The university only pays for coaches' base salary, which is something like a paltry $250,000. The rest is paid by donors.

Which donors are going to fess up to paying the rest?

Well I'm sure there are parameters around how donations must be used. IMO using donated funds to extend Fox is a breach of fiduciary responsibility and possibly criminal. How can any rationale person look at his performance to date and prospects for the future and decide to give him more money? If it happens, I wouldn't be surprise if we later discover some sort of conflict of interest at play. I would want to see a forensic audit performed of the athletics department.

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

Cal men's basketball does not make money.

Until Cal men's basketball makes money (through better donors or a better TV deal), we're going to make cost-cutting, risk-averse decisions about our program.

---

We fired Jones and ate his contract to pay Fox more. He is making $1.8 million a year. Extending him is throwing more good money after bad. Gates makes what, $500k ? DeCuire and Golden probably similar.

Extending Fox, paying him big bucks to put out the #320 scoring team in the country finishing in 11th, losing to teams like UC San Diego is not going to attract fans or donors to the program and make us profitable. It will do the opposite.

You could honestly better justify giving Jones more time after two years with his young team than you can giving Fox more time after 3 (though the correct answer is none of the above).

Our situation calls for bold intelligent action, not conservatism, ie not Knowlton unfortunately. We need an intervention.

---

As much as I dislike Fox, which is as much as anyone here, the current financial picture is nothing like the pre-pandemic picture. Giving him a fake extension is probably financially preferable to a buyout. Plus putting out the word that he is coming back lets donors (are there are any for basketball?) know that if they want him gone, they will have to pay for it.

---

You give Knowlton too much credit. As much as I dislike Fox, I know who I would bet on in a battle of wits. I know who out-foxes whom. If Fox is extended it will likely be an extension of the current contract which will be declared a victory. At best Fox takes a pay cut and agrees to "only" except $1.5 million per year. Maybe even throw in more money for the current assistant coaches like we did after going 5-7 in football. There is no way a contract gets extended and the buyout with three years remaining is less than if it expired or was In the last year of the previous contract. I have yet to see that and I highly doubt Knowlton pulls off the first.

---

Cal does have leverage because Fox won't get a third chance to flop. I agree that Knowlton may not be smart enough to use it.

Well, Conzo hasn't been fired yet, so we wait.

Glimmer of hope. Well said.

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

To be fair, Wilcox would have been 6-6 without COVID-19 fiasco depleting us for the Arizona game. So far this season Fox is 12-17 with 3 games remaining against teams which will be favored.

---

To be fair, USC could (and does) say the same thing about our win. Also, one of the 5 wins was Sac State which used to not count towards bowl eligibility. Still, I agree, Fox is much worse, I like Wilcox personally and still have a glimmer of hope he can turn it around and one day have a winning conference record. As a Cal fan, that keeps us going.

---

I would say I like the culture Wilcox has set up the program and that is why recruits and coaches want to be here. I don't dislike the culture Fox has set the players seem to trust him despite his mannerisms at time, but they sense he is sincere and trustworthy. Both are respectable and have maintained academic standards. That said, both coaches have done poorly in-conference, with Fox's record being putrid compared to Wilcox' conference record, which is merely just bad. I was a little disturbed by the lack of shakeup in the offensive coordinator position because our offense continues to be at the bottom half of the conference. I feel like Wilcox doesn't have a good sense of what offense works in a program like ours, but just doing the same things and hoping for a different result. Hey sometimes that happens. Ultimately, Knowlton shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity or even in the case of our basketball program, way below mediocrity.

Fox was extended? Yes! Good call - the stability in the program will pay off. "Just say no" to the cancel culture!

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

To be fair, Wilcox would have been 6-6 without COVID-19 fiasco depleting us for the Arizona game. So far this season Fox is 12-17 with 3 games remaining against teams which will be favored.

---

To be fair, USC could (and does) say the same thing about our win. Also, one of the 5 wins was Sac State which used to not count towards bowl eligibility. Still, I agree, Fox is much worse, I like Wilcox personally and still have a glimmer of hope he can turn it around and one day have a winning conference record. As a Cal fan, that keeps us going.

---

I would say I like the culture Wilcox has set up the program and that is why recruits and coaches want to be here. I don't dislike the culture Fox has set the players seem to trust him despite his mannerisms at time, but they sense he is sincere and trustworthy. Both are respectable and have maintained academic standards. That said, both coaches have done poorly in-conference, with Fox's record being putrid compared to Wilcox' conference record, which is merely just bad. I was a little disturbed by the lack of shakeup in the offensive coordinator position because our offense continues to be at the bottom half of the conference. I feel like Wilcox doesn't have a good sense of what offense works in a program like ours, but just doing the same things and hoping for a different result. Hey sometimes that happens. Ultimately, Knowlton shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity or even in the case of our basketball program, way below mediocrity.

