KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

movielover said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

I am not sure racism played a role here but to an extent race.

JK and Christ clearly view sports through the lense as Victorians do. At the core it was the idea that by molding the young elites of the Empire at the Public Schools you forged qualities that allowed you to rule the world. Coaches practiced "discipline" and very much tought love with the idea that by winning on the pitch you forged the officer corp that could win on the battlefield. Wins and losses _ARE_ very much beside the point - far better to lose with "honor" than to win in a way that elevated norms and morals that would not make for very good imperial overlords.

This is very different ethos and view of sports versus one that is culturally embedded in the idea that sports is a means of furthering the economic interests of yourself and your family. Here sports is not a mechanism to train toward the end goal but very much the means to the end. Winning through Honor might be ideal but far better to WIN and excel at the sport more than your competitors..

These views ARE culturally (and class) rooted. Since Class is highly correlated with Race in the united states it is not at all suprising who JK fealt more comfortable with. Bluntly so do many posters on this board - who have long not really shown any appreciation for the many kids in Revenue sports Cal has and what they want out of their athletic experience.

---

Please elaborate.

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

GMP said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

What sucks is we have to sit through a full season of this! I would feel better if we were a week or two away from seeing a change, but I have to wait til March (god forbid we retain Fox. If that happened I might stop being a fan of the basketball program) to have any hope for this program

---

we may have to sit thru more than one season of this.. AD loves the guy? so will not fire him

---

The Fox hiring and retention is another example of subconscious institutional racism at work. Knowlton admitted he hired him because he felt so comfortable with him. But that's not a job requirement. And it's caused by subconscious racism - who you're comfortable around is who you are used to being around.

It's also instructive to read Knowlton's words about why he fired Jones:

Quote:

---

"What I was really evaluating was: Where are we now after two years and how much can we move the needle in another year? By the end of the season, and then with another couple days of evaluating, it became obvious that we wouldn't be able to move the needle enough, and that's when I had to make a leadership change."

---

If he applied that same logic to Fox, he would have fired him after last season. But he feels comfortable and now, well, he's got to let him coach until we get a practice facility, 3-4 years from now! Good lord. Knowlton is the worst thing that ever happened to this program. Worse than Boseman.

---

Sorry, but you're trying too hard here. Under Wyking the team looked like it never practiced. We couldn't break a press, set plays were terrible, inbound plays were non-existent and we were losing to real bottom dweller teams.

I think it was an idiotic hire, but I could see the rationale for Knowlton hiring Fox. Fox had a lot of experience as a head coach (in contrast to Wyking who had none), was seen as a developer of talent (didn't see a lot of that under Wyking), west coast experience at Nevada and had the resume of a good teacher/coach (Nevada record, US Olympic team coach, etc). Again, absolutely idiotic hire and Knowlton clearly relied way too much on the search firm, but in terms of checking the box after the Wyking disaster, Fox did technically check some boxes. A competent AD would have weighed his resume at Georgia and realized there was a reason he was fired, but sadly, Knowlton's not a competent AD.

---

Maybe I needed to be more clear:

1. Fox was hired because of subconscious racism. I'm not saying he was completely unqualified. Yes, he was a passable candidate. But Knowlton publicly stated he went with Fox because he felt more comfortable with him. The other widely rumored candidate was Decuire, who is not white. This, IMO, is not a coincidence.

2. In determining whether Fox should have continued as our coach after 2021, Knowlton failed to apply the logic he used in firing Jones. If he had done so, Fox would have been fired. And he should have been fired. Unlike point #1, I don't know (or very strongly believe) that Knowlton's failure to be consistent is due to subconscious racism because unlike when Fox was hired, Knowlton has not admitted as much this time around. I suspect it is due to subconscious racism (based on what I believe is Knowlton's admitted history of subconscious racism in hiring Fox), but I am also open to the fact that Knowlton is just a complete idiot who doesn't understand how to do his job.

---

This comment is asinine, unfair to Knowlton, offensive, and has no place on this board, or anywhere. Where were you when Knowlton hired Charmin Smith, a black woman, to be the Head Women's Basketball coach? Where were you when Knowlton hired Robyne Johnson, also a black woman, to be the Director of both Men's and Women's Track and Field teams, the first female to ever hold the position? Do you think Knowlton doesn't feel comfortable around men who are black, but this same person feels comfortable around women who are black? What kind of racist is that, subconscious, or otherwise?

