calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Dude is out of college ball for a year with his stock declining, gets fast tracked by a clueless AD in our hiring system and becomes a Power 5 head coach again at a program with a storied history.

Pandemic coincides with most of his time thus far at Cal and AD provides leniency on his performance and extends all coaches an extra year because of it.

Now the chaos surrounding SC and UCLA moving to the Big-10 is drawing attention away from what looks to be the worst of all his atrocious seasons at Cal after losing his best player (Kelly) to the portal (lost best player 2 years in a row) and one of his best players to injury (Celestine).

Because of all these factors above, he seems to be sitting pretty. What a life.

---

He will end up with $8-10 million extra earnings from Cal when he is finally cut loose. Pretty good money for a guy with an Eastern New Mexico degree.

---

Also pretty good money for doing absolutely nothing!

California Coach Mark Fox Signs Five-Year Contract: Salary, Buyout, Incentives - Stadium (watchstadium.com)

Fox is definitely lucky, but our AD is even luckier - gets hired for a position for which he had no background or qualifications, subsequently bungles the most significant decision he was forced to make, and is still awarded a near lifetime contract, after which he continues to make horrible decisions like arbitrarily extending every coach's contract.

But then he gets even luckier - just when you think he's toast over his handling of the Mckeever situation, the P12 blows up, and the media and general public completely forget about the Mckeever situation.

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

"Happy to see us out of top-level athletics." Is there anything actually written, or any movement that shows this thought isn't at least 30-40 years old? Haas re-done, Stadium re-done, expanded football facilities, athletic grade exemption (which might be expanding even further), Masters programs created for the purpose of student-athletes being able to stay on, tutoring expanded and improved for athletes, etc....yes, much done with donations, and we can argue that we should be spending even more to be competitive, but, the battles with academia are certainly not daily front page news if they are happening.
Maybe this is the end of the road for athletics as we know it, so, maybe you will see some of the folks you are talking about come out of the wood work...

---

Can you elaborate on the Masters programs? I wasn't aware of this one.

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

---

Well said!

Civil Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

"Happy to see us out of top-level athletics." Is there anything actually written, or any movement that shows this thought isn't at least 30-40 years old? Haas re-done, Stadium re-done, expanded football facilities, athletic grade exemption (which might be expanding even further), Masters programs created for the purpose of student-athletes being able to stay on, tutoring expanded and improved for athletes, etc....yes, much done with donations, and we can argue that we should be spending even more to be competitive, but, the battles with academia are certainly not daily front page news if they are happening.
Maybe this is the end of the road for athletics as we know it, so, maybe you will see some of the folks you are talking about come out of the wood work...

---

Can you elaborate on the Masters programs? I wasn't aware of this one.

---

I'm not allowed to talk about it here, because it's a Knowlton positive.
Seriously, I believe we are in year 2 of this, maybe 3. I'm forgetting the emphasis of the program, but hopefully someone else can elaborate for you, and/or has a better memory!

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

---

In all fairness, he bamboozled the us men's national team first.

mbBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

"Happy to see us out of top-level athletics." Is there anything actually written, or any movement that shows this thought isn't at least 30-40 years old? Haas re-done, Stadium re-done, expanded football facilities, athletic grade exemption (which might be expanding even further), Masters programs created for the purpose of student-athletes being able to stay on, tutoring expanded and improved for athletes, etc....yes, much done with donations, and we can argue that we should be spending even more to be competitive, but, the battles with academia are certainly not daily front page news if they are happening.
Maybe this is the end of the road for athletics as we know it, so, maybe you will see some of the folks you are talking about come out of the wood work...

---

Can you elaborate on the Masters programs? I wasn't aware of this one.

---

I'm not allowed to talk about it here, because it's a Knowlton positive.
Seriously, I believe we are in year 2 of this, maybe 3. I'm forgetting the emphasis of the program, but hopefully someone else can elaborate for you, and/or has a better memory!

---

There are post-grad certificate programs. I am not aware of any new athlete-friendly Masters programs, though it has been discussed. It would be a good thing.

Big C said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

"Happy to see us out of top-level athletics." Is there anything actually written, or any movement that shows this thought isn't at least 30-40 years old? Haas re-done, Stadium re-done, expanded football facilities, athletic grade exemption (which might be expanding even further), Masters programs created for the purpose of student-athletes being able to stay on, tutoring expanded and improved for athletes, etc....yes, much done with donations, and we can argue that we should be spending even more to be competitive, but, the battles with academia are certainly not daily front page news if they are happening.
Maybe this is the end of the road for athletics as we know it, so, maybe you will see some of the folks you are talking about come out of the wood work...

---

Can you elaborate on the Masters programs? I wasn't aware of this one.

---

I'm not allowed to talk about it here, because it's a Knowlton positive.
Seriously, I believe we are in year 2 of this, maybe 3. I'm forgetting the emphasis of the program, but hopefully someone else can elaborate for you, and/or has a better memory!

