I wish.
In any sane athletic department, keeping (or god forbid extending) Fox should rise to the level of firing the athletic director (especially if rumors from other places are true that the money is there to fire Fox). Instead, we have Knowlton till the end of the decade.Strykur said:
Coached over 500 games, has not won in March in over 15 years, is Knowlton mentally incapacitated?
I don't see that yet.PtownBear1 said:
If someone kicks off the online petition I bet we could garner enough signatures to where local media picks up on it. Worth a try…
Strykur said:
Coached over 500 games, has not won in March in over 15 years, is Knowlton mentally incapacitated?
I was never worried about Wilcox leaving, Oregon situation and whatnot, but we are really going to be up a creek if Wilcox for whatever reason is out and Knowlton has to make the hire.calumnus said:Exactly. Which is why I question everything he does. We really need Wilcox to start winning.Strykur said:
Coached over 500 games, has not won in March in over 15 years, is Knowlton mentally incapacitated?
Strykur said:I was never worried about Wilcox leaving, Oregon situation and whatnot, but we are really going to be up a creek if Wilcox for whatever reason is out and Knowlton has to make the hire.calumnus said:Exactly. Which is why I question everything he does. We really need Wilcox to start winning.Strykur said:
Coached over 500 games, has not won in March in over 15 years, is Knowlton mentally incapacitated?
My guess is if Knowlton decided Fox had to leave then it would have been announced soon after the team returned from the Pac-12 Tournament. I don't think it should take long to complete the evaluation since the data looked pretty clear to me by the end of the regular season and our 1-game post-season didn't change anything.calumnus said:
So, no news is bad news?
Sometimes, I like to delude myself with false hope . . . .stu said:My guess is if Knowlton decided Fox had to leave then it would have been announced soon after the team returned from the Pac-12 Tournament. I don't think it should take long to complete the evaluation since the data looked pretty clear to me by the end of the regular season and our 1-game post-season didn't change anything.calumnus said:
So, no news is bad news?
I'm afraid the delay is best explained by the time it takes to discuss an improvement plan, negotiate an extension, and write the press release.
BeachedBear said:Sometimes, I like to delude myself with false hope . . . .stu said:My guess is if Knowlton decided Fox had to leave then it would have been announced soon after the team returned from the Pac-12 Tournament. I don't think it should take long to complete the evaluation since the data looked pretty clear to me by the end of the regular season and our 1-game post-season didn't change anything.calumnus said:
So, no news is bad news?
I'm afraid the delay is best explained by the time it takes to discuss an improvement plan, negotiate an extension, and write the press release.
In that vein, I'm hoping Knowlton is actually closing a deal on someone coaching in the tourney and will make a joint announcement that FOX is moving on and who the replacement is in early April.
BC Calfan said:
The longer this draws out, the worse it is for Fox. We are about to enter the most exciting time of the college basketball calendar. Where it will be painfully obvious that we need major change in order to take part in the big dance. This could influence donors and players. Donors will see the new wave of charismatic coaches guiding their teams to victory with bright futures---and the extreme contrast with Fox. Our players will see the spectacle and may try to become a part of that by transferring (I know, where do they go? But still).
Not to mention, its a major networking event. ADs and coaches from all over making moves. Until Fox gets that extension, I remain hopeful that the powers that be will come to their senses and realize we need to make a change.
calumnus said:BC Calfan said:
The longer this draws out, the worse it is for Fox. We are about to enter the most exciting time of the college basketball calendar. Where it will be painfully obvious that we need major change in order to take part in the big dance. This could influence donors and players. Donors will see the new wave of charismatic coaches guiding their teams to victory with bright futures---and the extreme contrast with Fox. Our players will see the spectacle and may try to become a part of that by transferring (I know, where do they go? But still).
Not to mention, its a major networking event. ADs and coaches from all over making moves. Until Fox gets that extension, I remain hopeful that the powers that be will come to their senses and realize we need to make a change.
Has Knowlton ever attended? Does he even know what it is? He seemed annoyed that DeCuire wasn't immediately available for an interview and "wasn't as prepared" (as Fox) when interviewed the day he got back from taking his team to the Tournament. He hired Fox after the Tournament had just started, not bothering to wait and see if there were any other up and coming young coaches to talk with.
panda said:
Does anyone here actually think Knowlton is a competent enough AD to fire Fox? It aint happening. Fox is staying another year + getting an extension.
