calumnus said:

---

Fox is more the old school coach with a whistle. Lou Campanelli. The drill sargent. The high school gym coach. The guy that said he is "going make you work harder than you thought possible." The guy that bragged about players vomiting from practice. He relies on hard work because he isn't that smart, which he admits. He played for Gardner junior college and then Eastern New Mexico. He was a scrapper. He is not part of a coaching tree, but he is now in the coaching club. He is not a great Xs and Os coach. His go to is forcefully getting players to play tough, physical man to man defense. As a result players get injured in practice. His recruiting is poor and his roster strategy is flawed. Like Campanelli, he not interested in hearing the player's opinions. That is insubordination. He might have to admit the guy making nothing knows more about basketball than the guy getting the $millions. So he recruits guys that are new to the game and don't know better. It is a view of the coach as the task master, the general. Absolute authority. He is just a really bad fit for Cal student athletes and for the 21st century and portal era.

---

OMG this is the perfect description. This post needs to be pinned.

Yes, the mantra of the P.E. teacher/football coach at Bishop O' Dowd 50 years ago was "Workout until you puke and then work out some more."

The response to that in 2023: ""Will the defendant please rise."

* Guys used to see birdies in PE class when we boxed without headgear. I guess it gave us "old man strength."

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

mbBear said:

---

I always want Cal to win, going back to 1975. It doesn't make the losses of this year go away. I hope the kids can get some satisfaction, and maybe less stung by the embarrassment that they have endured.
But I hope some of them get to experience a new coach for next year.

---

I expect all of them will experience a new coach. I'd be surprised if Fox gets another coaching job and if he does I'd be surprised if any of our players follow him.

---

I think he ends up as an NBA assistant...we will see if the new coach suggests to some of the players seek playing opportunities elsewhere...

---

I don't think Fox has the credibility for that. I'd bet on a D-3 job. He won't need the money after taking Cal to the cleaners for million$.

---

NBA staffs are now larger than ever, especially if you add in the G League. But even back in the day of a few coaches, I met plenty of assistants who couldn't recruit bees to honey, but are X and O geeks, and/or are long time friends and/or associates of good head coaches...Fox has now been around long enough to know a lot of guys...I believe it was Greg Popovich who lobbied on his behalf for the Cal job.
But right, he has made a lot of money, even before Cal. I think the DIII job would have to specific to a region he wants to live in, etc. I don't know a scenario that would bring him back to Nevada, but he is in their Hall of Fame, and had a terrific record there.

---

Mark Fox is not an Xs and Os geek.

But you are right, he has been around a long time and knows people. He is part of the good old boys coaching network. Braun and Monty go out of their way to find reasons to praise him. He did get that volunteer job with Team USA, so anything is possible. It is a profession that can be very clubby. Tough to break in, but once you are in, you are set for life.

---

Yup, the rule of the coaching profession is "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow coach". The only guy who broke it was Bobby Knight when talking about LSU's coach, Dale Brown: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance"

---

Dale Brown was the epitome of the Recruiting College coach...I talked to him for 20 minutes (if memory serves me), and I was ready to go run through walls for him! From that time period, Bobby Cremins of Ga. Tech, was similar...but, in a Northeastern kind of way, and was more about "how important are you to him"...of other coaches I have met, Calipari is the one that wants to charm everyone.
That's also why I said Fox was more X and O, because he isn't the "Recruiting" guy, based on results and what people have told me....I haven't met him directly. Okay, he could be neither, I guess, it's certainly not a hill I am going to die on....and frankly, after he is gone from Cal, there is no one here who cares where he ends up except to the extent if his next job off-sets the Cal financial obligation.

---

Fox is more the old school coach with a whistle. Lou Campanelli. The drill sargent. The high school gym coach. The guy that said he is "going make you work harder than you thought possible." The guy that bragged about players vomiting from practice. He relies on hard work because he isn't that smart, which he admits. He played for Gardner junior college and then Eastern New Mexico. He was a scrapper. He is not part of a coaching tree, but he is now in the coaching club. He is not a great Xs and Os coach. His go to is forcefully getting players to play tough, physical man to man defense. As a result players get injured in practice. His recruiting is poor and his roster strategy is flawed. Like Campanelli, he not interested in hearing the player's opinions. That is insubordination. He might have to admit the guy making nothing knows more about basketball than the guy getting the $millions. So he recruits guys that are new to the game and don't know better. It is a view of the coach as the task master, the general. Absolute authority. He is just a really bad fit for Cal student athletes and for the 21st century and portal era.