---

There are post-grad certificate programs. I am not aware of any new athlete-friendly Masters programs, though it has been discussed. It would be a good thing.

---

Yeah, I believe the Berkely Extension certificate programs are now acceptable for NCAA grad transfers.

Big C said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

"Happy to see us out of top-level athletics." Is there anything actually written, or any movement that shows this thought isn't at least 30-40 years old? Haas re-done, Stadium re-done, expanded football facilities, athletic grade exemption (which might be expanding even further), Masters programs created for the purpose of student-athletes being able to stay on, tutoring expanded and improved for athletes, etc....yes, much done with donations, and we can argue that we should be spending even more to be competitive, but, the battles with academia are certainly not daily front page news if they are happening.
Maybe this is the end of the road for athletics as we know it, so, maybe you will see some of the folks you are talking about come out of the wood work...

---

Can you elaborate on the Masters programs? I wasn't aware of this one.

---

I'm not allowed to talk about it here, because it's a Knowlton positive.
Seriously, I believe we are in year 2 of this, maybe 3. I'm forgetting the emphasis of the program, but hopefully someone else can elaborate for you, and/or has a better memory!

---

There are post-grad certificate programs. I am not aware of any new athlete-friendly Masters programs, though it has been discussed. It would be a good thing.

---

I will plead guilty on the language. But, the key is that student-athletes (football) aren't being forced to transfer to use their remaining eligibility. And yes, that was worked out in detail with the University, who could have otherwise continued the status quo...t

Big C said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

"Happy to see us out of top-level athletics." Is there anything actually written, or any movement that shows this thought isn't at least 30-40 years old? Haas re-done, Stadium re-done, expanded football facilities, athletic grade exemption (which might be expanding even further), Masters programs created for the purpose of student-athletes being able to stay on, tutoring expanded and improved for athletes, etc....yes, much done with donations, and we can argue that we should be spending even more to be competitive, but, the battles with academia are certainly not daily front page news if they are happening.
Maybe this is the end of the road for athletics as we know it, so, maybe you will see some of the folks you are talking about come out of the wood work...

---

Can you elaborate on the Masters programs? I wasn't aware of this one.

---

I'm not allowed to talk about it here, because it's a Knowlton positive.
Seriously, I believe we are in year 2 of this, maybe 3. I'm forgetting the emphasis of the program, but hopefully someone else can elaborate for you, and/or has a better memory!

---

There are post-grad certificate programs. I am not aware of any new athlete-friendly Masters programs, though it has been discussed. It would be a good thing.

---

I don't know what it is like at Cal today, but back in the day when I first attended Cal, and later when I joined the Engineering School staff to do research, there were few, if any, UC Berkeley grad-friendly Masters programs for anyone, not just athletes. In those days, several professors mentioned to me that the grading at Cal for undergrads was so tough, that very few Cal grads could qualify to be admitted to Cal's own graduate schools. Most of the grad students in Cal Master's and phD programs were graduates of other universities, where the grading systems may not have been as harsh.

Here is an example of harsh grading at Cal. As a senior, I needed an extra course to graduate, so I chose a non-required elective course in pumps and turbomachinery. My classmates told me I was crazy to take this course, it was so hard. However, I love challenges. The course was taught by the Dean of the college of engineering, the ultimate hard case. All the exams and homework problem sets consisted of 3 problems, each one worth 33.3%. There was no partial credit. If you got all three correct, you got 100% and an A grade. Correct meant exactly that. If your answer was more than 2% off, you got zero credit. If you misplaced a decimal point, you got zero. If you got 2 out of 3 problems correct, you got 67% and a C grade. Any score less than 50% got an F. So if you got only one problem correct, you got 33% and an F. There were 60 students in that class, including about 10 grad students studying for their Masters. At the end of the semester, no student got an A. 2 students got a B for the course, both of them grad students. about 10 students got C's for the course, and the rest got D's and F's. I got a D, the only blot on my Cal record. Several seniors had to take a course during the summer to graduate, because they failed this course.

I had another professor, Anthony Oppenheim, a world famous rocket scientist, who lamented the fact that he was unable to get any of his bright students into grad school at Cal. He told the class not to worry. If we were serious about wanting to go grad school, then we should come to him, and he would find a good grad school somewhere and he would get us in, just not at Berkeley. And he did just that.

I wonder about Andre Kelly. I wonder if the fact that he mentioned in his farewell statement that he would also be pursuing his Masters degree at UC Santa Barbara might indicate that he has some interest in furthering his education at the graduate level, not just continue to play college basketball. Was that not possible for him at Cal? And if Cal is anywhere like it was in my day, where the grading at Cal was too tough for most of us to get into a Cal grad school, maybe it was a factor in Kelly's moving on to another school for his 5th year.