---

The problem is Knowlton is worse than mediocre and he has been amply rewarded for results that are worse than mediocre. I should not have brought Wilcox into this discussion. He has already been extended so we all need to hold onto hope. He is head and shoulders the best of the three we are talking about.

I disagree about the culture of Mark Fox's program. I think he is very old school authoritarian and that style does not work anymore, especially at a place like Cal. It repels good, smart players. Sure the guys that he gets are happy with the bargain: a great education in a great location playing for the only P5 team that offered if you just follow orders, don't mind getting yelled at while losing and don't have an opinion. It is fine for them, but it is a horrible recipe for winning at Cal.

---

KAB isn't wrong about the pros of the culture, and it certainly results in the players giving effort virtually every night, that's a good thing. You are also correct about the cons, however, and in terms of having a winning program at Cal, the cons outweigh the pros, it is a horrible recipe for a winning program. Hard to recruit, hard to keep quality players on the team in the era of transfers without a sit out year.

One minor correction, you don't only get yelled at while losing, sometimes you get yelled at while winning, too. Either way, not the approach for recruiting and keeping top talent.

The style of play isn't particularly fun to play (or watch), either, and makes the players feel like they are defying the coach if they take a quality shot too early in the clock. A player thinks, "This is good basketball, I need to take the shot, but I need to make it or coach will be pissed that I took it, and he might be pissed even if I make it," and then he's thinking too much and has a lower shooting percentage on those quality shots.

If the "middle of the Pac" is defined as being 5th through 8th best in the conference, then our ceiling is middle of the Pac, but that ceiling is the low part of the middle of the Pac.

Cal8285 said:

---

KAB isn't wrong about the pros of the culture, and it certainly results in the players giving effort virtually every night, that's a good thing. You are also correct about the cons, however, and in terms of having a winning program at Cal, the cons outweigh the pros, it is a horrible recipe for a winning program. Hard to recruit, hard to keep quality players on the team in the era of transfers without a sit out year.

One minor correction, you don't only get yelled at while losing, sometimes you get yelled at while winning, too. Either way, not the approach for recruiting and keeping top talent.

The style of play isn't particularly fun to play (or watch), either, and makes the players feel like they are defying the coach if they take a quality shot too early in the clock. A player thinks, "This is good basketball, I need to take the shot, but I need to make it or coach will be pissed that I took it, and he might be pissed even if I make it," and then he's thinking too much and has a lower shooting percentage on those quality shots.

If the "middle of the Pac" is defined as being 5th through 8th best in the conference, then our ceiling is middle of the Pac, but that ceiling is the low part of the middle of the Pac.

---

1) I agree with your culture comments. I think what we're doing will harm our recruiting.

2) I also agree with your definition of "middle of the Pac". Unfortunately I don't see how we can reach that level without a significant upswing in recruiting. See 1) above.

Cal8285 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

To be fair, Wilcox would have been 6-6 without COVID-19 fiasco depleting us for the Arizona game. So far this season Fox is 12-17 with 3 games remaining against teams which will be favored.

---

To be fair, USC could (and does) say the same thing about our win. Also, one of the 5 wins was Sac State which used to not count towards bowl eligibility. Still, I agree, Fox is much worse, I like Wilcox personally and still have a glimmer of hope he can turn it around and one day have a winning conference record. As a Cal fan, that keeps us going.

---

I would say I like the culture Wilcox has set up the program and that is why recruits and coaches want to be here. I don't dislike the culture Fox has set the players seem to trust him despite his mannerisms at time, but they sense he is sincere and trustworthy. Both are respectable and have maintained academic standards. That said, both coaches have done poorly in-conference, with Fox's record being putrid compared to Wilcox' conference record, which is merely just bad. I was a little disturbed by the lack of shakeup in the offensive coordinator position because our offense continues to be at the bottom half of the conference. I feel like Wilcox doesn't have a good sense of what offense works in a program like ours, but just doing the same things and hoping for a different result. Hey sometimes that happens. Ultimately, Knowlton shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity or even in the case of our basketball program, way below mediocrity.

---

The problem is Knowlton is worse than mediocre and he has been amply rewarded for results that are worse than mediocre. I should not have brought Wilcox into this discussion. He has already been extended so we all need to hold onto hope. He is head and shoulders the best of the three we are talking about.

I disagree about the culture of Mark Fox's program. I think he is very old school authoritarian and that style does not work anymore, especially at a place like Cal. It repels good, smart players. Sure the guys that he gets are happy with the bargain: a great education in a great location playing for the only P5 team that offered if you just follow orders, don't mind getting yelled at while losing and don't have an opinion. It is fine for them, but it is a horrible recipe for winning at Cal.

