BeachedBear said:
Civil Bear said:
BeachedBear said:
Civil Bear said:
BeachedBear said:
Martin>Fox>Jones
What's being left out of this is who Martin had to deal with (Williams/Dierks) vs Fox. Most folks won't accept or discount how poorly those two impacted Cal's ability to function in the Bball world. 4thGen mentioned a couple of key points, but there is more. Martin didn't like or respect his bosses and pretty much the entire coaching fraternity knew about it (and agreed).
Like HD, I agree that we'd all probably be happier today, if CM was still our coach, but Christ and Knowlton had moved into their current roles. I'm sure we'd be complaining about something, but it would be things we WISH we could complain about. Like "I can't believe we lost that recruit to Arizona". Whereas today - we don't even recruit the same players.
So what is Martin's excuse at Missouri with no recruiting restrictions? The Tigers ended up at 206 in the RPI power rankings against Cal's 216. Would most Cal fans really be any happier with that?
I'm not making excuses for Martin. And I didn't claim he was a great coach at Cal. I'm claiming that he's better than Jones or Fox. I'm connecting the dots that better means happier for most fans - maybe I'm mistaken with that point.
But let me rephrase this: Why do you think Fox is better than Martin (forget Jones) and what about the Fox era makes you happier than going to the NCAA tournament, for example?
Forgive me for answering your question with a question BB, but what in my post, or in this thread, or in any other thread would lead you to believe I think Fox is a better coach than Martin? Would I be less miserable if Martin was still the coach? Possibly, but not certainly. There was no indication Martin had the capacity to right his sinking ship...baring him getting another pair of top10 recruits that is.
And yeah, you did make excuses for Martin having to coach under Williams/Dirks. And I didn't suggest you claimed he was a great coach at Cal. But it appears you think he was a good or at least an adequate coach, and that is where we disagree.
I inferred form your comparison of RPI 206 to 216 (which is very close) that you consider the coaches to also be very close. Then you suggested that most Cal fans would not be happier with Martin (if I properly understood your passive aggressive question)
The Idiot's Guide to Evaluating and Hiring Your Next Division I Basketball says that you should consider:
- Putting the team together (50%): Basically recruiting/transfers in
- Keeping the team together (25%): Retaining talent (both emotionally and academically), Player Development and working with Institutions/Donors/Students/Community.
- Game Day (25%): Basically X's & O's and everything that happens on Game Day
If we use a 1-5 scale (1 being inept - Jones and 5 being top - Coach K), I'd put Fox at a 1.5 (but I think he might do better at a low-major or mid-major program and even get to a 3 or 3.5). I'd put Cuonzo at a 2.8 - slightly less than adequate for P5, but probably better than most of the 350 HCs in Division 1.
And yes, PART of the Martin's impact at Cal was a result of Williams'/Dierks - but not all. Even if you aren't on the same page as your bosses, you need to adapt if you can't convince them. Cuonzo probably could have done better (at least at the end). But his bigger transgressions, IMHO is his lack of balance between defense and offense and the end of his tenure - which was simply disrespectful.
And you would be wrong.
The most telling data point here is coach K. Does ANYONE not believe that he is really the greatest BB mind of our generation? He clearly can coach both in practice and on game day.
And for a VERY brief moment in the advent of one and done Coach K was going to do it the "old cal fan" way: not one year talent but kids that were not yet NBA ready and who he would "coach up" in balanced classes.
Guess what - Duke sucked. And because Coach K gets it suddenly Duke was very much in on the one and two and done.
COLLEGE BASKETBALL AT THE P5 LEVEL IS 80-90% RECRUITING. Hard stop.
What tricks people is the March tournament and the senior laden teams from Mid Majors that go onto become that year's Cinderella (ignoring the other 6-10 mid majors that lose). What they fail to realize is that those teams DID NOT play 20+ games against teams with NBA talent. If they did they likely would do "OK" (17 to 21 wins, draw a seed of death and then quietly exit). You can get hot for 3 games but over the course of a 20 game season talent is critical.
They also get tricked by the strange outliers. The favorite on this board is Wisconsin - with the causal fan missing that Whisky has a VERY unique situation of being the flag ship campus and a coaching tree that has a 50 year legacy in Wisconsin HS basketball. When your coach knows the name of your second cousin's wifes dog you end up having a leg up with AAU and HS coaches who can influence where the best kids go. Even then Whisky has a style of Basketball that may demand the kind of officiating only found in the B10 - allowing kids to bang and be more physical. In the Pac12 you HAVE to have kids that can break down their defender off the dribble because of how ticky tack our league is - not allowing guys to bang down low or to body up their man off ball.
Or even in our league. Do you really think that Andy E. is a very good coach? Ditto before he was canned Miller? I don't. They are "OK" but I am not really amazed. But they can/could attract NBA focused talent. Guess what. They win/won.
Take care of your Chicken
