting the team 3) does help the program in multiple ways (occasional charter flight, recruiting costs, ensuring proper and consistent food/nutrition is available year around, assists in recruiting/retaining quality coaches/ operational/ training support salaries all to be closer to a "level playing court" 4) Does help/impact the competitiveness of a constrained program. 5) Heck - also is a feel good/tax deductible donation toward a true underdog program that does "play by the rules".Chapman_is_Gone said:
Why do you say that Cal's admission standards "will not be lowered"? Do you mean, absent additional funds and additional full-time tutors, the standards will not be lowered?
If what you say is true, and I don't have any reason to doubt it, then Cal basketball will not be competitive until:
1) a dedicated practice facility is built or somehow created out of RSF square footage, and
2) sufficient funds are raised to hire additional full-time tutor(s) so that our admissions standards can be lowered to be in the same ballpark as our peers' admissions standards.
I used to be a small-sized donor, but I quit the moment they hired the unqualified Wyking Jones. Are the two needs above being communicated at all to potential donors? If not, why not?
Finally, why in the world should I continue to support Cal basketball if concrete steps aren't being taken to solve the two needs above?
4thGenCal said:The current admissions requirements will not be lowered, the discussion was to enlighten the majority of readers/posters on this site of the immense difficulties the program has had over the years and currently faces with the unusually strict admissions policies. Its simply not a level "playing field" in our conference and this issue is a major factor in the ongoing performance on the court. Yes occasionally (Monty and Cuonzo total of 2 seasons) shine and excel - but that is exceedingly difficult and unrealistic to assume that can occur more than once every 8-10 seasons. Its sad but true - However, if the requirements could be slightly lowered (ie strongly consider the occasional 2.7-2.8 gpa inner city kid who faced unusual obstacles in HS) Cal would significantly improve the product on the court. By doing so - donor's, HC etc would need to create additional educational support/ full time tutor's, to ensure the class assignments were being met to satisfactory standards. The funds could certainly be raised. People naively point to Duke as an example of success with "stringent admission standards". Completely false assumption, Coach K for decades has had an agreement in place with the Chancellor, that the staff is allowed one scholarship player/season who does not meet the minimum levels of acceptance at the university. Only one? no, it means there are typically 2-3 players on each season's roster and the impact is huge.HearstMining said:Let's be clear: everybody (including me) on this board wants to see the most talented football and basketball players get into Cal, see them be successful in their sports, and see them progress and eventually graduate. We also know that many of these recruits come from difficult backgrounds which frequently create a large educational gap between their peers at Cal and them.4thGenCal said:As Cuonzo pointed out to me - You take the occasional chance with the applicant who has endured unusual and very difficult upbringing (often lack thereof). Cuonzo said "If I was not given a chance into college where I played, I would not be where I am today". Young men can raise their academic game, when tutored and monitored. Cuonzo spoke with each professor of his players to ensure any reports of unexpected absence, required all his players to sit in the front rows, turn off all cell phones during class and keep his staff abreast of their class progress/assignment completions etc. Ben Braun generously donated a cumulative $250K over his existing contract to fund an additional tutor/academic support. Will there be a few who fail? likely - but there will be many more who will thrive and benefit via lifelong experiences gained at Cal.HearstMining said:Weren't the current entrance requirements in place when Cuonzo took the Cal job?4thGenCal said:Always will be the isolated exception/recruiting situation - but to believe that admissions office standards for our basketball team is not a difficult hurdle to overcome, is simply being uninformed. Cuonzo was very frustrated that several key recruits who wanted to play for him were denied admissions and that was a key factor (not just the money and being closer to his home area) for his departure. Likewise straight from our past (WJ) and current staff, the lack of willingness to consider/admit talented sought after recruits is a big obstacle. With the exception of Stanford, every other conference member has easier acceptance standards and process than at Cal.calumnus said:HearstMining said:Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Just 5 years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team with the same admission standards. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. And that was with a coach who was not great with the X's and O's.
Admissions is very low on our current list of issues.
Your point seems to be that Cal's entrance requirements for athletes are excessive. But back prior to 2014 or whenever the requirements were lower, the Cal men's basketball grad rate was last in the Pac-12 and football was last among all Power-5 schools. If the current requirements are lowered, what will keep that from happening again? That's the real hurdle!