Aren't you aware that the University has a very strong desire, even a strong policy, to hire to improve and increase diversity at the University, and will bend over backwards to give opportunity to prospective students and to prospective employees some advantage in accepting or hiring them? Fox might even have been held to a higher bar than DeCuire. I suspect fox was hired because of his history of being a head coach in D1, and the respect he had among other D1 coaches, and it didn't have a damn thing to with the color of his skin. Knowlton probably did it because DeCuire had not been a head coach before, and perhaps that seemed more of a risk. There could be other reasons, but one of them is not racism, subconscious or conscious, not in this day and age at UC Berkeley.

---

DeCuire was the head coach at Montana at the time and was interviewed by Knowlton the morning he returned from taking his team to the NCAA Tournament after winning his conference championship.

"The University" may have a policy, but individuals make decisions that violate policies all the time. That is why HR, compliance, etc. exist.

When Knowlton was informed by swimmers and their parents that McKeever engaged in abuse and racial discrimination, he brushed it off as her being "a tough coach" that one day they "would look back and appreciate." He later gave McKeever a big raise and five year contract. There was no investigation until everything came out in the press. I am pretty sure university (and state) policy requires investigation of claims of abuse and racial discrimination. Thus to assume Knowlton followed an affirmative university policy in hiring, when he ignored claims of racism and abuse, is assuming far too much. He relied on the search firm and interviewed two people. That is what he said.

Knowlton in his public statement on "Black Lives Matter" made it clear that race and even more likeky gender equity issues are new to him: "we (speaking for Cal) are learning" he said.

Anyone who is familiar with equity issues in hiring and the idea of "affinity bias" would simply not say what Knowlton said. They would purposely NOT cite that as a reason for hiring Fox over DeCuire even if it were true. The fact that he said it is the best evidence thst he is unaware of it.

Unconscious bias is pernicious. Sports is the most competitive, results oriented endeavor we engage in. However the results of bias, conscious and unconscious are obvious: For example, 50 years ago the SEC had no African American players. 20 years ago there was maybe one starting African American QB in the NFL (.usually from a HBU). Announcers even tried to explain "why African Americans were not good at playing QB or swimming."

Today the majority of NFL teams have an African American or Samoan QB.

Did somehow African Americans as a whole become more capable of playing QB? Or were they just finally given the opportunity? HS QBs no longer forced to change position due to the coaches' conscious or unconscious bias? NFL franchises looking for results instead of "classic good looking" (ie white, preferably blond) QBs to be the "face of the franchise."

Now if this bias could exist for so long with regard to QBs until very recently, it should not be too difficult to see that bias could still persist with respect to head coaching, much less athletics administration or corporate management, where the evaluation is far less objective.

Not that there isn't still overt bias, such as Trump saying he would "Never hire a black accountant" because he wants all his accountants being "little guys with yarmulkes" with many people liking Trump because he says out loud what they think.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

Thanks, KAB. Looks like the more accepted term is "affinity bias."

---

So I suppose I should ask, did Williams hire Wyking because of affinity bias? This is all very reductive and reflective of a different type of bias.

Knowlton hired Fox because he was cheap, had a decent track record that (wrongly) suggested a low floor, and because Knowlton was not wanting to take a chance on a guy without a track record after Wyking's flame out. It was perceived as the safe choice and, again, Fox's came cheap. It was a bad hire and then Knowlton compounded the mistake by allowing Fox to hire a terrible staff that did not compensate for Fox's known recruiting deficiencies.

The single biggest problem with Fox has been awful recruiting. I actually think he's a decent in game coach and even possibly good at developing players. But the talent he's started with has been well below Pac12 standards. Lars is a good example. He's actually improved a lot from his first year - but he's still terribly flawed. Too steep a hill to climb.

Given Cal's budget, the right thing to do would have been to swing for the fences with a guy like Gates. DeCuire would have been an ok choice as well, though I think there were bad feelings there and at the time his coaching record was arguably thinner than Foxes.

Fox is a symptom of the larger problem. Nothing will change until Christ and Knowlton decide winning is important. The next hire should be an up and coming lower division coach or high level assistant with recruiting chops. Hire a leader and support him with a staff that complements his skills.

With the right coach, Cal should be very attractive to hoops recruits, as it has been in the past. And with the NBA expected to eliminate the one and done requirement, Cal should be able to compete for the remaining talent that is picking a college with the expectation of staying for 2-4 years (i.e., looking for more than just a basketball factory). Throw in a little NIL $$ and announce a new practice facility, and Cal can be an attractive place to play.