I graduated from Cal in 1970 and I can say the grading wasn't as tough as you describe. I took mostly Physics but also a fair number of Math, Chemistry, ME and CE courses. I recall in all of those partial credit was given and in only a few was the entire grade based on just one midterm and one final. In lower division average work would get you a C, in upper division average was closer to a B.

Outside of the natural sciences some of the courses were easier. I got two (of very few) A grades in Econ, largely due to having an unfair advantage in math.

mbBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

"Happy to see us out of top-level athletics." Is there anything actually written, or any movement that shows this thought isn't at least 30-40 years old? Haas re-done, Stadium re-done, expanded football facilities, athletic grade exemption (which might be expanding even further), Masters programs created for the purpose of student-athletes being able to stay on, tutoring expanded and improved for athletes, etc....yes, much done with donations, and we can argue that we should be spending even more to be competitive, but, the battles with academia are certainly not daily front page news if they are happening.
Maybe this is the end of the road for athletics as we know it, so, maybe you will see some of the folks you are talking about come out of the wood work...

---

Can you elaborate on the Masters programs? I wasn't aware of this one.

---

I'm not allowed to talk about it here, because it's a Knowlton positive.
Seriously, I believe we are in year 2 of this, maybe 3. I'm forgetting the emphasis of the program, but hopefully someone else can elaborate for you, and/or has a better memory!

---

There are post-grad certificate programs. I am not aware of any new athlete-friendly Masters programs, though it has been discussed. It would be a good thing.

---

I will plead guilty on the language. But, the key is that student-athletes (football) aren't being forced to transfer to use their remaining eligibility. And yes, that was worked out in detail with the University, who could have otherwise continued the status quo...t

---

I agree with your general point. Having the "certificate program" option has been a good thing that has enabled Cal student-athletes to complete their eligibility at Cal and for grads from other colleges to grad-transfer here to complete their eligibility. I remember, not too long ago, Cal undergrads had to carefully plan their units to coincide with their remaining eligibility, because undergrads' units were capped and after that, either you were in a grad program (unlikely) or bye-bye. And with 5-to-play-4 eligibility, athletes were advised to take minimum loads.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Dude is out of college ball for a year with his stock declining, gets fast tracked by a clueless AD in our hiring system and becomes a Power 5 head coach again at a program with a storied history.

Pandemic coincides with most of his time thus far at Cal and AD provides leniency on his performance and extends all coaches an extra year because of it.

Now the chaos surrounding SC and UCLA moving to the Big-10 is drawing attention away from what looks to be the worst of all his atrocious seasons at Cal after losing his best player (Kelly) to the portal (lost best player 2 years in a row) and one of his best players to injury (Celestine).

Because of all these factors above, he seems to be sitting pretty. What a life.

---

I get your point, but I don't know how lucky he feels when his teams have very little of it. Or whether having another year where he is given the chance to do well in these circumstances, getting ridiculed and booed all the time is somehow lucky.

How can we call Kelly transferring after playing a full 4 years for Cal, a loss for Fox? How long do you think a player has to play for a school, knowing that 50% or so players transfer to at least one other school during their college careers? These days, I think we were lucky that Kelly, or any player, stays for 4 years. I think Anticevich staying for 5 years may be a rarity.

You refer to Bradley leaving as a loss for Fox, and that is a better argument for Fox losing a player. I think Fox and Bradley had a bit of an adversarial relationship at times, so Fox may not agree with you on that one.

I believe Fox did lose Betley, and he said almost as much himself, when he admitted that he may have pushed Betley too hard in the first half of the season, causing him to get exhausted and his play fell off in the 2nd half of the season. Knowing about Betley's previous injury, Fox should have gone easier on him in early games. Betley did not transfer, he just left Cal, and last I heard he was playing some golf and taking it easy. I guess he could be coming back, or going to another program, or retiring.

As to losing Celestine to injury, I give credit to Fox for signing a player who had been badly injured in high school, missed his final year, and arrived not yet ready to play. Fox took a chance on him, because he saw the talent there. I don't see that as Fox losing a player. He may turn out to be another Al Grigsby, giving us what he can over more seasons than we expected. The team also lost DJ Thorpe to injury and retirement, the only backup to Lars with any D1 experience. I don't see that as Fox losing a player.

What I think is losing a player is like Fox losing Betley, or Cuonzo losing Mathews. Cuonzo rode Mathews hard, trying to get him to take the ball to the rim and play defense, etc., and he left for a coach who would appreciate him at Gonzaga.

Finally, Fox may have or will have lots of money from this Cal experience, but I'm not sure he's happy, especially if he reads this forum, and sees how many BI fans dislike him. I don't know the man, but I think he is trying to coach his kids to be successful, and he doesn't enjoy all these losses any more than we do. If I was him, I'd consider resigning, but it is hard to walk away from all that money. That is Cal's fault, making it hard to walk away from, and hard for them to fire him.

stu said:

---

I graduated from Cal in 1970 and I can say the grading wasn't as tough as you describe. I took mostly Physics but also a fair number of Math, Chemistry, ME and CE courses. I recall in all of those partial credit was given and in only a few was the entire grade based on just one midterm and one final. In lower division average work would get you a C, in upper division average was closer to a B.