---

KAB isn't wrong about the pros of the culture, and it certainly results in the players giving effort virtually every night, that's a good thing. You are also correct about the cons, however, and in terms of having a winning program at Cal, the cons outweigh the pros, it is a horrible recipe for a winning program. Hard to recruit, hard to keep quality players on the team in the era of transfers without a sit out year.

One minor correction, you don't only get yelled at while losing, sometimes you get yelled at while winning, too. Either way, not the approach for recruiting and keeping top talent.

The style of play isn't particularly fun to play (or watch), either, and makes the players feel like they are defying the coach if they take a quality shot too early in the clock. A player thinks, "This is good basketball, I need to take the shot, but I need to make it or coach will be pissed that I took it, and he might be pissed even if I make it," and then he's thinking too much and has a lower shooting percentage on those quality shots.

If the "middle of the Pac" is defined as being 5th through 8th best in the conference, then our ceiling is middle of the Pac, but that ceiling is the low part of the middle of the Pac.

---

I've been scratching my head over Fox's strategy. It seems like the logic is: we're not a good team, so by maxing out the shot clock, even if we miss our shot, at least the other team doesn't have the ball to score with. This seems to be a strategy to avoid blow-out losses, not win games. It makes a little sense if you have a real clamp-down defense (Cal has improved here, but hardly "clamp down"), I have a hard time seeing how this approach ever gets you past being a .500 team. Can some of you enlighten me further?

stu said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

KAB isn't wrong about the pros of the culture, and it certainly results in the players giving effort virtually every night, that's a good thing. You are also correct about the cons, however, and in terms of having a winning program at Cal, the cons outweigh the pros, it is a horrible recipe for a winning program. Hard to recruit, hard to keep quality players on the team in the era of transfers without a sit out year.

One minor correction, you don't only get yelled at while losing, sometimes you get yelled at while winning, too. Either way, not the approach for recruiting and keeping top talent.

The style of play isn't particularly fun to play (or watch), either, and makes the players feel like they are defying the coach if they take a quality shot too early in the clock. A player thinks, "This is good basketball, I need to take the shot, but I need to make it or coach will be pissed that I took it, and he might be pissed even if I make it," and then he's thinking too much and has a lower shooting percentage on those quality shots.

If the "middle of the Pac" is defined as being 5th through 8th best in the conference, then our ceiling is middle of the Pac, but that ceiling is the low part of the middle of the Pac.

---

1) I agree with your culture comments. I think what we're doing will harm our recruiting.

2) I also agree with your definition of "middle of the Pac". Unfortunately I don't see how we can reach that level without a significant upswing in recruiting. See 1) above.

---

If the rest of the conference continues in its mediocrity, then we can get to the "middle of the Pac" without a significant upswing in recruiting, but that doesn't make the state of the program less depressing.

We beat the team currently in 4th on their home floor. That isn't because we're all that good, but Oregon is inconsistent and often not that good. Look at their OOC results. Blown out in Portland (not home, but not that neutral) by BYU by 32(!). Loses to St. Mary's by 12 in Vegas. Loses to Houston by 29 in Vegas. Only wins by 6 at home against Riverside. Their best OOC game was a home loss to Baylor by 8.

And the middle of the Pac is all worse that the 4th place Ducks. Unfortunately, right now, middle of the Pac isn't that big a deal. If Kelly doesn't get hurt, we might have gotten to 8. We probably win at least two of the four home games against the Washingtons and the Mountain schools, and maybe more. We might have beaten Stanford at Maples, we would have had a better chance tonight against ASU (we still have a chance), and who knows, we might have pulled out the game at USC.

And earlier this season, it didn't look like UW or ASU were going to get their acts together enough to be middle of the Pac. 6th place wasn't out of the question until we went to Washington and got swept.

While I think the lower part of the middle of the Pac (i.e., 8th place, maybe 7th) is our ceiling without a significant upswing in recruiting, that is because of the current quality of the middle of the Pac. Things will need to go right, staying healthy with the guys we get, getting breaks in close games, having the bottom 8 of the Pac-12 stay mediocre to poor. But it is doable.

But 7th or 8th when the conference is down is the ceiling? That is a depressing thought.

Cal8285 said:

---

stu said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

KAB isn't wrong about the pros of the culture, and it certainly results in the players giving effort virtually every night, that's a good thing. You are also correct about the cons, however, and in terms of having a winning program at Cal, the cons outweigh the pros, it is a horrible recipe for a winning program. Hard to recruit, hard to keep quality players on the team in the era of transfers without a sit out year.

One minor correction, you don't only get yelled at while losing, sometimes you get yelled at while winning, too. Either way, not the approach for recruiting and keeping top talent.