---

GMP said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

Thanks, KAB. Looks like the more accepted term is "affinity bias."

---

So I suppose I should ask, did Williams hire Wyking because of affinity bias? This is all very reductive and reflective of a different type of bias.

Knowlton hired Fox because he was cheap, had a decent track record that (wrongly) suggested a low floor, and because Knowlton was not wanting to take a chance on a guy without a track record after Wyking's flame out. It was perceived as the safe choice and, again, Fox's came cheap. It was a bad hire and then Knowlton compounded the mistake by allowing Fox to hire a terrible staff that did not compensate for Fox's known recruiting deficiencies.

The single biggest problem with Fox has been awful recruiting. I actually think he's a decent in game coach and even possibly good at developing players. But the talent he's started with has been well below Pac12 standards. Lars is a good example. He's actually improved a lot from his first year - but he's still terribly flawed. Too steep a hill to climb.

Given Cal's budget, the right thing to do would have been to swing for the fences with a guy like Gates. DeCuire would have been an ok choice as well, though I think there were bad feelings there and at the time his coaching record was arguably thinner than Foxes.

Fox is a symptom of the larger problem. Nothing will change until Christ and Knowlton decide winning is important. The next hire should be an up and coming lower division coach or high level assistant with recruiting chops. Hire a leader and support him with a staff that complements his skills.

With the right coach, Cal should be very attractive to hoops recruits, as it has been in the past. And with the NBA expected to eliminate the one and done requirement, Cal should be able to compete for the remaining talent that is picking a college with the expectation of staying for 2-4 years (i.e., looking for more than just a basketball factory). Throw in a little NIL $$ and announce a new practice facility, and Cal can be an attractive place to play.

---

As calumnus said, we don't know if there was affinity bias in the Jones hiring because there's no evidence (other than common skin color) to suggest it. Had Knowlton never said what he said, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that that's what happened. Because as I said previously, while I was initially not thrilled with the Fox hire, he was not wholly unqualified. But Knowlton told us what happened. He picked who he felt more comfortable with. That is affinity bias at work.

As I said, I haven't been watching so I won't speak to Fox's abilities as an in game coach or developer of talent. We all agree the results are beyond poor. It's a shame we still have to have these discussions because he should be fired.

One last thought. I'm curious why you think the NBA ending the requirement players wait one year before entering the NBA will benefit Cal. If the blue blood programs that currently recruit those players who will now instead go to the NBA, then they will have open spots and it seems to me there will essentially be a shift up. I'm not trying to argue, just curious what you mean and why you see it differently.

---

GMP said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

Thanks, KAB. Looks like the more accepted term is "affinity bias."

---

So I suppose I should ask, did Williams hire Wyking because of affinity bias? This is all very reductive and reflective of a different type of bias.

Knowlton hired Fox because he was cheap, had a decent track record that (wrongly) suggested a low floor, and because Knowlton was not wanting to take a chance on a guy without a track record after Wyking's flame out. It was perceived as the safe choice and, again, Fox's came cheap. It was a bad hire and then Knowlton compounded the mistake by allowing Fox to hire a terrible staff that did not compensate for Fox's known recruiting deficiencies.

The single biggest problem with Fox has been awful recruiting. I actually think he's a decent in game coach and even possibly good at developing players. But the talent he's started with has been well below Pac12 standards. Lars is a good example. He's actually improved a lot from his first year - but he's still terribly flawed. Too steep a hill to climb.

Given Cal's budget, the right thing to do would have been to swing for the fences with a guy like Gates. DeCuire would have been an ok choice as well, though I think there were bad feelings there and at the time his coaching record was arguably thinner than Foxes.

Fox is a symptom of the larger problem. Nothing will change until Christ and Knowlton decide winning is important. The next hire should be an up and coming lower division coach or high level assistant with recruiting chops. Hire a leader and support him with a staff that complements his skills.

With the right coach, Cal should be very attractive to hoops recruits, as it has been in the past. And with the NBA expected to eliminate the one and done requirement, Cal should be able to compete for the remaining talent that is picking a college with the expectation of staying for 2-4 years (i.e., looking for more than just a basketball factory). Throw in a little NIL $$ and announce a new practice facility, and Cal can be an attractive place to play.