---

Fox is part of the Tom Asbury coaching tree, such as it is. This is (probably) why he hired and kept on another part of that tree, Marty Wilson.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

mbBear said:

---

I always want Cal to win, going back to 1975. It doesn't make the losses of this year go away. I hope the kids can get some satisfaction, and maybe less stung by the embarrassment that they have endured.
But I hope some of them get to experience a new coach for next year.

---

I expect all of them will experience a new coach. I'd be surprised if Fox gets another coaching job and if he does I'd be surprised if any of our players follow him.

---

I think he ends up as an NBA assistant...we will see if the new coach suggests to some of the players seek playing opportunities elsewhere...

---

I don't think Fox has the credibility for that. I'd bet on a D-3 job. He won't need the money after taking Cal to the cleaners for million$.

---

NBA staffs are now larger than ever, especially if you add in the G League. But even back in the day of a few coaches, I met plenty of assistants who couldn't recruit bees to honey, but are X and O geeks, and/or are long time friends and/or associates of good head coaches...Fox has now been around long enough to know a lot of guys...I believe it was Greg Popovich who lobbied on his behalf for the Cal job.
But right, he has made a lot of money, even before Cal. I think the DIII job would have to specific to a region he wants to live in, etc. I don't know a scenario that would bring him back to Nevada, but he is in their Hall of Fame, and had a terrific record there.

---

Mark Fox is not an Xs and Os geek.

But you are right, he has been around a long time and knows people. He is part of the good old boys coaching network. Braun and Monty go out of their way to find reasons to praise him. He did get that volunteer job with Team USA, so anything is possible. It is a profession that can be very clubby. Tough to break in, but once you are in, you are set for life.

---

Yup, the rule of the coaching profession is "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow coach". The only guy who broke it was Bobby Knight when talking about LSU's coach, Dale Brown: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance"

---

Dale Brown was the epitome of the Recruiting College coach...I talked to him for 20 minutes (if memory serves me), and I was ready to go run through walls for him! From that time period, Bobby Cremins of Ga. Tech, was similar...but, in a Northeastern kind of way, and was more about "how important are you to him"...of other coaches I have met, Calipari is the one that wants to charm everyone.
That's also why I said Fox was more X and O, because he isn't the "Recruiting" guy, based on results and what people have told me....I haven't met him directly. Okay, he could be neither, I guess, it's certainly not a hill I am going to die on....and frankly, after he is gone from Cal, there is no one here who cares where he ends up except to the extent if his next job off-sets the Cal financial obligation.

---

Fox is more the old school coach with a whistle. Lou Campanelli. The drill sargent. The high school gym coach. The guy that said he is "going make you work harder than you thought possible." The guy that bragged about players vomiting from practice. He relies on hard work because he isn't that smart, which he admits. He played for Gardner junior college and then Eastern New Mexico. He was a scrapper. He is not part of a coaching tree, but he is now in the coaching club. He is not a great Xs and Os coach. His go to is forcefully getting players to play tough, physical man to man defense. As a result players get injured in practice. His recruiting is poor and his roster strategy is flawed. Like Campanelli, he not interested in hearing the player's opinions. That is insubordination. He might have to admit the guy making nothing knows more about basketball than the guy getting the $millions. So he recruits guys that are new to the game and don't know better. It is a view of the coach as the task master, the general. Absolute authority. He is just a really bad fit for Cal student athletes and for the 21st century and portal era.

---

Fox is part of the Tom Asbury coaching tree, such as it is. This is (probably) why he hired and kept on another part of that tree, Marty Wilson.

---

Ok, he was an assistant at Kansas State where with Fox's help Ashbury went 85-88, 29-63. I guess that is a tree. On Ashbury's Wiki Fox,Wilson and Mark Gottfried are listed as the three branches, so we have two of them.

Another reason not to have Marty Wilson be the interim HC in the alternate universe where Knowlton fires Fox mid season.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

mbBear said:

---

I always want Cal to win, going back to 1975. It doesn't make the losses of this year go away. I hope the kids can get some satisfaction, and maybe less stung by the embarrassment that they have endured.
But I hope some of them get to experience a new coach for next year.