The style of play isn't particularly fun to play (or watch), either, and makes the players feel like they are defying the coach if they take a quality shot too early in the clock. A player thinks, "This is good basketball, I need to take the shot, but I need to make it or coach will be pissed that I took it, and he might be pissed even if I make it," and then he's thinking too much and has a lower shooting percentage on those quality shots.

If the "middle of the Pac" is defined as being 5th through 8th best in the conference, then our ceiling is middle of the Pac, but that ceiling is the low part of the middle of the Pac.

---

1) I agree with your culture comments. I think what we're doing will harm our recruiting.

2) I also agree with your definition of "middle of the Pac". Unfortunately I don't see how we can reach that level without a significant upswing in recruiting. See 1) above.

---

If the rest of the conference continues in its mediocrity, then we can get to the "middle of the Pac" without a significant upswing in recruiting, but that doesn't make the state of the program less depressing.

We beat the team currently in 4th on their home floor. That isn't because we're all that good, but Oregon is inconsistent and often not that good. Look at their OOC results. Blown out in Portland (not home, but not that neutral) by BYU by 32(!). Loses to St. Mary's by 12 in Vegas. Loses to Houston by 29 in Vegas. Only wins by 6 at home against Riverside. Their best OOC game was a home loss to Baylor by 8.

And the middle of the Pac is all worse that the 4th place Ducks. Unfortunately, right now, middle of the Pac isn't that big a deal. If Kelly doesn't get hurt, we might have gotten to 8. We probably win at least two of the four home games against the Washingtons and the Mountain schools, and maybe more. We might have beaten Stanford at Maples, we would have had a better chance tonight against ASU (we still have a chance), and who knows, we might have pulled out the game at USC.

And earlier this season, it didn't look like UW or ASU were going to get their acts together enough to be middle of the Pac. 6th place wasn't out of the question until we went to Washington and got swept.

While I think the lower part of the middle of the Pac (i.e., 8th place, maybe 7th) is our ceiling without a significant upswing in recruiting, that is because of the current quality of the middle of the Pac. Things will need to go right, staying healthy with the guys we get, getting breaks in close games, having the bottom 8 of the Pac-12 stay mediocre to poor. But it is doable.

But 7th or 8th when the conference is down is the ceiling? That is a depressing thought.

---

Yes, when the conference is down in football or basketball Cal seems to always see that as a reason to be content with mediocrity instead of seizing the opportunity to make a change to give us a chance at winning the conference.

stu said:

---

Glimmer of hope. Well said.

---

I remember how the Sonny Dykes football teams would wear t-shirts with the slogan-of-the-year on them ("TOUGHEST TEAM WINS", etc.). Maybe Cal fans could get ones made with our new slogan for the first half of this century...

GLIMMER
OF HOPE

HearstMining said:

---

I've been scratching my head over Fox's strategy. It seems like the logic is: we're not a good team, so by maxing out the shot clock, even if we miss our shot, at least the other team doesn't have the ball to score with. This seems to be a strategy to avoid blow-out losses, not win games. It makes a little sense if you have a real clamp-down defense (Cal has improved here, but hardly "clamp down"), I have a hard time seeing how this approach ever gets you past being a .500 team. Can some of you enlighten me further?

---

If the losses are close, they can be spun as "progress", "improvement", "light at the end of the tunnel", blah blah blah.

And that spin lets Fox's agent bamboozle Knowlton into a contract extension.

Is 71-44 close?

stu said:

---

Is 71-44 close?

---

if we're gonna be a bottom-dweller, why not let Fox complete his contract and then we can replace him with any young coach for 1/3 the price. Outcome will be the same.

Big Dog said:

---

stu said:

---

Is 71-44 close?

---

if we're gonna be a bottom-dweller, why not let Fox complete his contract and then we can replace him with any young coach for 1/3 the price. Outcome will be the same.

---

I think the outcome would be better sooner if the new coach were here in time to recruit the 2023-24 class, which will have a lot of openings.

stu said:

---

Is 71-44 close?

---

I hope that Knowlton knows it's not, but I can't be sure he does.

HearstMining said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

To be fair, Wilcox would have been 6-6 without COVID-19 fiasco depleting us for the Arizona game. So far this season Fox is 12-17 with 3 games remaining against teams which will be favored.

---

To be fair, USC could (and does) say the same thing about our win. Also, one of the 5 wins was Sac State which used to not count towards bowl eligibility. Still, I agree, Fox is much worse, I like Wilcox personally and still have a glimmer of hope he can turn it around and one day have a winning conference record. As a Cal fan, that keeps us going.