Outside of the natural sciences some of the courses were easier. I got two (of very few) A grades in Econ, largely due to having an unfair advantage in math.

---

I graduated in 1965. The example I used was the harshest one I experienced. I do remember as a freshman, I had an English professor who most English majors had little respect for. I started out getting F's in my compositions, but gradually improved, and got a B in the class. He gave one other B, and no A's. I had several like that, but on the other hand, I remember a class in Aerodynamics, where the final exam was to design an airplane with a tail in the front, instead of the rear of the plane. We all struggled with it, and we turned in our designs and calculations. At the final class, the prof walked in. He'd been up all night reading our papers and struggling himself to come up with a design. He announced to the class that the assignment could not be completed, it was an impossible problem. He tore up all the papers, and gave everyone in the class a final course grade of A.

I also remember many of my classmates and friends flunked out of Cal in my lower division years. Cal and Stanford had opposite reputations: Stanford hard to get in, but nearly impossible to flunk out, while Cal was easier to get in, but hard to stay in. So I think it was common knowledge that Cal students were graded harder than students at most other schools. I've heard it is not the same way today.

I believe there were significant differences between Cal in 1965 and Cal in 1970. A former colleague about 10 years older than I was a Chem E major and described similar to yours. However the generational difference in the students and the campus protests seemed to accelerate change. An example: my roommate had a math prof who was more than a little weird and one day threatened to flunk the entire class. The students marched en masse to the Dean and the result was they got a different prof. However in my time a full third of the undergrads flunked out anyway.

Was the Engineering Dean you mentioned named Lapsley (or something similar)? In my time that man terrified every engineering student. Things like that pushed me from Engineering to Physics - the material was pretty similar but I liked the Physics people a whole lot better.

SFCityBear said:

---

... Finally, Fox may have or will have lots of money from this Cal experience, but I'm not sure he's happy, especially if he reads this forum, and sees how many BI fans dislike him. I don't know the man, but I think he is trying to coach his kids to be successful, and he doesn't enjoy all these losses any more than we do. If I was him, I'd consider resigning, but it is hard to walk away from all that money. That is Cal's fault, making it hard to walk away from, and hard for them to fire him.

---

I think Fox is coaching at the wrong place and wrong time. He's doing his best but it just isn't working. That's gotta hurt and I feel for him. I'd say this unhappy situation is Knowlton's fault, not Fox's.

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Dude is out of college ball for a year with his stock declining, gets fast tracked by a clueless AD in our hiring system and becomes a Power 5 head coach again at a program with a storied history.

Pandemic coincides with most of his time thus far at Cal and AD provides leniency on his performance and extends all coaches an extra year because of it.

Now the chaos surrounding SC and UCLA moving to the Big-10 is drawing attention away from what looks to be the worst of all his atrocious seasons at Cal after losing his best player (Kelly) to the portal (lost best player 2 years in a row) and one of his best players to injury (Celestine).

Because of all these factors above, he seems to be sitting pretty. What a life.

---

I get your point, but I don't know how lucky he feels when his teams have very little of it. Or whether having another year where he is given the chance to do well in these circumstances, getting ridiculed and booed all the time is somehow lucky.

How can we call Kelly transferring after playing a full 4 years for Cal, a loss for Fox? How long do you think a player has to play for a school, knowing that 50% or so players transfer to at least one other school during their college careers? These days, I think we were lucky that Kelly, or any player, stays for 4 years. I think Anticevich staying for 5 years may be a rarity.

You refer to Bradley leaving as a loss for Fox, and that is a better argument for Fox losing a player. I think Fox and Bradley had a bit of an adversarial relationship at times, so Fox may not agree with you on that one.

I believe Fox did lose Betley, and he said almost as much himself, when he admitted that he may have pushed Betley too hard in the first half of the season, causing him to get exhausted and his play fell off in the 2nd half of the season. Knowing about Betley's previous injury, Fox should have gone easier on him in early games. Betley did not transfer, he just left Cal, and last I heard he was playing some golf and taking it easy. I guess he could be coming back, or going to another program, or retiring.

As to losing Celestine to injury, I give credit to Fox for signing a player who had been badly injured in high school, missed his final year, and arrived not yet ready to play. Fox took a chance on him, because he saw the talent there. I don't see that as Fox losing a player. He may turn out to be another Al Grigsby, giving us what he can over more seasons than we expected. The team also lost DJ Thorpe to injury and retirement, the only backup to Lars with any D1 experience. I don't see that as Fox losing a player.