---

As calumnus said, we don't know if there was affinity bias in the Jones hiring because there's no evidence (other than common skin color) to suggest it. Had Knowlton never said what he said, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that that's what happened. Because as I said previously, while I was initially not thrilled with the Fox hire, he was not wholly unqualified. But Knowlton told us what happened. He picked who he felt more comfortable with. That is affinity bias at work.

As I said, I haven't been watching so I won't speak to Fox's abilities as an in game coach or developer of talent. We all agree the results are beyond poor. It's a shame we still have to have these discussions because he should be fired.

One last thought. I'm curious why you think the NBA ending the requirement players wait one year before entering the NBA will benefit Cal. If the blue blood programs that currently recruit those players who will now instead go to the NBA, then they will have open spots and it seems to me there will essentially be a shift up. I'm not trying to argue, just curious what you mean and why you see it differently.

---

socaltownie said:

---

GMP said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

Thanks, KAB. Looks like the more accepted term is "affinity bias."

---

So I suppose I should ask, did Williams hire Wyking because of affinity bias? This is all very reductive and reflective of a different type of bias.

Knowlton hired Fox because he was cheap, had a decent track record that (wrongly) suggested a low floor, and because Knowlton was not wanting to take a chance on a guy without a track record after Wyking's flame out. It was perceived as the safe choice and, again, Fox's came cheap. It was a bad hire and then Knowlton compounded the mistake by allowing Fox to hire a terrible staff that did not compensate for Fox's known recruiting deficiencies.

The single biggest problem with Fox has been awful recruiting. I actually think he's a decent in game coach and even possibly good at developing players. But the talent he's started with has been well below Pac12 standards. Lars is a good example. He's actually improved a lot from his first year - but he's still terribly flawed. Too steep a hill to climb.

Given Cal's budget, the right thing to do would have been to swing for the fences with a guy like Gates. DeCuire would have been an ok choice as well, though I think there were bad feelings there and at the time his coaching record was arguably thinner than Foxes.

Fox is a symptom of the larger problem. Nothing will change until Christ and Knowlton decide winning is important. The next hire should be an up and coming lower division coach or high level assistant with recruiting chops. Hire a leader and support him with a staff that complements his skills.

With the right coach, Cal should be very attractive to hoops recruits, as it has been in the past. And with the NBA expected to eliminate the one and done requirement, Cal should be able to compete for the remaining talent that is picking a college with the expectation of staying for 2-4 years (i.e., looking for more than just a basketball factory). Throw in a little NIL $$ and announce a new practice facility, and Cal can be an attractive place to play.

---

As calumnus said, we don't know if there was affinity bias in the Jones hiring because there's no evidence (other than common skin color) to suggest it. Had Knowlton never said what he said, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that that's what happened. Because as I said previously, while I was initially not thrilled with the Fox hire, he was not wholly unqualified. But Knowlton told us what happened. He picked who he felt more comfortable with. That is affinity bias at work.

As I said, I haven't been watching so I won't speak to Fox's abilities as an in game coach or developer of talent. We all agree the results are beyond poor. It's a shame we still have to have these discussions because he should be fired.

One last thought. I'm curious why you think the NBA ending the requirement players wait one year before entering the NBA will benefit Cal. If the blue blood programs that currently recruit those players who will now instead go to the NBA, then they will have open spots and it seems to me there will essentially be a shift up. I'm not trying to argue, just curious what you mean and why you see it differently.

---

Ending the one and done will mean that there are a higher percentage of kids in the NCAA who are not ddrafted and thus, over time, a higher number that will gravitate toward colleges where the degree has value.

Now many of the board discount the value of truck stop schools. I think that isn't really fair (I can tell you being knee deep in the modern college search - if you are putting all your kids eggs in a basket with a 13% admit rate you are risking a gap year and continuing to stocking the fridge 24/7). But it is the case that certain schools will have a harder time because there really ins't a compelling value prop OTHER than hoop. Overall that SHOULD benefit Cal. No guarantees but should.

---

Cal8285 said:

---

GMP said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

Thanks, KAB. Looks like the more accepted term is "affinity bias."

---

So I suppose I should ask, did Williams hire Wyking because of affinity bias? This is all very reductive and reflective of a different type of bias.

