We had a game today?!?

Question: If a game does not appear on the Bear Insider schedule, does it even exist? Next, somebody's going to tell me we play at Stanfurd on Tuesday... I refuse to believe it!

"Nattering nabobs of negativism."

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

Bear8995 said:

---

Grant has been off for a while.

---

During 7-game losing streak:

Overall: 20 for 69 29.0%

From 3: 4 for 23 17.4%


GO BEARS!!!!

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

The PAC-12 in Sagarin Recent:
1. UCLA #5
2. Arizona #10

3. Oregon #39
4. USC #45
5. Stanford #48
6. WSU #53

7. UW #80

8. Colorado #105

9. Cal #158
10. ASU # 172

11. OSU #198

12. Utah #243

This week is huge, 3 games in the Bay Area that could swing either way. Hopefully we have Kelly for them.

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

---

I do think that the runup to this 7 game stretch may have engendered more optimism than was warranted about the possibilities, but again, that 7-1 stretch included 2-1 against P5 level teams and 5-0 against mid-majors or lower. So our reality is somewhere closer to the 7-8 we are over the last 15.

That struggling to get to .500 overall is where we are in year 3 is a very depressing thought.

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

---

I do think that the runup to this 7 game stretch may have engendered more optimism than was warranted about the possibilities, but again, that 7-1 stretch included 2-1 against P5 level teams and 5-0 against mid-majors or lower. So our reality is somewhere closer to the 7-8 we are over the last 15.

That struggling to get to .500 overall is where we are in year 3 is a very depressing thought.

---

Other than those who wanted to pretend Fox had never coached before and was a blank slate It was what most who looked at the facts expected. What is depressing to me is we will likely be in the same situation two years from now (at least) while we are told good young coaches who make a fraction of what Fox makes would never come here and the problem is Cal.

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

---

I do think that the runup to this 7 game stretch may have engendered more optimism than was warranted about the possibilities, but again, that 7-1 stretch included 2-1 against P5 level teams and 5-0 against mid-majors or lower. So our reality is somewhere closer to the 7-8 we are over the last 15.

That struggling to get to .500 overall is where we are in year 3 is a very depressing thought.

---

Agreed. However, at no time during Fox's tenure has there ever once been a reasonable narrative that was more positive.

Big C said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

---

I do think that the runup to this 7 game stretch may have engendered more optimism than was warranted about the possibilities, but again, that 7-1 stretch included 2-1 against P5 level teams and 5-0 against mid-majors or lower. So our reality is somewhere closer to the 7-8 we are over the last 15.

That struggling to get to .500 overall is where we are in year 3 is a very depressing thought.

---

Agreed. However, at no time during Fox's tenure has there ever once been a reasonable narrative that was more positive.

---

Well there were definitely more positive narratives put out even if I agree with you they were unreasonable:

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

---

I do think that the runup to this 7 game stretch may have engendered more optimism than was warranted about the possibilities, but again, that 7-1 stretch included 2-1 against P5 level teams and 5-0 against mid-majors or lower. So our reality is somewhere closer to the 7-8 we are over the last 15.

That struggling to get to .500 overall is where we are in year 3 is a very depressing thought.

---

Agreed. However, at no time during Fox's tenure has there ever once been a reasonable narrative that was more positive.

---

Well there were definitely more positive narratives put out even if I agree with you they were unreasonable:

---

I'm sure somebody somewhere had one (like from the AD's office?), but I never heard a plausible scenario that took us to above .500 in the conference, based on whatever the current roster was, plus the next signed recruiting class. Not even projecting two years into the future.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

---

I do think that the runup to this 7 game stretch may have engendered more optimism than was warranted about the possibilities, but again, that 7-1 stretch included 2-1 against P5 level teams and 5-0 against mid-majors or lower. So our reality is somewhere closer to the 7-8 we are over the last 15.

That struggling to get to .500 overall is where we are in year 3 is a very depressing thought.

---

Agreed. However, at no time during Fox's tenure has there ever once been a reasonable narrative that was more positive.

---

Well there were definitely more positive narratives put out even if I agree with you they were unreasonable:

---

I'm sure somebody somewhere had one (like from the AD's office?), but I never heard a plausible scenario that took us to above .500 in the conference, based on whatever the current roster was, plus the next signed recruiting class. Not even projecting two years into the future.

---

There was a narrative put out by the coaching staff, repeated by Bill Walton and also by one of the mods here that the current recruiting class was the start of the turnaround of Cal basketball. The star, Alajiki, is averaging fewer than 4 points a game. The other two have scored a total of 10 points combined on the year. Call me skeptical.

Well, the 5 previous seasons we lose that U$C game Saturday by 30+.




What happens in the Triple Crown this week?