What I think is losing a player is like Fox losing Betley, or Cuonzo losing Mathews. Cuonzo rode Mathews hard, trying to get him to take the ball to the rim and play defense, etc., and he left for a coach who would appreciate him at Gonzaga.

Finally, Fox may have or will have lots of money from this Cal experience, but I'm not sure he's happy, especially if he reads this forum, and sees how many BI fans dislike him. I don't know the man, but I think he is trying to coach his kids to be successful, and he doesn't enjoy all these losses any more than we do. If I was him, I'd consider resigning, but it is hard to walk away from all that money. That is Cal's fault, making it hard to walk away from, and hard for them to fire him.

---

Betley was out of eligibility.

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Dude is out of college ball for a year with his stock declining, gets fast tracked by a clueless AD in our hiring system and becomes a Power 5 head coach again at a program with a storied history.

Pandemic coincides with most of his time thus far at Cal and AD provides leniency on his performance and extends all coaches an extra year because of it.

Now the chaos surrounding SC and UCLA moving to the Big-10 is drawing attention away from what looks to be the worst of all his atrocious seasons at Cal after losing his best player (Kelly) to the portal (lost best player 2 years in a row) and one of his best players to injury (Celestine).

Because of all these factors above, he seems to be sitting pretty. What a life.

---

I get your point, but I don't know how lucky he feels when his teams have very little of it. Or whether having another year where he is given the chance to do well in these circumstances, getting ridiculed and booed all the time is somehow lucky.

How can we call Kelly transferring after playing a full 4 years for Cal, a loss for Fox? How long do you think a player has to play for a school, knowing that 50% or so players transfer to at least one other school during their college careers? These days, I think we were lucky that Kelly, or any player, stays for 4 years. I think Anticevich staying for 5 years may be a rarity.

You refer to Bradley leaving as a loss for Fox, and that is a better argument for Fox losing a player. I think Fox and Bradley had a bit of an adversarial relationship at times, so Fox may not agree with you on that one.

I believe Fox did lose Betley, and he said almost as much himself, when he admitted that he may have pushed Betley too hard in the first half of the season, causing him to get exhausted and his play fell off in the 2nd half of the season. Knowing about Betley's previous injury, Fox should have gone easier on him in early games. Betley did not transfer, he just left Cal, and last I heard he was playing some golf and taking it easy. I guess he could be coming back, or going to another program, or retiring.

As to losing Celestine to injury, I give credit to Fox for signing a player who had been badly injured in high school, missed his final year, and arrived not yet ready to play. Fox took a chance on him, because he saw the talent there. I don't see that as Fox losing a player. He may turn out to be another Al Grigsby, giving us what he can over more seasons than we expected. The team also lost DJ Thorpe to injury and retirement, the only backup to Lars with any D1 experience. I don't see that as Fox losing a player.

What I think is losing a player is like Fox losing Betley, or Cuonzo losing Mathews. Cuonzo rode Mathews hard, trying to get him to take the ball to the rim and play defense, etc., and he left for a coach who would appreciate him at Gonzaga.

Finally, Fox may have or will have lots of money from this Cal experience, but I'm not sure he's happy, especially if he reads this forum, and sees how many BI fans dislike him. I don't know the man, but I think he is trying to coach his kids to be successful, and he doesn't enjoy all these losses any more than we do. If I was him, I'd consider resigning, but it is hard to walk away from all that money. That is Cal's fault, making it hard to walk away from, and hard for them to fire him.

---

My take on Fox is that he is a decent, principled, old school guy, who is content to coach "his way" at Cal and, if need be, go into semi-retirement at a fairly early age, not hurting for money.

And he's right on track for achieving his goals.

Big C said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but I'm not sure luck is the best explanation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that some people associated with Cal would be happy to see us out of top-level athletics. Those might include academics who think athletics aren't as important as their own fields, money people who'd like to lessen the lossage, people who don't want Cal involved with business unrelated to normal students (NIL, media money, sugar daddies, etc), and athletic department people who have demonstrated they can't perform their jobs at this level.

I'm not saying UCLA and USC leaving the PAC without us was the goal of a conspiracy but I think it's possible some people found it in their interest not to prevent it.

I could be wrong. I'll have a better idea after I find out what kind of conference Cal ends up in.

---

"Happy to see us out of top-level athletics." Is there anything actually written, or any movement that shows this thought isn't at least 30-40 years old? Haas re-done, Stadium re-done, expanded football facilities, athletic grade exemption (which might be expanding even further), Masters programs created for the purpose of student-athletes being able to stay on, tutoring expanded and improved for athletes, etc....yes, much done with donations, and we can argue that we should be spending even more to be competitive, but, the battles with academia are certainly not daily front page news if they are happening.
Maybe this is the end of the road for athletics as we know it, so, maybe you will see some of the folks you are talking about come out of the wood work...

---

Can you elaborate on the Masters programs? I wasn't aware of this one.