---

I would say I like the culture Wilcox has set up the program and that is why recruits and coaches want to be here. I don't dislike the culture Fox has set the players seem to trust him despite his mannerisms at time, but they sense he is sincere and trustworthy. Both are respectable and have maintained academic standards. That said, both coaches have done poorly in-conference, with Fox's record being putrid compared to Wilcox' conference record, which is merely just bad. I was a little disturbed by the lack of shakeup in the offensive coordinator position because our offense continues to be at the bottom half of the conference. I feel like Wilcox doesn't have a good sense of what offense works in a program like ours, but just doing the same things and hoping for a different result. Hey sometimes that happens. Ultimately, Knowlton shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity or even in the case of our basketball program, way below mediocrity.

---

The problem is Knowlton is worse than mediocre and he has been amply rewarded for results that are worse than mediocre. I should not have brought Wilcox into this discussion. He has already been extended so we all need to hold onto hope. He is head and shoulders the best of the three we are talking about.

I disagree about the culture of Mark Fox's program. I think he is very old school authoritarian and that style does not work anymore, especially at a place like Cal. It repels good, smart players. Sure the guys that he gets are happy with the bargain: a great education in a great location playing for the only P5 team that offered if you just follow orders, don't mind getting yelled at while losing and don't have an opinion. It is fine for them, but it is a horrible recipe for winning at Cal.

---

KAB isn't wrong about the pros of the culture, and it certainly results in the players giving effort virtually every night, that's a good thing. You are also correct about the cons, however, and in terms of having a winning program at Cal, the cons outweigh the pros, it is a horrible recipe for a winning program. Hard to recruit, hard to keep quality players on the team in the era of transfers without a sit out year.

One minor correction, you don't only get yelled at while losing, sometimes you get yelled at while winning, too. Either way, not the approach for recruiting and keeping top talent.

The style of play isn't particularly fun to play (or watch), either, and makes the players feel like they are defying the coach if they take a quality shot too early in the clock. A player thinks, "This is good basketball, I need to take the shot, but I need to make it or coach will be pissed that I took it, and he might be pissed even if I make it," and then he's thinking too much and has a lower shooting percentage on those quality shots.

If the "middle of the Pac" is defined as being 5th through 8th best in the conference, then our ceiling is middle of the Pac, but that ceiling is the low part of the middle of the Pac.

---

I've been scratching my head over Fox's strategy. It seems like the logic is: we're not a good team, so by maxing out the shot clock, even if we miss our shot, at least the other team doesn't have the ball to score with. This seems to be a strategy to avoid blow-out losses, not win games. It makes a little sense if you have a real clamp-down defense (Cal has improved here, but hardly "clamp down"), I have a hard time seeing how this approach ever gets you past being a .500 team. Can some of you enlighten me further?

---

That's basically correct. The coaching fraternity would probably articulate something like this:

Lots of strange things can happen in 4 or 5 minutes of basketball. So if you can keep the score close until the last few minutes, there is more of a chance to pull the upset, than if you have fallen behind 28 in a track meet. So the strategy is actually to maximize chance of winning - or maybe 'steal' more close games - but you need to have the type of team that can do that (lock down, make FTs, score at end of shot clock, etc.).

As for Fox, only he knows whether he adopts this strategy due to talent level or comfort level. Personally, I think it is because he has always has sub par talent - so that is all he does. For those that remember Braun, he squandered some very talented teams, because he couldn't adapt his style of play enough (but gave lots of PT to walkons). Campanelli was similar - then brought in Coulson as an offensive assistant and saw dramatic change.

mdbear said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Dennis Gates will prob win a game in the Tourney in a couple weeks and parlay it into a P5 gig. And that ship will sail for us. Can't wait.

BTW one grad transfer, even the caliber of Shep, doesn't do a whole lot for us next year. Our lack of talent and abysmal recruiting is WAY deeper than that. If anything a good grad transfer will prevent the development of our younger guys. I'd rather get a halfway decent freshman guard but Fox literally hasn't added one in his 3 years here.

---

Knowlton is crazy to let Dennis Gates slip away and bet on Fox. Both coaches took over terrible teams three years ago. In his second year, Fox finished last in the conference, and this year he is tied for 10th. In his second year, Gates tied for first in his conference, and he is tied for first again this year. In his nine years at Georgia, Fox made the tournament twice. Gates is likely to do that in his third year as a head coach. Seriously, what is Knowlton thinking?

---

I think you may be getting ahead of yourself. I wouldn't characterize the situation today that Knowlton has 'let Dennis Gates slip away and bet on Fox'. There's a whole bunch of pieces missing for that statement to be anywhere close to true.

However, let's check back in mid-April when some of those pieces may exist to see where we are. Could be very interesting (or really sad). I think making much about coaching status at this point is very speculative. But your history points sure paint a compelling picture - how often to Tigers really change their stripes (I'd bet less than 20% of the time)

My two teams are Cal & G'town and I think you are unaware the HOYAS have a great deal of interest in Dennis Gates and did the same thing at roughly the same time with 0-18 Patrick Ewing. A renewal of sorts but one so they can shop in a few weeks for a new coach. And those who want Ewing gone are big in Gates adulation. Also, the Hoyas are not the Lone Rangers on this. Dennis comes in high regard. Oh, and being a Cal grad can't hurt. Be careful how you play your cards.