---

I expect all of them will experience a new coach. I'd be surprised if Fox gets another coaching job and if he does I'd be surprised if any of our players follow him.

---

I think he ends up as an NBA assistant...we will see if the new coach suggests to some of the players seek playing opportunities elsewhere...

---

I don't think Fox has the credibility for that. I'd bet on a D-3 job. He won't need the money after taking Cal to the cleaners for million$.

---

NBA staffs are now larger than ever, especially if you add in the G League. But even back in the day of a few coaches, I met plenty of assistants who couldn't recruit bees to honey, but are X and O geeks, and/or are long time friends and/or associates of good head coaches...Fox has now been around long enough to know a lot of guys...I believe it was Greg Popovich who lobbied on his behalf for the Cal job.
But right, he has made a lot of money, even before Cal. I think the DIII job would have to specific to a region he wants to live in, etc. I don't know a scenario that would bring him back to Nevada, but he is in their Hall of Fame, and had a terrific record there.

---

Mark Fox is not an Xs and Os geek.

But you are right, he has been around a long time and knows people. He is part of the good old boys coaching network. Braun and Monty go out of their way to find reasons to praise him. He did get that volunteer job with Team USA, so anything is possible. It is a profession that can be very clubby. Tough to break in, but once you are in, you are set for life.

---

Yup, the rule of the coaching profession is "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow coach". The only guy who broke it was Bobby Knight when talking about LSU's coach, Dale Brown: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance"

---

Dale Brown was the epitome of the Recruiting College coach...I talked to him for 20 minutes (if memory serves me), and I was ready to go run through walls for him! From that time period, Bobby Cremins of Ga. Tech, was similar...but, in a Northeastern kind of way, and was more about "how important are you to him"...of other coaches I have met, Calipari is the one that wants to charm everyone.
That's also why I said Fox was more X and O, because he isn't the "Recruiting" guy, based on results and what people have told me....I haven't met him directly. Okay, he could be neither, I guess, it's certainly not a hill I am going to die on....and frankly, after he is gone from Cal, there is no one here who cares where he ends up except to the extent if his next job off-sets the Cal financial obligation.

---

Fox is more the old school coach with a whistle. Lou Campanelli. The drill sargent. The high school gym coach. The guy that said he is "going make you work harder than you thought possible." The guy that bragged about players vomiting from practice. He relies on hard work because he isn't that smart, which he admits. He played for Gardner junior college and then Eastern New Mexico. He was a scrapper. He is not part of a coaching tree, but he is now in the coaching club. He is not a great Xs and Os coach. His go to is forcefully getting players to play tough, physical man to man defense. As a result players get injured in practice. His recruiting is poor and his roster strategy is flawed. Like Campanelli, he not interested in hearing the player's opinions. That is insubordination. He might have to admit the guy making nothing knows more about basketball than the guy getting the $millions. So he recruits guys that are new to the game and don't know better. It is a view of the coach as the task master, the general. Absolute authority. He is just a really bad fit for Cal student athletes and for the 21st century and portal era.

---

Fox is part of the Tom Asbury coaching tree, such as it is. This is (probably) why he hired and kept on another part of that tree, Marty Wilson.

---

Ok, he was an assistant at Kansas State where with Fox's help Ashbury went 85-88, 29-63. I guess that is a tree. On Ashbury's Wiki Fox,Wilson and Mark Gottfried are listed as the three branches, so we have two of them.

Another reason not to have Marty Wilson be the interim HC in the alternate universe where Knowlton fires Fox mid season.

---

Even that tree on "A Charlie Brown Christmas" counts as a tree!

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

mbBear said:

---

stu said:

---

mbBear said:

---

I always want Cal to win, going back to 1975. It doesn't make the losses of this year go away. I hope the kids can get some satisfaction, and maybe less stung by the embarrassment that they have endured.
But I hope some of them get to experience a new coach for next year.

---

I expect all of them will experience a new coach. I'd be surprised if Fox gets another coaching job and if he does I'd be surprised if any of our players follow him.

---

I think he ends up as an NBA assistant...we will see if the new coach suggests to some of the players seek playing opportunities elsewhere...

---

I don't think Fox has the credibility for that. I'd bet on a D-3 job. He won't need the money after taking Cal to the cleaners for million$.

