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.

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.

CalLifer said:

---

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.

---

Mostly because Wyking ball was embarrassing. We couldn't in bound the ball, had no idea how to break a press, looked completely unorganized and oh - we lost big to Chaminade!!! Look, Fox is not the answer, but at least our team looks like they play basketball. Wyking's teams looked like they had no clue what to do on the court.

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 Fox is worse. I think Wyking might have eventually recruited a team that would have competed for 5,6,7. There is no hope of anything better than 11th with Fox.

philbert said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

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.

---

Mostly because Wyking ball was embarrassing. We couldn't in bound the ball, had no idea how to break a press, looked completely unorganized and oh - we lost big to Chaminade!!! Look, Fox is not the answer, but at least our team looks like they play basketball. Wyking's teams looked like they had no clue what to do on the court.

---

Yeah. As much as I want Fox fired, he's not even close to being Wyking bad. Wyking could recruit a bit better, but he had no clue how to coach. I knew we were in big trouble when he said he planned to install a press with Cal's personnel. How many blowout losses did he have to terrible opponents? Fox needs to be gone yesterday, but we shouldn't remember Wyking as being anything other than a very very bad head coach.

---

Are close losses to UCSD better? It's not like Fox hasn't had his share of bad losses.

And my larger point is that to in my view, the recruiting gap between Fox and Wyking is as large if not larger than the coaching gap in the other direction. Outside of Jordan Shepherd, the biggest contributors on the floor in Mark Fox's 3 years have all been Wyking Jones recruits. Next year will show the true level of the full realization of a Mark Fox team... I wonder what we'll say then.

HKBear97! said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

philbert said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

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.

---

Mostly because Wyking ball was embarrassing. We couldn't in bound the ball, had no idea how to break a press, looked completely unorganized and oh - we lost big to Chaminade!!! Look, Fox is not the answer, but at least our team looks like they play basketball. Wyking's teams looked like they had no clue what to do on the court.

---

Yeah. As much as I want Fox fired, he's not even close to being Wyking bad. Wyking could recruit a bit better, but he had no clue how to coach. I knew we were in big trouble when he said he planned to install a press with Cal's personnel. How many blowout losses did he have to terrible opponents? Fox needs to be gone yesterday, but we shouldn't remember Wyking as being anything other than a very very bad head coach.

---

Are close losses to UCSD better?

---

We lost by TWENTY FOUR points to CHAMINADE!!! Chaminade!!!????

---

Is it really better that in a coach's THIRD year at Cal we lost to a team that was below D-I 2 years before?

parentswerebears said:

---

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 Fox is worse. I think Wyking might have eventually recruited a team that would have competed for 5,6,7. There is no hope of anything better than 11th with Fox.

---

Yes,, I think Wyking's young team, with some transfers but better subsequent recruiting would have improved year over year and would have been at least PAC-12 average with most as seniors this past year. I also think that, as with Wilcox, another first time HC, there would have been some on the job learning we would have to live with, but there would be improvement.

I am not sorry we got rid of Jones except that we hired Fox. I think the program would be better off now if we had kept Jones and the money and most of the roster he was building, then hired Gates this year. Oh well.

All those saying that Fox is definitely better than Wyking, I'll only say this….just wait till next year. We will see if you're saying the same thing

ducky23 said:

---

All those saying that Fox is definitely better than Wyking, I'll only say this….just wait till next year. We will see if you're saying the same thing

---

When Fox is eventually fired he will leave the program in a far worse place than he found it but he will be far wealthier.

See that's what I really hate about the fox hire. I think a lot of justification (whether implicit or not) from knowlton was that fox was kind of a placeholder. Someone who could get our program out of the laughingstock level and into the solidly mediocre group. And maybe then, we would be more attractive to the presumptive next head coach

But all fox has accomplished is making our program so abysmal that I don't know who the hell is going to take this job

CalLifer said:

---

philbert said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

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.

---

Mostly because Wyking ball was embarrassing. We couldn't in bound the ball, had no idea how to break a press, looked completely unorganized and oh - we lost big to Chaminade!!! Look, Fox is not the answer, but at least our team looks like they play basketball. Wyking's teams looked like they had no clue what to do on the court.

---

Yeah. As much as I want Fox fired, he's not even close to being Wyking bad. Wyking could recruit a bit better, but he had no clue how to coach. I knew we were in big trouble when he said he planned to install a press with Cal's personnel. How many blowout losses did he have to terrible opponents? Fox needs to be gone yesterday, but we shouldn't remember Wyking as being anything other than a very very bad head coach.

---

Are close losses to UCSD better? It's not like Fox hasn't had his share of bad losses.

And my larger point is that to in my view, the recruiting gap between Fox and Wyking is as large if not larger than the coaching gap in the other direction. Outside of Jordan Shepherd, the biggest contributors on the floor in Mark Fox's 3 years have all been Wyking Jones recruits. Next year will show the true level of the full realization of a Mark Fox team... I wonder what we'll say then.

---

I think you make a pretty good argument. I would also add that Jones had more upside - partly because he was so low and partly because his prior experience lacked data. Fox had a pretty clear track record and all we had was a slim hope - that he was going improve (which we also had with Jones).

On the other hand, the eye test was more satisfying for me watching Fox vs Jones. But that is damning praise. Sort of like saying you like the taste of vomit over feces.

I find that this topic, thought entertaining, is a reflection of how far our program has fallen (lowest level by far since Kuchen was coach and probably further back) and demonstrates that both coaches are bad fits for Cal - despite their differences.