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

---

I do think that the runup to this 7 game stretch may have engendered more optimism than was warranted about the possibilities, but again, that 7-1 stretch included 2-1 against P5 level teams and 5-0 against mid-majors or lower. So our reality is somewhere closer to the 7-8 we are over the last 15.

That struggling to get to .500 overall is where we are in year 3 is a very depressing thought.

---

Agreed. However, at no time during Fox's tenure has there ever once been a reasonable narrative that was more positive.

---

Well there were definitely more positive narratives put out even if I agree with you they were unreasonable:

---

I'm sure somebody somewhere had one (like from the AD's office?), but I never heard a plausible scenario that took us to above .500 in the conference, based on whatever the current roster was, plus the next signed recruiting class. Not even projecting two years into the future.

---

There were some that pointed to initial year over year improvement in W/L and then extrapolated:"at this rate" . There were some that argued he would get us to .500 in conference making the job "more attractive" for attracting the next coach. There were some that argued no one wants to coach at Cal and we are lucky to get a highly overpaid retread. There were some that said "just give him a chance he has only been here 1, 2, 3 years." There was the COVID excuse.

It is similar to Wilcox but at least with Wilcox I am much happier with his coaching style, demeanor and personality and it is plausible to argue he is learning on the job, so his record should be ignored. However in both cases you have to ask "How does the current situation improve?"

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

Well this team has gone south in a hurry. Not surprised but it's seems the initial hope for this season was false hope. As usual.

Fox is always going to suck.

---

I don't think anyone was expecting Cal to beat any of USC, UCLA, or AZ. A split on the Washington road trip would have been nice, so the Bears are maybe -1 at this point.

Of course, Kelly goes down now that the schedule is getting easier. Nevermind.

---

I guess to me, this is where some of the analysis of Fox misses the bigger picture. Yes, from the specifics of where things were at the beginning of this 7-game stretch, maybe we are a -1. But from the larger view, we are in the third year of a coaches' tenure, and the best expectation of the team in a 7 game stretch was that we would go 1-6. Even if 5 of those 7 games were against the top 3 teams in the conference, the fact that we were not particularly competitive across those 7 is a pretty strong indictment of the current regime. And before people say that we kept some of the games close, I went to ESPN and looked at the running Win Probability for each of the last 7 games. The only game in which the WP was greater than 50% Cal at any point in the game was the UW game, and that ended with 7 min to go in the game.

I guess that's what's disheartening to me. In Fox's 3rd year, we are basically not competitive with the best teams in the conference (yes, we had a chance to cut saturday's game to 3 in the final minute and missed a FT, but the general point is valid, I think). There are those who seem to say pretty definitively that Fox will for sure be back next season, a season where we will likely lose our 3 best players from this season, and the replacements for those 3 seem to be a clear step down in production from what those 3 currently provide. This year is likely the high-water mark for Fox in his first 4 seasons.

---

Agreed, and I think what you say goes without saying. My comment was in response to the suggestion the Bears are suddenly worse than expected.

---

I do think that the runup to this 7 game stretch may have engendered more optimism than was warranted about the possibilities, but again, that 7-1 stretch included 2-1 against P5 level teams and 5-0 against mid-majors or lower. So our reality is somewhere closer to the 7-8 we are over the last 15.

That struggling to get to .500 overall is where we are in year 3 is a very depressing thought.

---

Agreed. However, at no time during Fox's tenure has there ever once been a reasonable narrative that was more positive.

---

Well there were definitely more positive narratives put out even if I agree with you they were unreasonable:

---

I'm sure somebody somewhere had one (like from the AD's office?), but I never heard a plausible scenario that took us to above .500 in the conference, based on whatever the current roster was, plus the next signed recruiting class. Not even projecting two years into the future.

---

There were some that pointed to initial year over year improvement in W/L and then extrapolated:"at this rate" . There were some that argued he would get us to .500 in conference making the job "more attractive" for attracting the next coach. There were some that argued no one wants to coach at Cal and we are lucky to get a highly overpaid retread. There were some that said "just give him a chance he has only been here 1, 2, 3 years." There was the COVID excuse.

It is similar to Wilcox but at least with Wilcox I am much happier with his coaching style, demeanor and personality and it is plausible to argue he is learning on the job, so his record should be ignored. However in both cases you have to ask "How does the current situation improve?"