So my two teams only have Oregon State below them in major NCAA BB. Bad year

HearstMining said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

To be fair, Wilcox would have been 6-6 without COVID-19 fiasco depleting us for the Arizona game. So far this season Fox is 12-17 with 3 games remaining against teams which will be favored.

---

To be fair, USC could (and does) say the same thing about our win. Also, one of the 5 wins was Sac State which used to not count towards bowl eligibility. Still, I agree, Fox is much worse, I like Wilcox personally and still have a glimmer of hope he can turn it around and one day have a winning conference record. As a Cal fan, that keeps us going.

---

I would say I like the culture Wilcox has set up the program and that is why recruits and coaches want to be here. I don't dislike the culture Fox has set the players seem to trust him despite his mannerisms at time, but they sense he is sincere and trustworthy. Both are respectable and have maintained academic standards. That said, both coaches have done poorly in-conference, with Fox's record being putrid compared to Wilcox' conference record, which is merely just bad. I was a little disturbed by the lack of shakeup in the offensive coordinator position because our offense continues to be at the bottom half of the conference. I feel like Wilcox doesn't have a good sense of what offense works in a program like ours, but just doing the same things and hoping for a different result. Hey sometimes that happens. Ultimately, Knowlton shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity or even in the case of our basketball program, way below mediocrity.

---

The problem is Knowlton is worse than mediocre and he has been amply rewarded for results that are worse than mediocre. I should not have brought Wilcox into this discussion. He has already been extended so we all need to hold onto hope. He is head and shoulders the best of the three we are talking about.

I disagree about the culture of Mark Fox's program. I think he is very old school authoritarian and that style does not work anymore, especially at a place like Cal. It repels good, smart players. Sure the guys that he gets are happy with the bargain: a great education in a great location playing for the only P5 team that offered if you just follow orders, don't mind getting yelled at while losing and don't have an opinion. It is fine for them, but it is a horrible recipe for winning at Cal.

---

KAB isn't wrong about the pros of the culture, and it certainly results in the players giving effort virtually every night, that's a good thing. You are also correct about the cons, however, and in terms of having a winning program at Cal, the cons outweigh the pros, it is a horrible recipe for a winning program. Hard to recruit, hard to keep quality players on the team in the era of transfers without a sit out year.

One minor correction, you don't only get yelled at while losing, sometimes you get yelled at while winning, too. Either way, not the approach for recruiting and keeping top talent.

The style of play isn't particularly fun to play (or watch), either, and makes the players feel like they are defying the coach if they take a quality shot too early in the clock. A player thinks, "This is good basketball, I need to take the shot, but I need to make it or coach will be pissed that I took it, and he might be pissed even if I make it," and then he's thinking too much and has a lower shooting percentage on those quality shots.

If the "middle of the Pac" is defined as being 5th through 8th best in the conference, then our ceiling is middle of the Pac, but that ceiling is the low part of the middle of the Pac.

---

I've been scratching my head over Fox's strategy. It seems like the logic is: we're not a good team, so by maxing out the shot clock, even if we miss our shot, at least the other team doesn't have the ball to score with. This seems to be a strategy to avoid blow-out losses, not win games. It makes a little sense if you have a real clamp-down defense (Cal has improved here, but hardly "clamp down"), I have a hard time seeing how this approach ever gets you past being a .500 team. Can some of you enlighten me further?

---

From a statistical point of view it makes tons of sense. If you are the worse team, and Cal is almost always the worse team, you want the variance of the game to be as high possible. The fewer possessions, the higher the variance.

Think of it this way. Your team wins if you flip a coin and get more than half heads. But the coin is biased to give tails 55% of the time. So you win 45% of the time if you only flip the coin once, 42.5% of the time if you flip it three times, and your chance decreases with every flip. You can think of coin flips like possessions.

I think he understands this intuitively, and he is right.

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

To be fair, Wilcox would have been 6-6 without COVID-19 fiasco depleting us for the Arizona game. So far this season Fox is 12-17 with 3 games remaining against teams which will be favored.

---

To be fair, USC could (and does) say the same thing about our win. Also, one of the 5 wins was Sac State which used to not count towards bowl eligibility. Still, I agree, Fox is much worse, I like Wilcox personally and still have a glimmer of hope he can turn it around and one day have a winning conference record. As a Cal fan, that keeps us going.

