A good week coming up!

2,004 Views | 37 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by oskidunker
calfanz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, the end is finally getting near.

We have an entire week before we head down to Stanford to Play the Cardinal.

We can put in an interim coach, and give him a few days to prop the guys up for their stretch run. Every game, every quarter is important. No reason to waste any more time with Coach Mark Fox.

Mr. Knowlton if you actually care about the Fans or the Student-Athletes, you will bring in new blood NOW!
Alkiadt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calfanz said:

Yes, the end is finally getting near.

We have an entire week before we head down to Stanford to Play the Cardinal.

We can put in an interim coach, and give him a few days to prop the guys up for their stretch run. Every game, every quarter is important. No reason to waste any more time with Coach Mark Fox.

Mr. Knowlton if you actually care about the Fans or the Student-Athletes, you will bring in new blood NOW!


Nothing will happen without donors buying out Fox.
Knowlton does not have the funds to do it. And he won't get it from the chancellor. Not a knock on her, but it's the economics that count.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alkiadt said:

calfanz said:

Yes, the end is finally getting near.

We have an entire week before we head down to Stanford to Play the Cardinal.

We can put in an interim coach, and give him a few days to prop the guys up for their stretch run. Every game, every quarter is important. No reason to waste any more time with Coach Mark Fox.

Mr. Knowlton if you actually care about the Fans or the Student-Athletes, you will bring in new blood NOW!


Nothing will happen without donors buying out Fox.
Knowlton does not have the funds to do it. And he won't get it from the chancellor. Not a knock on her, but it's the economics that count.


Put him on paid admin leave then until we are ready to buy him out. He is doing doing more harm than good.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Alkiadt said:

calfanz said:

Yes, the end is finally getting near.

We have an entire week before we head down to Stanford to Play the Cardinal.

We can put in an interim coach, and give him a few days to prop the guys up for their stretch run. Every game, every quarter is important. No reason to waste any more time with Coach Mark Fox.

Mr. Knowlton if you actually care about the Fans or the Student-Athletes, you will bring in new blood NOW!


Nothing will happen without donors buying out Fox.
Knowlton does not have the funds to do it. And he won't get it from the chancellor. Not a knock on her, but it's the economics that count.


Put him on paid admin leave then until we are ready to buy him out. He is doing doing more harm than good.
I hope "him" refers to Knowlton.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Alkiadt said:

calfanz said:

Yes, the end is finally getting near.

We have an entire week before we head down to Stanford to Play the Cardinal.

We can put in an interim coach, and give him a few days to prop the guys up for their stretch run. Every game, every quarter is important. No reason to waste any more time with Coach Mark Fox.

Mr. Knowlton if you actually care about the Fans or the Student-Athletes, you will bring in new blood NOW!


Nothing will happen without donors buying out Fox.
Knowlton does not have the funds to do it. And he won't get it from the chancellor. Not a knock on her, but it's the economics that count.


Put him on paid admin leave then until we are ready to buy him out. He is doing doing more harm than good.


Agreed. Promote Andrew Francis to interim head coach. It costs nothing but would be best both for the players and for the program (and for the fans) which is what the AD is supposed to care about.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's do some revolutionary... Let's fire the whole staff and have no coaches. We can promise recruits they can coach themselves. It can't get worse.
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alkiadt said:

calfanz said:

Yes, the end is finally getting near.

We have an entire week before we head down to Stanford to Play the Cardinal.

We can put in an interim coach, and give him a few days to prop the guys up for their stretch run. Every game, every quarter is important. No reason to waste any more time with Coach Mark Fox.

Mr. Knowlton if you actually care about the Fans or the Student-Athletes, you will bring in new blood NOW!


Nothing will happen without donors buying out Fox.
Knowlton does not have the funds to do it. And he won't get it from the chancellor. Not a knock on her, but it's the economics that count.
knowlton doesn't need the chancellor to fire fox, he doesn't want to take any action so he's putting the ball back Iii the donors court.despite the fact it was his gross mismanagement that extended fox's contract thru 2025..the athletic dept has the funds to buy out fox but that would mean streaming expenses for his 30+ empire of sports almost nobody cares about & he's not gonna do that

plus chancellor christ is probably gonna retire in the next couple of months

knowton grew up in maassachusetts playing hockey & never really had much interest in football & basketball, his knowledge of both is minimal (he told me directly that musgrave was a "genius")

this is all about his protecting his the cashflow that is necessary to pay his annual $1,300,000+ salary & the bureaucrats he's surrounded himself with in his ineptitude
calfanz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I always root for the Bears. I feel for the players, and the dedicated fans (like me)

But JK is so very dense, I'm sorta thrilled this record gives him no wiggle room.