---

NBA staffs are now larger than ever, especially if you add in the G League. But even back in the day of a few coaches, I met plenty of assistants who couldn't recruit bees to honey, but are X and O geeks, and/or are long time friends and/or associates of good head coaches...Fox has now been around long enough to know a lot of guys...I believe it was Greg Popovich who lobbied on his behalf for the Cal job.
But right, he has made a lot of money, even before Cal. I think the DIII job would have to specific to a region he wants to live in, etc. I don't know a scenario that would bring him back to Nevada, but he is in their Hall of Fame, and had a terrific record there.

---

Mark Fox is not an Xs and Os geek.

But you are right, he has been around a long time and knows people. He is part of the good old boys coaching network. Braun and Monty go out of their way to find reasons to praise him. He did get that volunteer job with Team USA, so anything is possible. It is a profession that can be very clubby. Tough to break in, but once you are in, you are set for life.

---

Yup, the rule of the coaching profession is "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow coach". The only guy who broke it was Bobby Knight when talking about LSU's coach, Dale Brown: "I was worried about losing until I looked down the floor and saw Dale Brown. Then I knew we had a chance"

---

Dale Brown was the epitome of the Recruiting College coach...I talked to him for 20 minutes (if memory serves me), and I was ready to go run through walls for him! From that time period, Bobby Cremins of Ga. Tech, was similar...but, in a Northeastern kind of way, and was more about "how important are you to him"...of other coaches I have met, Calipari is the one that wants to charm everyone.
That's also why I said Fox was more X and O, because he isn't the "Recruiting" guy, based on results and what people have told me....I haven't met him directly. Okay, he could be neither, I guess, it's certainly not a hill I am going to die on....and frankly, after he is gone from Cal, there is no one here who cares where he ends up except to the extent if his next job off-sets the Cal financial obligation.

---

Fox is more the old school coach with a whistle. Lou Campanelli. The drill sargent. The high school gym coach. The guy that said he is "going make you work harder than you thought possible." The guy that bragged about players vomiting from practice. He relies on hard work because he isn't that smart, which he admits. He played for Gardner junior college and then Eastern New Mexico. He was a scrapper. He is not part of a coaching tree, but he is now in the coaching club. He is not a great Xs and Os coach. His go to is forcefully getting players to play tough, physical man to man defense. As a result players get injured in practice. His recruiting is poor and his roster strategy is flawed. Like Campanelli, he not interested in hearing the player's opinions. That is insubordination. He might have to admit the guy making nothing knows more about basketball than the guy getting the $millions. So he recruits guys that are new to the game and don't know better. It is a view of the coach as the task master, the general. Absolute authority. He is just a really bad fit for Cal student athletes and for the 21st century and portal era.

---

I like that good description, summation. I wonder if a lot of that was the key to his success at Nevada, and then didn't translate at the higher levels of Georgia and Cal? Although Nevada isn't exactly DIII....

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

Fox is part of the Tom Asbury coaching tree, such as it is. This is (probably) why he hired and kept on another part of that tree, Marty Wilson.

---

Ok, he was an assistant at Kansas State where with Fox's help Ashbury went 85-88, 29-63. I guess that is a tree. On Ashbury's Wiki Fox,Wilson and Mark Gottfried are listed as the three branches, so we have two of them.

Another reason not to have Marty Wilson be the interim HC in the alternate universe where Knowlton fires Fox mid season.

---

Even that tree on "A Charlie Brown Christmas" counts as a tree!

---

Every coach is part of a tree because they probably started out as an assistant somewhere. I didn't take Calumnus literally. But his point is clear, Fox's coaching network is not impressive. Nobody but the hardcore knows who Tom Asbury is. Although I do recall him being a candidate when Bozeman left I believe. He's tight with Trent Johnson--ok. He's friends with Jeff Van Gundy--fine. But his current assistants are blah and don't seem to be helping much. And as far as I know, nobody who has assisted for Fox has made any noise. I haven't bothered to do any research but we'd probably know that by now.

SBGold = Oracle.....I don't know who you are but would ya like to take a trip to Vegas with me?

SBGold, you are gold indeed. Your OP on 12/22 had a Midas touch.

Good for you. I really admire and appreciate your optimism and ability to continue to root along with our Bears even as the team has struggled badly this season (and prior seasons), yet without losing sight of the problems of the program. Strikes me as the right balance for us fans.