---

I would say I like the culture Wilcox has set up the program and that is why recruits and coaches want to be here. I don't dislike the culture Fox has set the players seem to trust him despite his mannerisms at time, but they sense he is sincere and trustworthy. Both are respectable and have maintained academic standards. That said, both coaches have done poorly in-conference, with Fox's record being putrid compared to Wilcox' conference record, which is merely just bad. I was a little disturbed by the lack of shakeup in the offensive coordinator position because our offense continues to be at the bottom half of the conference. I feel like Wilcox doesn't have a good sense of what offense works in a program like ours, but just doing the same things and hoping for a different result. Hey sometimes that happens. Ultimately, Knowlton shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity or even in the case of our basketball program, way below mediocrity.

---

The problem is Knowlton is worse than mediocre and he has been amply rewarded for results that are worse than mediocre. I should not have brought Wilcox into this discussion. He has already been extended so we all need to hold onto hope. He is head and shoulders the best of the three we are talking about.

I disagree about the culture of Mark Fox's program. I think he is very old school authoritarian and that style does not work anymore, especially at a place like Cal. It repels good, smart players. Sure the guys that he gets are happy with the bargain: a great education in a great location playing for the only P5 team that offered if you just follow orders, don't mind getting yelled at while losing and don't have an opinion. It is fine for them, but it is a horrible recipe for winning at Cal.

---

KAB isn't wrong about the pros of the culture, and it certainly results in the players giving effort virtually every night, that's a good thing. You are also correct about the cons, however, and in terms of having a winning program at Cal, the cons outweigh the pros, it is a horrible recipe for a winning program. Hard to recruit, hard to keep quality players on the team in the era of transfers without a sit out year.

One minor correction, you don't only get yelled at while losing, sometimes you get yelled at while winning, too. Either way, not the approach for recruiting and keeping top talent.

The style of play isn't particularly fun to play (or watch), either, and makes the players feel like they are defying the coach if they take a quality shot too early in the clock. A player thinks, "This is good basketball, I need to take the shot, but I need to make it or coach will be pissed that I took it, and he might be pissed even if I make it," and then he's thinking too much and has a lower shooting percentage on those quality shots.

If the "middle of the Pac" is defined as being 5th through 8th best in the conference, then our ceiling is middle of the Pac, but that ceiling is the low part of the middle of the Pac.

---

I've been scratching my head over Fox's strategy. It seems like the logic is: we're not a good team, so by maxing out the shot clock, even if we miss our shot, at least the other team doesn't have the ball to score with. This seems to be a strategy to avoid blow-out losses, not win games. It makes a little sense if you have a real clamp-down defense (Cal has improved here, but hardly "clamp down"), I have a hard time seeing how this approach ever gets you past being a .500 team. Can some of you enlighten me further?

---

From a statistical point of view it makes tons of sense. If you are the worse team, and Cal is almost always the worse team, you want the variance of the game to be as high possible. The fewer possessions, the higher the variance.

Think of it this way. Your team wins if you flip a coin and get more than half heads. But the coin is biased to give tails 55% of the time. So you win 45% of the time if you only flip the coin once, 42.5% of the time if you flip it three times, and your chance decreases with every flip. You can think of coin flips like possessions.

I think he understands this intuitively, and he is right.

---

Exactly right. The problem is, it is a short run maximization strategy. Playing slow and limiting possessions is a way to give you a chance at an occasional upset when you are the less talented team, but it repels good players and leads to you always having the less talented team. A vicious circle.

Wyking Jones took the opposite tack, he pushed tempo when he had an extremely young team that was not very efficient on either end of the court and as a result lost a lot,often by big margins getting him fired in year two. But he definitely recruited better. Vanover, Kelly, Sueing, ,Bradley, Austin (with Grant and McNeil off the bench) was a promising collection of young talent….at least they could score.

Fox's strategy is good at keeping ADs on the hook and putting $millions in the bank finishing in the bottom half of the conference for most of his career. He always just needs more time. So many "close" losses! Why proven failed retreads often get hired instead of promising young coaches is one of the enduring mysteries in sports.


We need a coach who can attract talent to Cal and put an efficient offense and defense on the floor (seeks high percentage shots for us and takes away high percentage shots for them).

---

Totally agree. The new coach needs to establish an identity, and that identity has to be attractive. The Fox identity is not attractive. The Jones identity was never going to work because it relies on deep recruiting, which has never been a strength. (I knew Jones was doomed when he said he would bring the Louisville system, I can't believe he was hired after saying that). As you say, we need efficiency, and we need that at a medium tempo that is neither boring nor not possible. And as you have also said, it should be a modern coach who understands that players have options and military approaches are not going to attract the players that might naturally gravitate towards Cal.

It is okay to lose initially to establish an identify if there is hope, but there has been no hope with the last two coaches.

stu said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

stu said:

---

Is 71-44 close?

---

if we're gonna be a bottom-dweller, why not let Fox complete his contract and then we can replace him with any young coach for 1/3 the price. Outcome will be the same.