Now do Mark and the kids a favor, and let him GO!
Alkiadt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

Alkiadt said:

calfanz said:

Yes, the end is finally getting near.

We have an entire week before we head down to Stanford to Play the Cardinal.

We can put in an interim coach, and give him a few days to prop the guys up for their stretch run. Every game, every quarter is important. No reason to waste any more time with Coach Mark Fox.

Mr. Knowlton if you actually care about the Fans or the Student-Athletes, you will bring in new blood NOW!


Nothing will happen without donors buying out Fox.
Knowlton does not have the funds to do it. And he won't get it from the chancellor. Not a knock on her, but it's the economics that count.
knowlton doesn't need the chancellor to fire fox, he doesn't want to take any action so he's putting the ball back Iii the donors court.despite the fact it was his gross mismanagement that extended fox's contract thru 2025..the athletic dept has the funds to buy out fox but that would mean streaming expenses for his 30+ empire of sports almost nobody cares about & he's not gonna do that

plus chancellor christ is probably gonna retire in the next couple of months

knowton grew up in maassachusetts playing hockey & never really had much interest in football & basketball, his knowledge of both is minimal (he told me directly that musgrave was a "genius")

this is all about his protecting his the cashflow that is necessary to pay his annual $1,300,000+ salary & the bureaucrats he's surrounded himself with in his ineptitude


Wrong.
He won't get the chancellor to pay the buyout.
I'm no Knowlton fan, but he doesn't have the checkbook to do it without donor participation.
If anyone should know this it's you.
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agreed, the chancellor who may be gone in a couple of months will not pay the buyout from her discretionary fund

but knowlton got the ability to make the buyout with athletic department funds if he chooses to do so but it will require him to start making the tough decisions that will eventually need to be made such as cutting sports which will require reclassifying rugby as a club sport & cutting baseball even to tho he's signed an agreement of support thru 2035...and it would require managing expenses for his entire department including markeisha everrett's bloated 11 person communications department which could be rightsized to 2-3 people, that's the buyout money right there

why should donors pay for the buyout when he's the dumb azz who extended the head coach thru 2025 without consulting with anybody?

the other major issue is the con artist's $125,000,000+ basketball/olympic sports practice facility which is never gonna be built, there's a better chance of getting hit by an asteroid from uranus than the 1st shovel ever going into the ground on this

alky, we want the same thing, the magic of cal basketball at haas pavilion

we both probably laugh when casual fans say we nobody will want to take the job when there's literally every up & coming assistant coach & mid major head coach including joe pasternak that would jump at the opportunity to make $1,900,000+ in the san francisco bay area building a legit program

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

agreed, the chancellor who may be gone in a couple of months will not pay the buyout from her discretionary fund

but knowlton got the ability to make the buyout with athletic department funds if he chooses to do so but it will require him to start making the tough decisions that will eventually need to be made such as cutting sports which will require reclassifying rugby as a club sport & cutting baseball even to tho he's signed an agreement of support thru 2035...and it would require managing expenses for his entire department including markeisha everrett's bloated 11 person communications department which could be rightsized to 2-3 people, that's the buyout money right there

why should donors pay for the buyout when he's the dumb azz who extended the head coach thru 2025 without consulting with anybody?

the other major issue is the con artist's $125,000,000+ basketball/olympic sports practice facility which is never gonna be built, there's a better chance of getting hit by an asteroid from uranus than the 1st shovel ever going into the ground on this

alky, we want the same thing, the magic of cal basketball at haas pavilion

we both probably laugh when casual fans say we nobody will want to take the job when there's literally every up & coming assistant coach & mid major head coach including joe pasternak that would jump at the opportunity to make $1,900,000+ in the san francisco bay area building a legit program




Taking out the escalation, Fox is scheduled to be paid $1.9 million per year through 2025.

If we fire him now he gets 100% of 2023 and 2024, but only 50% of 2025.

Assuming we were willing to continue paying $1.9 per year after 2025, we could fire Fox now, make Francis the interim and offer a new coach next year a 4 year contract at $1.2 million a year that could be increased to $1.9 for (warranted) contract extensions. This is all essentially at zero net cost, so within the AD's current budget. Add in incentives for bringing in more revenue through increased ticket sales or post-season appearances.

I think $1.2 million with incentives gets a good up and coming young coach. Again, Pasternak makes $375,000 at UCSB.

"Needing money to fire Fox" is just Knowlton blackmailing donors for his mistake(s). In a just world the cost of his mistakes would be deducted from the amount we owe him when we fire him.