---

I'm not allowed to talk about it here, because it's a Knowlton positive.
Seriously, I believe we are in year 2 of this, maybe 3. I'm forgetting the emphasis of the program, but hopefully someone else can elaborate for you, and/or has a better memory!

---

There are post-grad certificate programs. I am not aware of any new athlete-friendly Masters programs, though it has been discussed. It would be a good thing.

---

I will plead guilty on the language. But, the key is that student-athletes (football) aren't being forced to transfer to use their remaining eligibility. And yes, that was worked out in detail with the University, who could have otherwise continued the status quo...t

---

I agree with your general point. Having the "certificate program" option has been a good thing that has enabled Cal student-athletes to complete their eligibility at Cal and for grads from other colleges to grad-transfer here to complete their eligibility. I remember, not too long ago, Cal undergrads had to carefully plan their units to coincide with their remaining eligibility, because undergrads' units were capped and after that, either you were in a grad program (unlikely) or bye-bye. And with 5-to-play-4 eligibility, athletes were advised to take

---

Exactly. And this was pointed out to Knowlton early on in his tenure, by donors at the highest level.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Dude is out of college ball for a year with his stock declining, gets fast tracked by a clueless AD in our hiring system and becomes a Power 5 head coach again at a program with a storied history.

Pandemic coincides with most of his time thus far at Cal and AD provides leniency on his performance and extends all coaches an extra year because of it.

Now the chaos surrounding SC and UCLA moving to the Big-10 is drawing attention away from what looks to be the worst of all his atrocious seasons at Cal after losing his best player (Kelly) to the portal (lost best player 2 years in a row) and one of his best players to injury (Celestine).

Because of all these factors above, he seems to be sitting pretty. What a life.

---

I get your point, but I don't know how lucky he feels when his teams have very little of it. Or whether having another year where he is given the chance to do well in these circumstances, getting ridiculed and booed all the time is somehow lucky.

How can we call Kelly transferring after playing a full 4 years for Cal, a loss for Fox? How long do you think a player has to play for a school, knowing that 50% or so players transfer to at least one other school during their college careers? These days, I think we were lucky that Kelly, or any player, stays for 4 years. I think Anticevich staying for 5 years may be a rarity.

You refer to Bradley leaving as a loss for Fox, and that is a better argument for Fox losing a player. I think Fox and Bradley had a bit of an adversarial relationship at times, so Fox may not agree with you on that one.

I believe Fox did lose Betley, and he said almost as much himself, when he admitted that he may have pushed Betley too hard in the first half of the season, causing him to get exhausted and his play fell off in the 2nd half of the season. Knowing about Betley's previous injury, Fox should have gone easier on him in early games. Betley did not transfer, he just left Cal, and last I heard he was playing some golf and taking it easy. I guess he could be coming back, or going to another program, or retiring.

As to losing Celestine to injury, I give credit to Fox for signing a player who had been badly injured in high school, missed his final year, and arrived not yet ready to play. Fox took a chance on him, because he saw the talent there. I don't see that as Fox losing a player. He may turn out to be another Al Grigsby, giving us what he can over more seasons than we expected. The team also lost DJ Thorpe to injury and retirement, the only backup to Lars with any D1 experience. I don't see that as Fox losing a player.

What I think is losing a player is like Fox losing Betley, or Cuonzo losing Mathews. Cuonzo rode Mathews hard, trying to get him to take the ball to the rim and play defense, etc., and he left for a coach who would appreciate him at Gonzaga.

Finally, Fox may have or will have lots of money from this Cal experience, but I'm not sure he's happy, especially if he reads this forum, and sees how many BI fans dislike him. I don't know the man, but I think he is trying to coach his kids to be successful, and he doesn't enjoy all these losses any more than we do. If I was him, I'd consider resigning, but it is hard to walk away from all that money. That is Cal's fault, making it hard to walk away from, and hard for them to fire him.

---

Betley was out of eligibility.

---

I believe he still had one year of eligibility remaining when he left Cal. He was granted an extra season of eligibility while at Penn, due to his getting injured in the 5th minute of his first game of his junior year, had surgery, and sat out the rest of the season. And the 2020-21 season did not count for any D1 basketball players. See this article in SI: https://www.si.com/college/cal/basketball/ryan-betley-wont-return

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Dude is out of college ball for a year with his stock declining, gets fast tracked by a clueless AD in our hiring system and becomes a Power 5 head coach again at a program with a storied history.

Pandemic coincides with most of his time thus far at Cal and AD provides leniency on his performance and extends all coaches an extra year because of it.

Now the chaos surrounding SC and UCLA moving to the Big-10 is drawing attention away from what looks to be the worst of all his atrocious seasons at Cal after losing his best player (Kelly) to the portal (lost best player 2 years in a row) and one of his best players to injury (Celestine).

Because of all these factors above, he seems to be sitting pretty. What a life.