How do you take a recruit with a mediocre academic background, drop them in the extremely competitive Cal environment with faculty who are not inclined to accomodate the additional demands that athletics place on that kid and get them to progress towards graduation?
Yes the entrance requirements are excessive and often penalize the young men who could handle the academic load and this greatly hampers our program from being able to compete for upper division results let alone for a title. Many examples could be given, one currently starting at OSU in our league. Classic football example that fortunately turned out well (but barely) was the QB Geoff Webb that transferred to Cal from Texas Tech. He had a 2.98gpa and patiently endured 6 months of admissions required follow up, interviews, paperwork all required as part of the appeal process for acceptance. At the very last day of deadline University acceptance - He and his Mom were driving to Colorado to reluctantly sign/move into campus to enroll. Dykes called him with about 3 hours before he would have arrived Colorado campus nd said "you have been accepted"!! Webb played a pivotal role for our team during his time here and when asked to speak at the Grid Club - greatly impressed the audience with his message about his positive experiences at Cal, both on the field and in the classroom.
I supplied you with a some data: Cal's abysmal graduation rates for football and basketball players around 2014 which obviously drove the raising of admission standards to their current level. You replied with anecdotes about what Cuonzo Martin said and about Davis Webb's experience (pretty irrelevant as he applied to a graduate program so had already demonstrated he could succeed in college).
Your anecdotes didn't answer my question so I'll ask it once again: if the current admissions requirements are lowered, what will be in place to prevent the graduation rate dropping in the same way it did prior to 2014?
Here's a corollary: how does UCLA, with it's lower requirements, manage to keep their APR high? Answer: They don't! Until Mick Cronin arrived for the 2019-2020 season, UCLA's multi-year APR was down to 933, within an eyelash of the 930 threshold for penalties. No doubt as a result of that, Cronin apparently has incentive clauses in his contract if the team hits certain APR levels. Is that all it takes?
Most schools weight their end of roster players/walk ons with strong academics, to help with the overall gpa etc, Cal simply does not have the marginal student athlete on their roster. The point is not to become an "Oregon/Kentucky/Kansas" bball factory, its wished, that by a modest and only case by case situation, take the chance on a student athlete who demonstrates character and resolve to succeed, while enduring unusual personal situations in HS.
I am for most sports, but especially football and basketball, having one or two "exceptional talent/circumstances" exceptions largely at the coach's discretion, like the ones that brought Russell White, Leon Powe and Marshawn Lynch to Cal. They have all proven to be immense credits to the university. The coach would be responsible for bringing in exceptional student athletes who are committed to making use of the resources and doing the work. If managed well, those numbers could be expanded.
I'm OK with a rare exception for a truly exceptional prospect but I wouldn't it to become the norm. I remember Martin trying and failing to get some problematic 4-star guys in and I'm happy that didn't happen.
Thank you for a thorough answer. It also happens to match my impression of what's going on and the additions to tutoring that would be required to support recruits with marginal academics. I hope at some point the resources can be found to fully fund this. Fortunately, I see that Knowlton now has until 2029 to figure this out . . . maybe that's what he's really good at as opposed to coach selection. From articles I've read on this site, Cal coaches do emphasize to recruits early in the recruiting process the importance of good grades and that's probably the smartest approach, get those kids focused when they still have 2-3 years of high school to catch up.4thGenCal said:The current admissions requirements will not be lowered, the discussion was to enlighten the majority of readers/posters on this site of the immense difficulties the program has had over the years and currently faces with the unusually strict admissions policies. Its simply not a level "playing field" in our conference and this issue is a major factor in the ongoing performance on the court. Yes occasionally (Monty and Cuonzo total of 2 seasons) shine and excel - but that is exceedingly difficult and unrealistic to assume that can occur more than once every 8-10 seasons. Its sad but true - However, if the requirements could be slightly lowered (ie strongly consider the occasional 2.7-2.8 gpa inner city kid who faced unusual obstacles in HS) Cal would significantly improve the product on the court. By doing so - donor's, HC etc would need to create additional educational support/ full time tutor's, to ensure the class assignments were being met to satisfactory standards. The funds could certainly be