Hey SoCal, sorry, but I have to disagree with you and I said this back then, this was always a horrible hire. Even had Fox done "OK," (this is what it's come to, we dream about "top half" of conference, not top of conference...) that wouldn't have justified the decision in retrospect. But everything screamed don't hire this guy. As I said back then, I don't mind at all us taking a chance on a mid major hot coach. Chances are they won't work out, but sometimes they do. Well again (sorry to be a broken record with this phrase) as I said back then, Georgia did the homework for us. They're the one that took a chance on Fox from Reno and it was a failure. In a weak SEC, the best he could do was two NCAA tourneys, with no wins. and of course he was fired after compiling a .494 conference winning percentage.socaltownie said:
To be fair (remember - I STARTED this thread) - there was a logical argument to be made with Mark Fox three years ago. The challenge (and it is a big one) is that the earth has significantly shifted since then.....
OK. But here is the logical argument.....TheFiatLux said:Hey SoCal, sorry, but I have to disagree with you and I said this back then, this was always a horrible hire. Even had Fox done "OK," (this is what it's come to, we dream about "top half" of conference, not top of conference...) that wouldn't have justified the decision in retrospect. But everything screamed don't hire this guy. As I said back then, I don't mind at all us taking a chance on a mid major hot coach. Chances are they won't work out, but sometimes they do. Well again (sorry to be a broken record with this phrase) as I said back then, Georgia did the homework for us. They're the one that took a chance on Fox from Reno and it was a failure. In a weak SEC, the best he could do was two NCAA tourneys, with no wins. and of course he was fired after compiling a .494 conference winning percentage.socaltownie said:
To be fair (remember - I STARTED this thread) - there was a logical argument to be made with Mark Fox three years ago. The challenge (and it is a big one) is that the earth has significantly shifted since then.....
socaltownie said:OK. But here is the logical argument.....TheFiatLux said:Hey SoCal, sorry, but I have to disagree with you and I said this back then, this was always a horrible hire. Even had Fox done "OK," (this is what it's come to, we dream about "top half" of conference, not top of conference...) that wouldn't have justified the decision in retrospect. But everything screamed don't hire this guy. As I said back then, I don't mind at all us taking a chance on a mid major hot coach. Chances are they won't work out, but sometimes they do. Well again (sorry to be a broken record with this phrase) as I said back then, Georgia did the homework for us. They're the one that took a chance on Fox from Reno and it was a failure. In a weak SEC, the best he could do was two NCAA tourneys, with no wins. and of course he was fired after compiling a .494 conference winning percentage.socaltownie said:
To be fair (remember - I STARTED this thread) - there was a logical argument to be made with Mark Fox three years ago. The challenge (and it is a big one) is that the earth has significantly shifted since then.....
1) SEC is dirty as hell and Fox isn't. Cal will NEVER tolerate even a sniff of NCAA rule breaking. So Fox fits and maybe he struggled in SEC cause of dirty SEC and then "georgia". It isn't like after canning Fox they have been on fire.
2) He clearly can teach. Maybe cal HAS to find (I disagree here but it is logical enough that others on this board hold FIRMLY to the view) diamonds in the rough and Fox is the guy to help coach them up.
3) His peers respect him. He doesn't get on Team USA for being an idiot.
Bear Haas said:
Agreed. Not playing Joel last night was bad and fans deserved an explanation. Need some sort of optimism or outlook from the coach, not just comments that might make you lose even more talent (need far more, not less). I was among those saying to keep Fox but the end of the season and lack of leadership hurts, the whole program just feels lifeless with him at the helm. No real passion, the guys don't seem like they are particularly inspired by him, he doesn't inspire the fan base, and he can't inspire recruits. Maybe see how year 4 goes but something needs to change soon
I am NOT excusing him. I am offering a rational for why a semi-intelligent person could conclude he might be able to make it work _THREE YEARS AGO_ in a different landscape of college bball. As with any hire, there is NEVER a sure bet. That isn't to excuse JK EITHER. Fox isn't a Wyking Jones like Hire that made NO sense then or now.panda said:socaltownie said:OK. But here is the logical argument.....TheFiatLux said:Hey SoCal, sorry, but I have to disagree with you and I said this back then, this was always a horrible hire. Even had Fox done "OK," (this is what it's come to, we dream about "top half" of conference, not top of conference...) that wouldn't have justified the decision in retrospect. But everything screamed don't hire this guy. As I said back then, I don't mind at all us taking a chance on a mid major hot coach. Chances are they won't work out, but sometimes they do. Well again (sorry to be a broken record with this phrase) as I said back then, Georgia did the homework for us. They're the one that took a chance on Fox from Reno and it was a failure. In a weak SEC, the best he could do was two NCAA tourneys, with no wins. and of course he was fired after compiling a .494 conference winning percentage.socaltownie said:
To be fair (remember - I STARTED this thread) - there was a logical argument to be made with Mark Fox three years ago. The challenge (and it is a big one) is that the earth has significantly shifted since then.....