---

I get your point, but I don't know how lucky he feels when his teams have very little of it. Or whether having another year where he is given the chance to do well in these circumstances, getting ridiculed and booed all the time is somehow lucky.

How can we call Kelly transferring after playing a full 4 years for Cal, a loss for Fox? How long do you think a player has to play for a school, knowing that 50% or so players transfer to at least one other school during their college careers? These days, I think we were lucky that Kelly, or any player, stays for 4 years. I think Anticevich staying for 5 years may be a rarity.

You refer to Bradley leaving as a loss for Fox, and that is a better argument for Fox losing a player. I think Fox and Bradley had a bit of an adversarial relationship at times, so Fox may not agree with you on that one.

I believe Fox did lose Betley, and he said almost as much himself, when he admitted that he may have pushed Betley too hard in the first half of the season, causing him to get exhausted and his play fell off in the 2nd half of the season. Knowing about Betley's previous injury, Fox should have gone easier on him in early games. Betley did not transfer, he just left Cal, and last I heard he was playing some golf and taking it easy. I guess he could be coming back, or going to another program, or retiring.

As to losing Celestine to injury, I give credit to Fox for signing a player who had been badly injured in high school, missed his final year, and arrived not yet ready to play. Fox took a chance on him, because he saw the talent there. I don't see that as Fox losing a player. He may turn out to be another Al Grigsby, giving us what he can over more seasons than we expected. The team also lost DJ Thorpe to injury and retirement, the only backup to Lars with any D1 experience. I don't see that as Fox losing a player.

What I think is losing a player is like Fox losing Betley, or Cuonzo losing Mathews. Cuonzo rode Mathews hard, trying to get him to take the ball to the rim and play defense, etc., and he left for a coach who would appreciate him at Gonzaga.

Finally, Fox may have or will have lots of money from this Cal experience, but I'm not sure he's happy, especially if he reads this forum, and sees how many BI fans dislike him. I don't know the man, but I think he is trying to coach his kids to be successful, and he doesn't enjoy all these losses any more than we do. If I was him, I'd consider resigning, but it is hard to walk away from all that money. That is Cal's fault, making it hard to walk away from, and hard for them to fire him.

---

Betley was out of eligibility.

---

I believe he still had one year of eligibility remaining when he left Cal. He was granted an extra season of eligibility while at Penn, due to his getting injured in the 5th minute of his first game of his junior year, had surgery, and sat out the rest of the season. And the 2020-21 season did not count for any D1 basketball players. See this article in SI: https://www.si.com/college/cal/basketball/ryan-betley-wont-return

---

Thanks

stu said:

---

I believe there were significant differences between Cal in 1965 and Cal in 1970. A former colleague about 10 years older than I was a Chem E major and described similar to yours. However the generational difference in the students and the campus protests seemed to accelerate change. An example: my roommate had a math prof who was more than a little weird and one day threatened to flunk the entire class. The students marched en masse to the Dean and the result was they got a different prof. However in my time a full third of the undergrads flunked out anyway.

Was the Engineering Dean you mentioned named Lapsley (or something similar)? In my time that man terrified every engineering student. Things like that pushed me from Engineering to Physics - the material was pretty similar but I liked the Physics people a whole lot better.

---

Our experiences were reversed. I started out majoring in physics, but it got a little to abstract for me. After 3 semesters, getting caught up in campus politics, I switched to history, and after another semester, I knew I needed something more concrete, so I switched again to engineering. Recently, I had lunch with a Cal grad who is now pursuing his phD in physics at Stanford. I told him that I had left physics because I couldn't grasp the concepts of quantum physics, things like the probability that a particle would be in a certain space at a certain time. He told me not to worry, that neither he nor any of his classmates understood much of quantum physics either. So my hat is off to you if you understood that stuff.

I'd guess that what you say about the differences from '65 to '70 are likely very true. There was considerable "watering down" of the curricula going on even in my time to make it easier for successive generations of students. The toughest course for Mechanical Engineering students was the ME 131 lab course, where we formed lab parties of 4 students, and performed investigations the performance of steam and gas turbines, and aircraft models in wind tunnels, centrifugal pumps, etc. We did 8 experiments per semester. For each one, my party had to write a detailed report of how we planned to conduct the experiment, and what we were expecting to find, and prepare in advance all the sheets for taking data. We were given a week to produce this report, which was typically 100 pages long, and on every one, we were up all night Thursday to finish it. On Friday, we would run the experiment, take the data, and then we had another full week to write the final report of what we found. Again, the report would be 100 pages and again we were always up all night on Thursday to finish it. Part of the report for each of us to write an individual memo of 3 or 4 pages explaining why the experiment did not work out exactly as we had planned. One of my lab partners was from Japan, and another was from Korea. Neither one could barely speak English. So their job was to do most of the tabulating and calculations, and my job was to write up the conclusions. I had to write their memos for them, along with my own, and make all three memos sound different, so the instructors would not suspect anything. The grading was very tough. In previous years, ME students had to do 16 experiments per semester, and students a few years after us did only 4. As a few years went by, it dwindled to 2 per semester, then one, and about 10 years later, the course was abandoned. The professor who taught this course was the same Dean who taught that pumps and turbomachinery course that I mentioned. Harold Iversen, and he was actually Associate Dean of Engineering, from 1964-69.