I'm still not ready to move these conference wins out of the fluke category, but like you I've gotten real enjoyment out of watching the Bears play pretty good looking ball the past couple weeks. Hopefully it will continue. Will be interesting to see how they fold Askew back in.

Kudos to you, SB, and Go Bears!!

We have to win the pac12 tournament to get to the post season. I dont think we would even have a chance at the Nit if we won out

oskidunker said:

---

We have to win the pac12 tournament to get to the post season. I dont think we would even have a chance at the Nit if we won out

---

If CAL win's out, they would be one of the biggest stories in NCAA basketball, would be ranked - having beaten UCLA, AZ, Utah, etc and would be 18-13 prior to the PAC 12 tourney. Having won 16 games in a row, they'd make the NCAA tourney. Plenty of 18 win teams have made it in the past and none of them won their last 16 regular season games.

graguna said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

We have to win the pac12 tournament to get to the post season. I dont think we would even have a chance at the Nit if we won out

---

If CAL win's out, they would be one of the biggest stories in NCAA basketball, would be ranked - having beaten UCLA, AZ, Utah, etc and would be 18-13 prior to the PAC 12 tourney. Having won 16 games in a row, they'd make the NCAA tourney. Plenty of 18 win teams have made it in the past and none of them won their last 16 regular season games.

---

If we win out we win the PAC-12 Tournament and get the auto bid as official PAC-12 Conference Champs, though we would probably be regular season champs as well.

Possible that no one else from the PAC-12 would go. Everyone's RPI's and computer rankings would be trash due to our OOC record.

If we win out we then go on to win the National Championship.

drizzlybear said:

---

SBGold, you are gold indeed. Your OP on 12/22 had a Midas touch.

Good for you. I really admire and appreciate your optimism and ability to continue to root along with our Bears even as the team has struggled badly this season (and prior seasons), yet without losing sight of the problems of the program. Strikes me as the right balance for us fans.

I'm still not ready to move these conference wins out of the fluke category, but like you I've gotten real enjoyment out of watching the Bears play pretty good looking ball the past couple weeks. Hopefully it will continue. Will be interesting to see how they fold Askew back in.

Kudos to you, SB, and Go Bears!!

---

Thanks Drizzly, I'm well aware of our deficiencies and while I did not see the Colo game, I did see most of the Fraud game and our deficiencies were really bailed out by fluky 3 point shooting. Clayton seems to cover up some of our flaws on offense, which will not happen in a lot of games (especially on the road). The Fraud game did cause me some concern on the boards, especially offensive. We are terrible at blocking out. Fraud got a lot of easy buckets and shot a high percentage but lost by 22. That won't happen often.

Personally, I would fold Askew in as a 6th man type. Don't give him free rein to be ball dominant, but ask that he come in and drive and attack the D.

Improve the d, try to play games in the 50s and 60s, and hopefully we can be competitive in some of these Pac 12 games. Go Bears!

SBGold said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

SBGold, you are gold indeed. Your OP on 12/22 had a Midas touch.

Good for you. I really admire and appreciate your optimism and ability to continue to root along with our Bears even as the team has struggled badly this season (and prior seasons), yet without losing sight of the problems of the program. Strikes me as the right balance for us fans.

I'm still not ready to move these conference wins out of the fluke category, but like you I've gotten real enjoyment out of watching the Bears play pretty good looking ball the past couple weeks. Hopefully it will continue. Will be interesting to see how they fold Askew back in.

Kudos to you, SB, and Go Bears!!

---

Thanks Drizzly, I'm well aware of our deficiencies and while I did not see the Colo game, I did see most of the Fraud game and our deficiencies were really bailed out by fluky 3 point shooting. Clayton seems to cover up some of our flaws on offense, which will not happen in a lot of games (especially on the road). The Fraud game did cause me some concern on the boards, especially offensive. We are terrible at blocking out. Fraud got a lot of easy buckets and shot a high percentage but lost by 22. That won't happen often.

Personally, I would fold Askew in as a 6th man type. Don't give him free rein to be ball dominant, but ask that he come in and drive and attack the D.

Improve the d, try to play games in the 50s and 60s, and hopefully we can be competitive in some of these Pac 12 games. Go Bears!