raised. People naively point to Duke as an example of success with "stringent admission standards". Completely false assumption, Coach K for decades has had an agreement in place with the Chancellor, that the staff is allowed one scholarship player/season who does not meet the minimum levels of acceptance at the university. Only one? no, it means there are typically 2-3 players on each season's roster and the impact is huge.HearstMining said:Let's be clear: everybody (including me) on this board wants to see the most talented football and basketball players get into Cal, see them be successful in their sports, and see them progress and eventually graduate. We also know that many of these recruits come from difficult backgrounds which frequently create a large educational gap between their peers at Cal and them.4thGenCal said:As Cuonzo pointed out to me - You take the occasional chance with the applicant who has endured unusual and very difficult upbringing (often lack thereof). Cuonzo said "If I was not given a chance into college where I played, I would not be where I am today". Young men can raise their academic game, when tutored and monitored. Cuonzo spoke with each professor of his players to ensure any reports of unexpected absence, required all his players to sit in the front rows, turn off all cell phones during class and keep his staff abreast of their class progress/assignment completions etc. Ben Braun generously donated a cumulative $250K over his existing contract to fund an additional tutor/academic support. Will there be a few who fail? likely - but there will be many more who will thrive and benefit via lifelong experiences gained at Cal.HearstMining said:Weren't the current entrance requirements in place when Cuonzo took the Cal job?4thGenCal said:Always will be the isolated exception/recruiting situation - but to believe that admissions office standards for our basketball team is not a difficult hurdle to overcome, is simply being uninformed. Cuonzo was very frustrated that several key recruits who wanted to play for him were denied admissions and that was a key factor (not just the money and being closer to his home area) for his departure. Likewise straight from our past (WJ) and current staff, the lack of willingness to consider/admit talented sought after recruits is a big obstacle. With the exception of Stanford, every other conference member has easier acceptance standards and process than at Cal.calumnus said:HearstMining said:Look, I agree that certain athletes can be cut some slack on entrance requirements, but given high school grade inflation, a 3.0 is not that hard to obtain. Especially given the time demands of their sport, there needs to be some indication that the recruit can survive in Cal's academic environment, doesn't there?4thGenCal said:Definitely some good/accurate points - My disagreement centers more on success for Cal bball (fleeting over past 61 years - with just one conf title!) shows that its a combination of factors that Cal comes up short in. Its exceeding difficult to win our conference/finish top 3/4 consistently with the academic standards in place, w/o an exceptional HC And a practice facility. I am forcing myself to be objective and thus refrain from "he must go" until we see his 3rd year results (especially the dregs taken over and this past season hits including all season long on and off key injuries to starters and top reserves). Totally agree on points 1,2.4,5 though.calumnus said:4thGenCal said:sluggo said:
Thanks for your insider perspective. I would never guess that Fox's failures are a result of his not working hard enough. Rather, he appears to be a dinosaur. The world moved and he did not move with it. I don't know what he thought he would do when he got that Cal job, a job that he should not have gotten given his mediocre to worse results. But he was available and the AD felt cultural affinity for him.
.
.
.
All of this discussion on winning/records/competitiveness certainly requires a top HC - but also must include the key factors of a reasonable admission office (one that does not require a live review interview with those that are considered marginal applicants, and or having a sub 3.0 gpa, a entrance test that scored below set standards etc), and having a dedicated practice facility.
Just 5 years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team with the same admission standards. We went undefeated at home and earned a 4 seed. And that was with a coach who was not great with the X's and O's.
Admissions is very low on our current list of issues.
Your point seems to be that Cal's entrance requirements for athletes are excessive. But back prior to 2014 or whenever the requirements were lower, the Cal men's basketball grad rate was last in the Pac-12 and football was last among all Power-5 schools. If the current requirements are lowered, what will keep that from happening again? That's the real hurdle!
How do you take a recruit with a mediocre academic background, drop them in the extremely competitive Cal environment with faculty who are not inclined to accomodate the additional demands that athletics place on that kid and get them to progress towards graduation?