Amazing that we have dipped this far in Bball relevance on the day of the NCAA championship.

I don't want to debate WK vs Fox, but let me just say that WK was the worst coach in Cal basketball history.

Yes, his recruiting was much better than Fox, and yes recruiting is a huge part of coaching. BUT he completely lost that team after two years where there was a player revolt.

The players committed when WK said they were going to run and gun, and play 40 minutes of hell defense. Then he ran an AAU offense and defense and were embarrassed by multiple low-mid-major teams, including a D2 team.

He also railroaded Theo, and mishandled the two players so badly they retaliated, which hurt the team further.

I saw no positives (including recruiting, since he completely lost those recruits after they figured out his gig)

CalLifer said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

philbert said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

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.

---

Mostly because Wyking ball was embarrassing. We couldn't in bound the ball, had no idea how to break a press, looked completely unorganized and oh - we lost big to Chaminade!!! Look, Fox is not the answer, but at least our team looks like they play basketball. Wyking's teams looked like they had no clue what to do on the court.

---

Yeah. As much as I want Fox fired, he's not even close to being Wyking bad. Wyking could recruit a bit better, but he had no clue how to coach. I knew we were in big trouble when he said he planned to install a press with Cal's personnel. How many blowout losses did he have to terrible opponents? Fox needs to be gone yesterday, but we shouldn't remember Wyking as being anything other than a very very bad head coach.

---

Are close losses to UCSD better? It's not like Fox hasn't had his share of bad losses.

And my larger point is that to in my view, the recruiting gap between Fox and Wyking is as large if not larger than the coaching gap in the other direction. Outside of Jordan Shepherd, the biggest contributors on the floor in Mark Fox's 3 years have all been Wyking Jones recruits. Next year will show the true level of the full realization of a Mark Fox team... I wonder what we'll say then.

---

I think you make a pretty good argument. I would also add that Jones had more upside - partly because he was so low and partly because his prior experience lacked data. Fox had a pretty clear track record and all we had was a slim hope - that he was going improve (which we also had with Jones).

On the other hand, the eye test was more satisfying for me watching Fox vs Jones. But that is damning praise. Sort of like saying you like the taste of vomit over feces.

I find that this topic, thought entertaining, is a reflection of how far our program has fallen (lowest level by far since Kuchen was coach and probably further back) and demonstrates that both coaches are bad fits for Cal - despite their differences.

Amazing that we have dipped this far in Bball relevance on the day of the NCAA championship.

---

I agree, and it goes without saying that Fox and Jones are the two worst coaches at Cal in quite a long time. But since there is nothing else to talk about with respect to the program right now, I felt like raising an issue which was bothering me a bit .

The one thing I'll say about Fox is that in this day and age, with the amount of coverage and interest in programs generally, the fact that there is no information leaking out at all about the program is pretty impressive. I think it's awful for fan interest, but if that's the way he wants it, he at least is doing a good job there.

---

I would argue him not speaking to the media is exactly one of the biggest reasons why he is killing this program more than Wyking. Many of us follow for recruiting and because we dont get any of it due to this blackout, why follow anymore when your team is perpetually losing?

CalLifer said:

---

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.

---

You make very good points. I dont think the gap between Fox and Wyking is that far off IMO. I can swing either way on each of them being the worst coach in Cal history. I do think another year of sucking + sh*t recruiting results by Fox will give him the sole title of worst coach since it'll only make it harder for the next coach to rebuild.

Either way its an absolute low that we are even debating this. Both coaches suck so much.

panda said:

---

I would argue him not speaking to the media is exactly one of the biggest reasons why he is killing this program more than Wyking. Many of us follow for recruiting and because we dont get any of it due to this blackout, why follow anymore when your team is perpetually losing?

---

Remember the speech. Fox might actually do better not speaking to the media.

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't want to debate WK vs Fox, but let me just say that WK was the worst coach in Cal basketball history.

Yes, his recruiting was much better than Fox, and yes recruiting is a huge part of coaching. BUT he completely lost that team after two years where there was a player revolt.

The players committed when WK said they were going to run and gun, and play 40 minutes of hell defense. Then he ran an AAU offense and defense and were embarrassed by multiple low-mid-major teams, including a D2 team.

He also railroaded Theo, and mishandled the two players so badly they retaliated, which hurt the team further.

I saw no positives (including recruiting, since he completely lost those recruits after they figured out his gig)

---

I agree with most of the issues you brought up, except that he lost that last team. If anything, he found the team. We won our final three regular season games including a win over a ranked UW team and a road victory over Stanford. I'm not sure which players "revolted" but key players like Sueing and Bradley signed with Jones and were fiercely loyal to him even after he was fired.

As long as nothing changes, it's dead. Can someone competent revive it? Yes. But when do you see that happening? Knowlton doesn't give a crap about this program- so half of this board may never see a decent basketball program here in the rest of their lifetime.

parentswerebears said:

---

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 Fox is worse. I think Wyking might have eventually recruited a team that would have competed for 5,6,7. There is no hope of anything better than 11th with Fox.

---

The route might be a little different, but Wyking would have Cal in the same place they are now - the bottom floor of a two-story outhouse. He had the benefit of Cuonzo's one good team to use in his recruiting pitch. As that faded into the past and as the team continued to do poorly, his recruiting would weaken. Plus, even a decent high school coach could see how poorly Cal players were coached and they'd (rightfully) advise their best players to skip Cal.