---

I agree with you about Cal's rebounding - nobody blocks out. But if, by "play games in the 50s and 60s", you mean Cal should slow down their offense, I'm going to disagree. I don't believe this team can play "burn the clock" for 20 seconds of every possession and then suddenly get aggressive and score. I'm not saying they should fast-break or jack up a 3 at every possession, but they need to run their offense with the intent of creating a GOOD shot opportunity as soon as possible. They shouldn't make the shot-clock their enemy by waiting for the last few seconds to rush a shot.

SBGold said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

SBGold, you are gold indeed. Your OP on 12/22 had a Midas touch.

Good for you. I really admire and appreciate your optimism and ability to continue to root along with our Bears even as the team has struggled badly this season (and prior seasons), yet without losing sight of the problems of the program. Strikes me as the right balance for us fans.

I'm still not ready to move these conference wins out of the fluke category, but like you I've gotten real enjoyment out of watching the Bears play pretty good looking ball the past couple weeks. Hopefully it will continue. Will be interesting to see how they fold Askew back in.

Kudos to you, SB, and Go Bears!!

---

Thanks Drizzly, I'm well aware of our deficiencies and while I did not see the Colo game, I did see most of the Fraud game and our deficiencies were really bailed out by fluky 3 point shooting. Clayton seems to cover up some of our flaws on offense, which will not happen in a lot of games (especially on the road). The Fraud game did cause me some concern on the boards, especially offensive. We are terrible at blocking out. Fraud got a lot of easy buckets and shot a high percentage but lost by 22. That won't happen often.

Personally, I would fold Askew in as a 6th man type. Don't give him free rein to be ball dominant, but ask that he come in and drive and attack the D.

Improve the d, try to play games in the 50s and 60s, and hopefully we can be competitive in some of these Pac 12 games. Go Bears!

---

Hate to make a conclusion based on a small sample size, but I have to agree with you. The ball movement by our offense without Askew in the lineup has looked so much better. Don't expect to shoot the way we did against the Furd again, but offense will still be more productive with the ball touching more hands in the half court offense.

HearstMining said:

---

SBGold said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

SBGold, you are gold indeed. Your OP on 12/22 had a Midas touch.

Good for you. I really admire and appreciate your optimism and ability to continue to root along with our Bears even as the team has struggled badly this season (and prior seasons), yet without losing sight of the problems of the program. Strikes me as the right balance for us fans.

I'm still not ready to move these conference wins out of the fluke category, but like you I've gotten real enjoyment out of watching the Bears play pretty good looking ball the past couple weeks. Hopefully it will continue. Will be interesting to see how they fold Askew back in.

Kudos to you, SB, and Go Bears!!

---

Thanks Drizzly, I'm well aware of our deficiencies and while I did not see the Colo game, I did see most of the Fraud game and our deficiencies were really bailed out by fluky 3 point shooting. Clayton seems to cover up some of our flaws on offense, which will not happen in a lot of games (especially on the road). The Fraud game did cause me some concern on the boards, especially offensive. We are terrible at blocking out. Fraud got a lot of easy buckets and shot a high percentage but lost by 22. That won't happen often.

Personally, I would fold Askew in as a 6th man type. Don't give him free rein to be ball dominant, but ask that he come in and drive and attack the D.

Improve the d, try to play games in the 50s and 60s, and hopefully we can be competitive in some of these Pac 12 games. Go Bears!

---

I agree with you about Cal's rebounding - nobody blocks out. But if, by "play games in the 50s and 60s", you mean Cal should slow down their offense, I'm going to disagree. I don't believe this team can play "burn the clock" for 20 seconds of every possession and then suddenly get aggressive and score. I'm not saying they should fast-break or jack up a 3 at every possession, but they need to run their offense with the intent of creating a GOOD shot opportunity as soon as possible. They shouldn't make the shot-clock their enemy by waiting for the last few seconds to rush a shot.

---

I don't know if SBGold was implying that Cal should INTENTIONALLY minimize the number of possessions (slow down the game) by playing in the 50's and 60s or play to our strengths which may mean lower scoring games than average. Scoring and speed have a strong correlation - but with TODAY's common styles in college basketball (I know, not trying to get at Fox - living in the 90s), game scores seem to fall into these bands:

1. Intentionally slowing the game (FOX has pretty much declared this his mantra, but may have stepped away from it in Askew's absence). trying for 40' and 50's, but usually in the 60's - due to the inability to enforce ones will on the opponenent. Again - not sure this is what SBGold meant - if so, I disagree with him.