Knowlton hired Fox because he was cheap, had a decent track record that (wrongly) suggested a low floor, and because Knowlton was not wanting to take a chance on a guy without a track record after Wyking's flame out. It was perceived as the safe choice and, again, Fox's came cheap. It was a bad hire and then Knowlton compounded the mistake by allowing Fox to hire a terrible staff that did not compensate for Fox's known recruiting deficiencies.

The single biggest problem with Fox has been awful recruiting. I actually think he's a decent in game coach and even possibly good at developing players. But the talent he's started with has been well below Pac12 standards. Lars is a good example. He's actually improved a lot from his first year - but he's still terribly flawed. Too steep a hill to climb.

Given Cal's budget, the right thing to do would have been to swing for the fences with a guy like Gates. DeCuire would have been an ok choice as well, though I think there were bad feelings there and at the time his coaching record was arguably thinner than Foxes.

Fox is a symptom of the larger problem. Nothing will change until Christ and Knowlton decide winning is important. The next hire should be an up and coming lower division coach or high level assistant with recruiting chops. Hire a leader and support him with a staff that complements his skills.

With the right coach, Cal should be very attractive to hoops recruits, as it has been in the past. And with the NBA expected to eliminate the one and done requirement, Cal should be able to compete for the remaining talent that is picking a college with the expectation of staying for 2-4 years (i.e., looking for more than just a basketball factory). Throw in a little NIL $$ and announce a new practice facility, and Cal can be an attractive place to play.

---

As calumnus said, we don't know if there was affinity bias in the Jones hiring because there's no evidence (other than common skin color) to suggest it. Had Knowlton never said what he said, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that that's what happened. Because as I said previously, while I was initially not thrilled with the Fox hire, he was not wholly unqualified. But Knowlton told us what happened. He picked who he felt more comfortable with. That is affinity bias at work.

As I said, I haven't been watching so I won't speak to Fox's abilities as an in game coach or developer of talent. We all agree the results are beyond poor. It's a shame we still have to have these discussions because he should be fired.

One last thought. I'm curious why you think the NBA ending the requirement players wait one year before entering the NBA will benefit Cal. If the blue blood programs that currently recruit those players who will now instead go to the NBA, then they will have open spots and it seems to me there will essentially be a shift up. I'm not trying to argue, just curious what you mean and why you see it differently.

---

There may be correlation between affinity bias and race, but that doesn't mean skin color affects the decision.

if Knowlton had said what he said when he hired Fox, but instead hired an African American who had run clean programs and proved pretty definitively that he can be a mediocre P5 coach (and likely no better), and passed over others with a higher ceiling but who weren't as good a cultural fit with Knowlton, it would still be affinity bias, and I'd still be pissed that we got a guy for how he relates to the white administrator in his late 50's as opposed to high school and college male basketball players.

I have zero doubt that affinity bias was at play in the Charmin Smith hire. When the AD with a civil engineering background hires the coach with bachelor's and master's degrees in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Stanford? Hmmmm. . . . difficult for me to believe affinity bias is not at work (and Knowlton's comments weren't as blatant as with Fox, but they still showed affinity bias). Hard to argue racism at work in that instance of affinity bias -- as I say, there may be some correlation to race, but that doesn't make it racism.

When he was hired, I actually felt that Fox at least had a higher floor than the other candidates in play, even if a much lower ceiling, and I think the majority of posters felt the same. It is turning out that Fox's floor is much lower than I thought it could be. I'll be surprised if we're better than 8-24 this year, and it certainly could be worse. Fox as a coach? Others have pointed out players who have not developed, and if you're not watching, then you can't appreciate that the offense is, um, not fun to watch (although the beauty is that I can record a game, use a 20 second skip whenever Cal gets the ball, and almost never miss anything of interest (except maybe a turnover).

For the first time in 44 years, I don't have season tickets, but I still watched Monday (going back and forth between the Warriors and Cal and using DVR recordings to shorten both). I won't go too far out of my way to watch Cal, but still, there is that ugly human tendency to be unable to turn away from a train wreck, and believe me, and the Jones/Fox years have been mostly like watching a train wreck.

---

GMP said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

Thanks, KAB. Looks like the more accepted term is "affinity bias."

---

So I suppose I should ask, did Williams hire Wyking because of affinity bias? This is all very reductive and reflective of a different type of bias.

Knowlton hired Fox because he was cheap, had a decent track record that (wrongly) suggested a low floor, and because Knowlton was not wanting to take a chance on a guy without a track record after Wyking's flame out. It was perceived as the safe choice and, again, Fox's came cheap. It was a bad hire and then Knowlton compounded the mistake by allowing Fox to hire a terrible staff that did not compensate for Fox's known recruiting deficiencies.