Yes the entrance requirements are excessive and often penalize the young men who could handle the academic load and this greatly hampers our program from being able to compete for upper division results let alone for a title. Many examples could be given, one currently starting at OSU in our league. Classic football example that fortunately turned out well (but barely) was the QB Geoff Webb that transferred to Cal from Texas Tech. He had a 2.98gpa and patiently endured 6 months of admissions required follow up, interviews, paperwork all required as part of the appeal process for acceptance. At the very last day of deadline University acceptance - He and his Mom were driving to Colorado to reluctantly sign/move into campus to enroll. Dykes called him with about 3 hours before he would have arrived Colorado campus nd said "you have been accepted"!! Webb played a pivotal role for our team during his time here and when asked to speak at the Grid Club - greatly impressed the audience with his message about his positive experiences at Cal, both on the field and in the classroom.
I supplied you with a some data: Cal's abysmal graduation rates for football and basketball players around 2014 which obviously drove the raising of admission standards to their current level. You replied with anecdotes about what Cuonzo Martin said and about Davis Webb's experience (pretty irrelevant as he applied to a graduate program so had already demonstrated he could succeed in college).
Your anecdotes didn't answer my question so I'll ask it once again: if the current admissions requirements are lowered, what will be in place to prevent the graduation rate dropping in the same way it did prior to 2014?
Here's a corollary: how does UCLA, with it's lower requirements, manage to keep their APR high? Answer: They don't! Until Mick Cronin arrived for the 2019-2020 season, UCLA's multi-year APR was down to 933, within an eyelash of the 930 threshold for penalties. No doubt as a result of that, Cronin apparently has incentive clauses in his contract if the team hits certain APR levels. Is that all it takes?
Most schools weight their end of roster players/walk ons with strong academics, to help with the overall gpa etc, Cal simply does not have the marginal student athlete on their roster. The point is not to become an "Oregon/Kentucky/Kansas" bball factory, its wished, that by a modest and only case by case situation, take the chance on a student athlete who demonstrates character and resolve to succeed, while enduring unusual personal situations in HS.
You mention Duke and I recall reading an interview with Jamal Boykin where he was asked about the difference between Duke and Cal. He said at Duke, there was always somebody to meet him at the end of each class and ensure that he made it to the next class and at Cal this babysitting did not happen. Boykin was a good college player, but got little PT at Duke so I think we can assume he was not one of Coach K's negotiated exceptions. But it shows that Duke has the will and the resources to track all the bball players, even those like Boykin with (presumably) solid academics.
With his buddy Knowlton getting an extension to 2029, Fox probably breathes easier.
Single digit wins this year in a near empty Haas that will be blamed on COVID. Fox gets a pat on the back for "improvement" and "doing it the right way" then gets an extension "for recruiting." The continued bad recruiting will be blamed on the need for a stand-alone dedicated practice facility, our great but rigorous academics, " Berkeley" and the idea that 18 year old basketball stars really prefer schools located in small rural communities.
Single digit wins this year in a near empty Haas that will be blamed on COVID. Fox gets a pat on the back for "improvement" and "doing it the right way" then gets an extension "for recruiting." The continued bad recruiting will be blamed on the need for a stand-alone dedicated practice facility, our great but rigorous academics, " Berkeley" and the idea that 18 year old basketball stars really prefer schools located in small rural communities.
calumnus said:
With his buddy Knowlton getting an extension to 2029, Fox probably breathes easier.
Single digit wins this year in a near empty Haas that will be blamed on COVID. Fox gets a pat on the back for "improvement" and "doing it the right way" then gets an extension "for recruiting." The continued bad recruiting will be blamed on the need for a stand-alone dedicated practice facility, our great but rigorous academics, " Berkeley" and the idea that 18 year old basketball stars really prefer schools located in small rural communities.
I just emailed Travis DeCuire with the good news: If he's patient and plays his cards right, he can set the all-time record for "Number of Times Runner-Up for Cal Basketball Vacancy"!
Wanna make some money? Buy some stock in that search firm! But you'll be in after me... gotta dash!
Featured Stories
See All
From the Other Sideline: Cal vs SMU Preview
by Jim McGill
Cal Football Weekly Tuesday Presser
by Jim McGill
Mendoza Named ACC Quarterback Of The Week
by Cal Athletics
Bears Slip By Sac State, 83-77
by Jim McGill