2. Intentionally speeding up the game. This would be in the 90's or higher - but could also be in the 80's depending on the opponent. When I spoke to Wyking at the beginning of his tenure - this is what he told me he wanted to do. Primarily because he thought he could recruit for it the best.

3. Playing to ones natural strengths. By this, I mean there is less focus on constantly forcing tempo and more focus on doing so tactically (i.e. end of game - foul problems - matchups) and taking what the defense gives. This could be anywhere from scores in the 60's & 70's to the 70' and 80's depending on what type of horses you have on your team.

I would prefer this years Cal team to play style 3 - probably on the low end due to our talent/depth. That means I'd like to see us scoring in the high 60s and 70s. A couple decades ago, all of these numbers may have been 10 pts lower - but the game has changed.

BeachedBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

SBGold said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

SBGold, you are gold indeed. Your OP on 12/22 had a Midas touch.

Good for you. I really admire and appreciate your optimism and ability to continue to root along with our Bears even as the team has struggled badly this season (and prior seasons), yet without losing sight of the problems of the program. Strikes me as the right balance for us fans.

I'm still not ready to move these conference wins out of the fluke category, but like you I've gotten real enjoyment out of watching the Bears play pretty good looking ball the past couple weeks. Hopefully it will continue. Will be interesting to see how they fold Askew back in.

Kudos to you, SB, and Go Bears!!

---

Thanks Drizzly, I'm well aware of our deficiencies and while I did not see the Colo game, I did see most of the Fraud game and our deficiencies were really bailed out by fluky 3 point shooting. Clayton seems to cover up some of our flaws on offense, which will not happen in a lot of games (especially on the road). The Fraud game did cause me some concern on the boards, especially offensive. We are terrible at blocking out. Fraud got a lot of easy buckets and shot a high percentage but lost by 22. That won't happen often.

Personally, I would fold Askew in as a 6th man type. Don't give him free rein to be ball dominant, but ask that he come in and drive and attack the D.

Improve the d, try to play games in the 50s and 60s, and hopefully we can be competitive in some of these Pac 12 games. Go Bears!

---

I agree with you about Cal's rebounding - nobody blocks out. But if, by "play games in the 50s and 60s", you mean Cal should slow down their offense, I'm going to disagree. I don't believe this team can play "burn the clock" for 20 seconds of every possession and then suddenly get aggressive and score. I'm not saying they should fast-break or jack up a 3 at every possession, but they need to run their offense with the intent of creating a GOOD shot opportunity as soon as possible. They shouldn't make the shot-clock their enemy by waiting for the last few seconds to rush a shot.

---

I don't know if SBGold was implying that Cal should INTENTIONALLY minimize the number of possessions (slow down the game) by playing in the 50's and 60s or play to our strengths which may mean lower scoring games than average. Scoring and speed have a strong correlation - but with TODAY's common styles in college basketball (I know, not trying to get at Fox - living in the 90s), game scores seem to fall into these bands:

1. Intentionally slowing the game (FOX has pretty much declared this his mantra, but may have stepped away from it in Askew's absence). trying for 40' and 50's, but usually in the 60's - due to the inability to enforce ones will on the opponenent. Again - not sure this is what SBGold meant - if so, I disagree with him.

2. Intentionally speeding up the game. This would be in the 90's or higher - but could also be in the 80's depending on the opponent. When I spoke to Wyking at the beginning of his tenure - this is what he told me he wanted to do. Primarily because he thought he could recruit for it the best.

3. Playing to ones natural strengths. By this, I mean there is less focus on constantly forcing tempo and more focus on doing so tactically (i.e. end of game - foul problems - matchups) and taking what the defense gives. This could be anywhere from scores in the 60's & 70's to the 70' and 80's depending on what type of horses you have on your team.

I would prefer this years Cal team to play style 3 - probably on the low end due to our talent/depth. That means I'd like to see us scoring in the high 60s and 70s. A couple decades ago, all of these numbers may have been 10 pts lower - but the game has changed.

---

Good questions and good points. When I mentioned playing in the 50s and 60s, I'm more thinking about what our top level is for O and where we need our games to be at to be competitive. I don't see our team playing in the 70s or usually upper 60s in most games. I went to the Utah game and I think we scored 38 at home.

For offense, I just want a team that moves the all around, attacks the basket and draws fouls. And limits stupid turnovers. Even though we are bad on O we are pretty okay at the stripe.