---

I think the outcome would be better sooner if the new coach were here in time to recruit the 2023-24 class, which will have a lot of openings.

---

That assumes Knowlton wants to win. But his recent support of an extension for Fox does not give one confidence -- at least to me -- that Knowlton wants to win. (So, my earlier post was a bit of sarcasm. If the AD is happy living in the bottom of the p12 and cashing network checks to fund the rest of the athletics, then go to a cheap, young coach. He might get lucky and win 5-6 conference games, and be much cheaper than Fox, saving money for other sports.)

Big Dog said:

---

stu said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

stu said:

---

Is 71-44 close?

---

if we're gonna be a bottom-dweller, why not let Fox complete his contract and then we can replace him with any young coach for 1/3 the price. Outcome will be the same.

---

I think the outcome would be better sooner if the new coach were here in time to recruit the 2023-24 class, which will have a lot of openings.

---

That assumes Knowlton wants to win. But his recent support of an extension for Fox does not give one confidence -- at least to me -- that Knowlton wants to win. (So, my earlier post was a bit of sarcasm. If the AD is happy living in the bottom of the p12 and cashing network checks to fund the rest of the athletics, then go to a cheap, young coach. He might get lucky and win 5-6 conference games, and be much cheaper than Fox, saving money for other sports.)

---

I posted something similar on the Haas section of this site. Continuing with FOX is probably the easiest (and therefore most likely) option for Knowlton. But it is not the cheapest. There are many coaches (I posted a list of dozens of names on another thread) that couldn't do any worse than FOX and most of those could probably save Cal seven figures a year in compensation.

PtownBear1 said:

---

mdbear said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Dennis Gates will prob win a game in the Tourney in a couple weeks and parlay it into a P5 gig. And that ship will sail for us. Can't wait.

BTW one grad transfer, even the caliber of Shep, doesn't do a whole lot for us next year. Our lack of talent and abysmal recruiting is WAY deeper than that. If anything a good grad transfer will prevent the development of our younger guys. I'd rather get a halfway decent freshman guard but Fox literally hasn't added one in his 3 years here.

---

Knowlton is crazy to let Dennis Gates slip away and bet on Fox. Both coaches took over terrible teams three years ago. In his second year, Fox finished last in the conference, and this year he is tied for 10th. In his second year, Gates tied for first in his conference, and he is tied for first again this year. In his nine years at Georgia, Fox made the tournament twice. Gates is likely to do that in his third year as a head coach. Seriously, what is Knowlton thinking?

---

I doubt Knowlton even knows who Gates is. The impression I get from him, I wouldn't be surprised if he can't even name all 12 head coaches in the conference.

---

Same here. We're a couple of dozen (on a good week) posters on a fan site and we have a decent short list already developed. It's his darn job and I bet his very first move would be to call back that search firm.

I know that sounds really cynical, but I can't imagine, if you gave him a piece of paper with the following written on it . . .

Dennis Gates
Shantay Legans
Todd Golden
"Kickboxer" Pasternak

. . . that those names would mean anything at all to him. Sad.

Big C said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

mdbear said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Dennis Gates will prob win a game in the Tourney in a couple weeks and parlay it into a P5 gig. And that ship will sail for us. Can't wait.

BTW one grad transfer, even the caliber of Shep, doesn't do a whole lot for us next year. Our lack of talent and abysmal recruiting is WAY deeper than that. If anything a good grad transfer will prevent the development of our younger guys. I'd rather get a halfway decent freshman guard but Fox literally hasn't added one in his 3 years here.

---

Knowlton is crazy to let Dennis Gates slip away and bet on Fox. Both coaches took over terrible teams three years ago. In his second year, Fox finished last in the conference, and this year he is tied for 10th. In his second year, Gates tied for first in his conference, and he is tied for first again this year. In his nine years at Georgia, Fox made the tournament twice. Gates is likely to do that in his third year as a head coach. Seriously, what is Knowlton thinking?

---

I doubt Knowlton even knows who Gates is. The impression I get from him, I wouldn't be surprised if he can't even name all 12 head coaches in the conference.

---

Same here. We're a couple of dozen (on a good week) posters on a fan site and we have a decent short list already developed. It's his darn job and I bet his very first move would be to call back that search firm.

I know that sounds really cynical, but I can't imagine, if you gave him a piece of paper with the following written on it . . .

Dennis Gates
Shantay Legans
Todd Golden
"Kickboxer" Pasternak

. . . that those names would mean anything at all to him. Sad.

---

I don't know what the story is with Randy Bennett, whether we/he ever expressed interest. I would take him in a heart beat over anyone. Proven winner/recruiter on a national level. Being consistently on or right near the Top 25 I would say is being a player on a national level. He wouldn't have to move and his commute would be just about the same.