---

Interesting that your take from three years is so different from mine (and apparently Big C's). I think the points about making the job more attractive had much more to do with structural changes within the Athletic Department, then with reaching .500. Personally, I think any potential coach cares much more about who they are working for and who signs their check and who they have to negotiate with than whether their predecessor won a certain number of games. But on all the other excuses you are spot on and they are exhausting

As for those structural changes - obviously the biggest one is WHO is the Athletic Director. When Knowlton hired Fox, he was new and taking over a mess. Now that he has been here for three years, he hasn't really demonstrated much support for Basketball - other than tolerating mediocrity. I don't think potential coaches see him as a dream boss, but it's also not the Williams/Dierks era. So at this point, I think any potential coach is possible. Whereas, when people wanted Musselman and Bennett - those two were still laughing about Williams/Dierks and unsure what Knowlton/Christ would be like. Christ has at least shown NOT to be sports contentious and projects a positive working relationship with Knowlton. That is significantly different thatn three years ago.

And for the record, .500 is not even close to being enough to retain FOX at this point IMHO.

my first look at stanford's 4 star PG, Silva

zero for 1, two TOs, and looking ugly doing it

bad call on Lars, clean block

HoopDreams said:

---

my first look at stanford's 4 star PG, Silva

zero for 1, two TOs, and looking ugly doing it

---

I completely forgot about him and didn't even notice him tonight.

That said, Fox (or his successor) needs to recruit a point guard.

I can't even blame the refs for this loss

In fact they missed a cal goal tending call near the end of the game

HoopDreams said:

---

I can't even blame the refs for this loss

In fact they missed a cal goal tending call near the end of the game

---

Since you've mentioned it twice now, I feel obliged to say there is no such thing as offensive goaltending. It's basket interference.

Yeah, that's the rule book

Every player on the court says goaltending

I call it basket interference when someone grabs the net or rim when the ball is in play

I think the NBA uses the terms interchangeably

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I can't even blame the refs for this loss

In fact they missed a cal goal tending call near the end of the game

---

Since you've mentioned it twice now, I feel obliged to say there is no such thing as offensive goaltending. It's basket interference.

---

You an see those turnover, lazy passes coming.

HoopDreams said:

---

Yeah, that's the rule book

Every player on the court says goaltending

I call it basket interference when someone grabs the net or rim when the ball is in play

I think the NBA uses the terms interchangeably

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I can't even blame the refs for this loss

In fact they missed a cal goal tending call near the end of the game

---

Since you've mentioned it twice now, I feel obliged to say there is no such thing as offensive goaltending. It's basket interference.

---

---

I can assure you that isn't the case by those that understand what goaltending means.

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Yeah, that's the rule book

Every player on the court says goaltending

I call it basket interference when someone grabs the net or rim when the ball is in play

I think the NBA uses the terms interchangeably

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I can't even blame the refs for this loss

In fact they missed a cal goal tending call near the end of the game

---

Since you've mentioned it twice now, I feel obliged to say there is no such thing as offensive goaltending. It's basket interference.

---

---

I can assure you that isn't the case by those that understand what goaltending means.

---

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-11-basket-interference-goaltending/

Section 17 for NCAA rules:

http://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/groups/104883/library/files/br15.pdf

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Yeah, that's the rule book

Every player on the court says goaltending

I call it basket interference when someone grabs the net or rim when the ball is in play

I think the NBA uses the terms interchangeably

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I can't even blame the refs for this loss

In fact they missed a cal goal tending call near the end of the game

---

Since you've mentioned it twice now, I feel obliged to say there is no such thing as offensive goaltending. It's basket interference.

---

---

I can assure you that isn't the case by those that understand what goaltending means.

---

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-11-basket-interference-goaltending/

Section 17 for NCAA rules:

http://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/groups/104883/library/files/br15.pdf

---

Yes, Section 17, Article 3.a of the NCAA rulebook specifically states goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a field-goal try. The NBA rulebook may lump basket interference and goaltending together since the outcome is the same, but there is a reason both are mentioned. The NBA Video Rulebook provides examples of only defensive players being able to commit goaltending:

Goaltending | Rules | NBA Video Rulebook

Oh, I get what you're saying

I got lost on what play we were talking about

Yeah, I was talking about defensive goaltending

My bad

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Yeah, that's the rule book

Every player on the court says goaltending

I call it basket interference when someone grabs the net or rim when the ball is in play

I think the NBA uses the terms interchangeably

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I can't even blame the refs for this loss

In fact they missed a cal goal tending call near the end of the game

---

Since you've mentioned it twice now, I feel obliged to say there is no such thing as offensive goaltending. It's basket interference.

---

---

I can assure you that isn't the case by those that understand what goaltending means.

---

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-11-basket-interference-goaltending/

Section 17 for NCAA rules:

http://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/groups/104883/library/files/br15.pdf

---

Yes, Section 17, Article 3.a of the NCAA rulebook specifically states goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a field-goal try. The NBA rulebook may lump basket interference and goaltending together since the outcome is the same, but the NBA Video Rulebook only provides examples of defensive players being able to commit goaltending:

Goaltending | Rules | NBA Video Rulebook

---