The single biggest problem with Fox has been awful recruiting. I actually think he's a decent in game coach and even possibly good at developing players. But the talent he's started with has been well below Pac12 standards. Lars is a good example. He's actually improved a lot from his first year - but he's still terribly flawed. Too steep a hill to climb.

Given Cal's budget, the right thing to do would have been to swing for the fences with a guy like Gates. DeCuire would have been an ok choice as well, though I think there were bad feelings there and at the time his coaching record was arguably thinner than Foxes.

Fox is a symptom of the larger problem. Nothing will change until Christ and Knowlton decide winning is important. The next hire should be an up and coming lower division coach or high level assistant with recruiting chops. Hire a leader and support him with a staff that complements his skills.

With the right coach, Cal should be very attractive to hoops recruits, as it has been in the past. And with the NBA expected to eliminate the one and done requirement, Cal should be able to compete for the remaining talent that is picking a college with the expectation of staying for 2-4 years (i.e., looking for more than just a basketball factory). Throw in a little NIL $$ and announce a new practice facility, and Cal can be an attractive place to play.

---

As calumnus said, we don't know if there was affinity bias in the Jones hiring because there's no evidence (other than common skin color) to suggest it. Had Knowlton never said what he said, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that that's what happened. Because as I said previously, while I was initially not thrilled with the Fox hire, he was not wholly unqualified. But Knowlton told us what happened. He picked who he felt more comfortable with. That is affinity bias at work.

As I said, I haven't been watching so I won't speak to Fox's abilities as an in game coach or developer of talent. We all agree the results are beyond poor. It's a shame we still have to have these discussions because he should be fired.

One last thought. I'm curious why you think the NBA ending the requirement players wait one year before entering the NBA will benefit Cal. If the blue blood programs that currently recruit those players who will now instead go to the NBA, then they will have open spots and it seems to me there will essentially be a shift up. I'm not trying to argue, just curious what you mean and why you see it differently.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

Thanks, KAB. Looks like the more accepted term is "affinity bias."

---

So I suppose I should ask, did Williams hire Wyking because of affinity bias? This is all very reductive and reflective of a different type of bias.

Knowlton hired Fox because he was cheap, had a decent track record that (wrongly) suggested a low floor, and because Knowlton was not wanting to take a chance on a guy without a track record after Wyking's flame out. It was perceived as the safe choice and, again, Fox's came cheap. It was a bad hire and then Knowlton compounded the mistake by allowing Fox to hire a terrible staff that did not compensate for Fox's known recruiting deficiencies.

The single biggest problem with Fox has been awful recruiting. I actually think he's a decent in game coach and even possibly good at developing players. But the talent he's started with has been well below Pac12 standards. Lars is a good example. He's actually improved a lot from his first year - but he's still terribly flawed. Too steep a hill to climb.

Given Cal's budget, the right thing to do would have been to swing for the fences with a guy like Gates. DeCuire would have been an ok choice as well, though I think there were bad feelings there and at the time his coaching record was arguably thinner than Foxes.

Fox is a symptom of the larger problem. Nothing will change until Christ and Knowlton decide winning is important. The next hire should be an up and coming lower division coach or high level assistant with recruiting chops. Hire a leader and support him with a staff that complements his skills.

With the right coach, Cal should be very attractive to hoops recruits, as it has been in the past. And with the NBA expected to eliminate the one and done requirement, Cal should be able to compete for the remaining talent that is picking a college with the expectation of staying for 2-4 years (i.e., looking for more than just a basketball factory). Throw in a little NIL $$ and announce a new practice facility, and Cal can be an attractive place to play.

---

As calumnus said, we don't know if there was affinity bias in the Jones hiring because there's no evidence (other than common skin color) to suggest it. Had Knowlton never said what he said, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that that's what happened. Because as I said previously, while I was initially not thrilled with the Fox hire, he was not wholly unqualified. But Knowlton told us what happened. He picked who he felt more comfortable with. That is affinity bias at work.

As I said, I haven't been watching so I won't speak to Fox's abilities as an in game coach or developer of talent. We all agree the results are beyond poor. It's a shame we still have to have these discussions because he should be fired.