The Dean of the Engineering College at the time was George Maslach from 1963 to 1972. I never heard anything good or bad about him, and I don't know if he was teaching any classes during those years.

stu said:

---

I believe there were significant differences between Cal in 1965 and Cal in 1970. A former colleague about 10 years older than I was a Chem E major and described similar to yours. However the generational difference in the students and the campus protests seemed to accelerate change. An example: my roommate had a math prof who was more than a little weird and one day threatened to flunk the entire class. The students marched en masse to the Dean and the result was they got a different prof. However in my time a full third of the undergrads flunked out anyway.

Was the Engineering Dean you mentioned named Lapsley (or something similar)? In my time that man terrified every engineering student. Things like that pushed me from Engineering to Physics - the material was pretty similar but I liked the Physics people a whole lot better.

---

As to flunking out, I lost too many friends in my first and second years to that. Two stories:

I was in the Unit One dorms my first year, and there was a kid there, Larry, who always wore Bermuda shorts and thongs, and never went to class. He'd stay up late at night playing bridge, get up the next day around noon, read the newspaper, maybe drink some beer, and play bridge all afternoon. I saw him after he got the notice that he had flunked out. He said, "I can't understand it. They gave me four Fs and one D. I never went to a single class all semester. How could I have gotten this D?"

The second year, I was in a fraternity. After the first semester, one of the freshmen, Eddie, comes back with his report card. He proudly announced, "I'm up a half a grade point. Now I can coast for the next semester." In that second semester, he flunked out.

I can't say I really understood anything about quantum mechanics when I was a Cal student. That's really abstract and I don't think their approach helped me. I got some of it later on by reading Feynman's books. Actually I got a lot more of everything later on than I did at Cal but my Cal experience was inspiring and definitely prepared me to grow.

I don't think I wrote 100 pages in my entire time at Cal. Standards had slipped and the riots disrupted many classes to the point requirements had to be reduced. I passed Rhetoric 1B with a single paper! Most of my classes had only exams but I did write one library research paper for Solid State Physics.

The physics labs had such horrible equipment none of the experiments worked and I didn't have much to write. When I started teaching I learned to document lab work from a rigorous colleague. I also put a lot of effort into acquiring proper equipment and designing experiments which did work.

I had some high school buddies who went to Cal the year before I did but when I arrived they had flunked out. Must have been the parties, they were top students (at our supposedly good high school) and National Merit Scholars. I had a rough time adjusting to the academic differences but somehow made it through. That might be less of an issue now since high schools have gotten so competitive.

I now know the reason for SFCB's long posts.

bearmanpg said:

---

I now know the reason for SFCB's long posts.

---

What is it? I'd sure like to know why I do this. Maybe then I could figure out a way to stop doing it. It is an addiction I don't seem to be able to break.

stu said:

---

I can't say I really understood anything about quantum mechanics when I was a Cal student. That's really abstract and I don't think their approach helped me. I got some of it later on by reading Feynman's books. Actually I got a lot more of everything later on than I did at Cal but my Cal experience was inspiring and definitely prepared me to grow.

I don't think I wrote 100 pages in my entire time at Cal. Standards had slipped and the riots disrupted many classes to the point requirements had to be reduced. I passed Rhetoric 1B with a single paper! Most of my classes had only exams but I did write one library research paper for Solid State Physics.

The physics labs had such horrible equipment none of the experiments worked and I didn't have much to write. When I started teaching I learned to document lab work from a rigorous colleague. I also put a lot of effort into acquiring proper equipment and designing experiments which did work.

I had some high school buddies who went to Cal the year before I did but when I arrived they had flunked out. Must have been the parties, they were top students (at our supposedly good high school) and National Merit Scholars. I had a rough time adjusting to the academic differences but somehow made it through. That might be less of an issue now since high schools have gotten so competitive.

---

I suffered through the Physics 4 series - barely understood anything after mechanics and E&M (sort of). As far as math, I really didn't really internalize many of the concepts until I encountered them in my engineering classes. I was one of those people who rarely understood concepts in the abstract but if I did enough problems, I sort of internalized the concepts and then was in good shape.

SFCityBear said:

---

bearmanpg said:

---

I now know the reason for SFCB's long posts.

---

What is it? I'd sure like to know why I do this. Maybe then I could figure out a way to stop doing it. It is an addiction I don't seem to be able to break.

---

It could be a result of your writing those detailed reports for your classmates....