1) SEC is dirty as hell and Fox isn't. Cal will NEVER tolerate even a sniff of NCAA rule breaking. So Fox fits and maybe he struggled in SEC cause of dirty SEC and then "georgia". It isn't like after canning Fox they have been on fire.
2) He clearly can teach. Maybe cal HAS to find (I disagree here but it is logical enough that others on this board hold FIRMLY to the view) diamonds in the rough and Fox is the guy to help coach them up.
3) His peers respect him. He doesn't get on Team USA for being an idiot.
The level of excuses to make Mark Fox seem like he was a competent coach is insane here.
socaltownie said:TheFiatLux said:Hey SoCal, sorry, but I have to disagree with you and I said this back then, this was always a horrible hire. Even had Fox done "OK," (this is what it's come to, we dream about "top half" of conference, not top of conference...) that wouldn't have justified the decision in retrospect. But everything screamed don't hire this guy. As I said back then, I don't mind at all us taking a chance on a mid major hot coach. Chances are they won't work out, but sometimes they do. Well again (sorry to be a broken record with this phrase) as I said back then, Georgia did the homework for us. They're the one that took a chance on Fox from Reno and it was a failure. In a weak SEC, the best he could do was two NCAA tourneys, with no wins. and of course he was fired after compiling a .494 conference winning percentage.socaltownie said:
To be fair (remember - I STARTED this thread) - there was a logical argument to be made with Mark Fox three years ago. The challenge (and it is a big one) is that the earth has significantly shifted since then.....
2) He clearly can teach. Maybe cal HAS to find (I disagree here but it is logical enough that others on this board hold FIRMLY to the view) diamonds in the rough and Fox is the guy to help coach them up.
stu said:
I think Fox has taught individual and team defense pretty well. To my eyes we mostly look like we know what we're doing at that end of the court.
bearister said:HearstMining said:Jackson realized that NBA success was way more about talent than coaching and I recall him saying he'd never take on a team that needed a complete rebuild.Civil Bear said:If Phil Jackson was the coach we wouldn't have the current talent deficit.Dduster said:
The Bears do not have enough talent to be competitive in the Pac 12. Phil Jackson could be the coach and 10th thru 12th will be the end result. You cannot tell the difference between 'walk-ons' and wasted scholarships.
Kyle Smith took that on.
We need a coach who can rebuild. But what we have is a coach who can maintain. Unfortunately there's nothing to maintain.calumnus said:bearister said:HearstMining said:Jackson realized that NBA success was way more about talent than coaching and I recall him saying he'd never take on a team that needed a complete rebuild.Civil Bear said:If Phil Jackson was the coach we wouldn't have the current talent deficit.Dduster said:
The Bears do not have enough talent to be competitive in the Pac 12. Phil Jackson could be the coach and 10th thru 12th will be the end result. You cannot tell the difference between 'walk-ons' and wasted scholarships.
Kyle Smith took that on.
Kyle Smith took that on at Columbia, USF and now at Washington State.
stu said:
I think Fox has taught individual and team defense pretty well. To my eyes we mostly look like we know what we're doing at that end of the court.
I agree. I should have made it clear that I meant "pretty well" and "mostly" relative to all teams, not to NCAA Tournament teams. My standards have been dropping.calumnus said:stu said:
I think Fox has taught individual and team defense pretty well. To my eyes we mostly look like we know what we're doing at that end of the court.
Cal this year has the #83 rated defense on Ken Pom. While that is far better than our offense, that is not particularly good, certainly not elite or NCAA Tournament worthy. Under Cuonzo we had the #19 rated defense.
Considering the talent level, #83 is actually pretty impressive.stu said:I agree. I should have made it clear that I meant "pretty well" and "mostly" relative to all teams, not to NCAA Tournament teams. My standards have been dropping.calumnus said:stu said:
I think Fox has taught individual and team defense pretty well. To my eyes we mostly look like we know what we're doing at that end of the court.
Cal this year has the #83 rated defense on Ken Pom. While that is far better than our offense, that is not particularly good, certainly not elite or NCAA Tournament worthy. Under Cuonzo we had the #19 rated defense.