One last thought. I'm curious why you think the NBA ending the requirement players wait one year before entering the NBA will benefit Cal. If the blue blood programs that currently recruit those players who will now instead go to the NBA, then they will have open spots and it seems to me there will essentially be a shift up. I'm not trying to argue, just curious what you mean and why you see it differently.

---

I see your point, but Cal has very little chance of competing with the Blue Blood programs for the current one and done type of players. Those guys don't care at all about the school or even the larger area - just a 6 month basketball decision. Jaylen Brown was a unicorn in that he appreciated Cal's off the court uniqueness.

IMO Cal has a better chance of competing with the blue bloods for players who are expecting to stick around for 2-4 years. At that point, education, cultural opportunities, weather, social life, and other factors become more important. Cal has more to offer than most on those fronts.

That is not to say the current Cal program is anywhere near competing for those players. Cal has little to offer with Fox and the current staff. But if they hire a young coach who recruits/connects with players and improves the on court product, Cal has a lot of advantages compared to SEC schools or other universities that have had basketball success (Creighton, TCU, Dayton, Texas Tech, and the mid majors). Obviously, the practice facility is a huge part of the equation, but I'm assuming that's happening in the next 3-5 years.

---

movielover said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

GMP said:

---

movielover said:

---

How you jump from 'feeling comfortable with someone' to subconscious racism is interesting, and common for some today with the "woke" culture.

First, if W Jones was the next John Wooden, he wouldn't be the #2 assistant at UW. Is that racism? BTW, I don't have the time, but if he was a coaching legend he'd be an in demand off season speaker / instructor. He seems to like professional acting.

Fox has nine 20 win seasons on his resume, not bad, but inflated w longer seasons and the CBI. 15 years HC experience vs 2 losing years (16-47). Yes, Fox was fired after going 18-15, 7-11 in league.

I'm not defending Fox, but dealing with alumni, graduating student athletes, and not having scandals matters to many ADs.

---

Re the bold: Perhaps. But in my opinion it is the older generations (Boomers and older in particular) who find no objection to hiring based off of "affinity" aka comfort level which has continued institutional racism for decades after hiring based on race was explicitly outlawed. Interestingly, as well, is that my "woke" opinion will survive long after the older generations die off. Progress.

Re the rest, you miss my point. I am not arguing Jones was good or should have been retained. Both coaches suck and deserved to be fired. Jones was. Fox wasn't.

---

I'm wondering if you are referring to "subconscious bias" or mean it a little more harshly with subconscious racism. I totally buy the narrative though that Fox is someone that Knowlton is very comfortable with and therefore is being very lenient. I also agree that with Wyking, that was just clown ball and I think letting Don Coleman do his thing compounded it. Now with Fox it's not necessarily clown ball (although that 17-1 run was just that a total embarrassment) but just bad and boring. And to make it worse, he is a much worse recruiter than Wyking. However, he really knows how to spin for self preservation, and therefore a lot of his excuses are probably plausible to Knowlton.

When is the investigation on the swim team going to be completed and will Knowlton be held accountable by being fired?

---

Thanks, KAB. Looks like the more accepted term is "affinity bias."

---

So I suppose I should ask, did Williams hire Wyking because of affinity bias? This is all very reductive and reflective of a different type of bias.

---

Again, DeCuire had a track record. ...

More importantly, African American head coaches are vastly underrepresented relative to the number of African American players and even the number of African American assistant coaches. The NFL and NBA have had to have policies to encourage owners and general managers (all white) to consciously consider more African American head coaches. To give an African American a chance to prove himself rather than hire another retread (usually white). So any "affinity bias" in Williams hiring Jones is moot. The whole concern with affinity bias in hiring is because it is a subconscious means by which historic racism in hiring is perpetuated.

Other than agreeing he is a poor recruiter, I don't agree with your assessment of Fox. He is not a very good in game coach. His offense is almost unwatchable. He does not have a great track record of developing players either, though it is tempting to give poor recruiters that label. You have to ask yourself why is he such a poor recruiter? Why don't good players want to play for him? Why did Cal's best players leave? Monty hated recruiting and was horrible at it. Yet he landed good players because they knew he was a great teacher of the game, developer of talent and great in game coach.

Agree with your last paragraph. Cal basketball should be able to turn around fairly quickly with the right coach and there are lots of up and coming coaches out there.

---

You seem to have a bias against facts. There are SEVEN black NFL GMs. Seven (7).

The NBA has four black Presidents of Basketball Operations, and three black GMs.

---