panda said:
concernedparent said:
oskidunker said:
Chapman_is_Gone said:
oskidunker said:
When Wilcox refused the Oregon job his popularity here went up,, worst losing record in 100;years in the pac12. We need to go over 500 in the conference
So you love Fox and dislike Wilcox. Very interesting.
No. i don't like either one. I think Fox deserves one more year, thats my issue. Some players have gotten better under Fox. Theiman, Kelly and Kuani. I agree that recruiting is bad.
8/12, 12/12, 10/12. What do you expect to happen next year?
Some people are seriously delusional if they think Fox can turn this around given the horrible recruiting results he's had so far. At best, I think we finish 9th and that would require a miracle.
Like I said before - if Wyking wasnt his predecessor, we would be labeling Fox as the worst coach in Cal's history. He's arguably pretty damn close to Wyking-level of sucking.
I think the thought process that puts Fox over Wyking focuses too heavily on one specific aspect of what a college head coach's job really entails, namely the "coaching" ability. As we are all aware, a college head coach's responsibilities include recruiting, building and maintaining relationships with donors, building fan support and engagement, and I'm sure many other things behind the scenes as well.
Knowing how important recruiting is to the overall picture (and seeing as how the fan interest is maybe at the lowest point it's ever been), why do we continue to favor Fox over Jones? At least Jones had the excuse that he'd never been a head coach (or even a lead assistant) before and there might have been some hope that he either could have (1) gained coaching ability or (2) hired the right assistants to cover that portion of the job. With Fox, we have an incredibly long track record that (1) he is a mediocre P5 head coach, (2) he is an *awful* recruiter. and (3) he has absolutely no interest in engaging the fans or doing any kind of outreach that might in any way build fan support.
Why do we think he is definitively "better" than Jones? He is demonstrably better at one aspect of the job (coaching the team), but *infinitely* worse at another (recruiting, which might be the most important aspect of the job). He costs more, has significantly more experience than Jones, and is producing results that are no better. I know we are comparing two awful coaches, but I'm sure as heck wondering why it's so obvious to some that one is obviously better when the full responsibilities are considered.