We should fire Fox, make Francis the interim, hire a (young upcoming) new coach for next year at $1.2 million for 4 years and the donors should keep their money away from Knowlton and give to the NIL collective.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Remember we had Buh still on salary but doing some desk job for a while? Well we can do something like that with Fox although I would just tell him go take a vacation on admin leave on us, until we get our act together to figure out a buyout (it would be discounted for present value). I would rather not see him shaking his head with a scowl on the bench and his pathetic pressers anymore.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everyone is overthinking this.

Just terminate Fox for cause. Or fraud. Or many other reasons he has violated his contract in four years pretending to be a coach.

If that doesn't work, just hand him a shovel - and tell him to start work on the dedicated practice facility. I bet he'll stop digging and quit in a week.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

Everyone is overthinking this.

Just terminate Fox for cause. Or fraud. Or many other reasons he has violated his contract in four years pretending to be a coach.

If that doesn't work, just hand him a shovel - and tell him to start work on the dedicated practice facility. I bet he'll stop digging and quit in a week.
I don't know about that. 4 years ago Knowlton put himself in a hole and he's still digging.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sadly I just can not imagine the extent to which incremental revenue TANKS even more (or perhaps we are really at the bottom of the barrel) if they bring back a coach who wins THREE games. THINK ABOUT THAT. THREE.

Now I love Shock and while I believe that Christ WILL retire soon it won't be in 2-3 months. She may ANNOUNCE retiring but the way these things work in higher ed it is unlikely she is gone prior to at LEAST the start of the Fall Semester and much more likely would announce, search comm set up with the timeline to have the transition to occur in May/June of 2024.

Failure to terminate him will have lasting impacts on the cash cow that is football - because what message doesn't it send about your department's commitment to excellence is you keep a coach who won THREE GAMES.
Take care of your Chicken
Alkiadt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shocky1 said:

agreed, the chancellor who may be gone in a couple of months will not pay the buyout from her discretionary fund

but knowlton got the ability to make the buyout with athletic department funds if he chooses to do so but it will require him to start making the tough decisions that will eventually need to be made such as cutting sports which will require reclassifying rugby as a club sport & cutting baseball even to tho he's signed an agreement of support thru 2035...and it would require managing expenses for his entire department including markeisha everrett's bloated 11 person communications department which could be rightsized to 2-3 people, that's the buyout money right there

why should donors pay for the buyout when he's the dumb azz who extended the head coach thru 2025 without consulting with anybody?

the other major issue is the con artist's $125,000,000+ basketball/olympic sports practice facility which is never gonna be built, there's a better chance of getting hit by an asteroid from uranus than the 1st shovel ever going into the ground on this

alky, we want the same thing, the magic of cal basketball at haas pavilion

we both probably laugh when casual fans say we nobody will want to take the job when there's literally every up & coming assistant coach & mid major head coach including joe pasternak that would jump at the opportunity to make $1,900,000+ in the san francisco bay area building a legit program


When Birgeneau and Barbour tried to cut baseball and reclassify Rugby to a Club sport, the net was a large financial negative to the campus, (not athletics). There are some campus donating whales that donate to rugby, baseball and water sports....those donors threatened to pull campus donations too. That's why that decision was reversed.

It sounds simple to cut some sports...but it will likely cost the campus some big donors. Many here are overlooking that part of the puzzle when they focus on how the AD can turn things around. There's a much bigger picture.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alkiadt said:

Shocky1 said:

agreed, the chancellor who may be gone in a couple of months will not pay the buyout from her discretionary fund

but knowlton got the ability to make the buyout with athletic department funds if he chooses to do so but it will require him to start making the tough decisions that will eventually need to be made such as cutting sports which will require reclassifying rugby as a club sport & cutting baseball even to tho he's signed an agreement of support thru 2035...and it would require managing expenses for his entire department including markeisha everrett's bloated 11 person communications department which could be rightsized to 2-3 people, that's the buyout money right there

why should donors pay for the buyout when he's the dumb azz who extended the head coach thru 2025 without consulting with anybody?

the other major issue is the con artist's $125,000,000+ basketball/olympic sports practice facility which is never gonna be built, there's a better chance of getting hit by an asteroid from uranus than the 1st shovel ever going into the ground on this

alky, we want the same thing, the magic of cal basketball at haas pavilion

we both probably laugh when casual fans say we nobody will want to take the job when there's literally every up & coming assistant coach & mid major head coach including joe pasternak that would jump at the opportunity to make $1,900,000+ in the san francisco bay area building a legit program


When Birgeneau and Barbour tried to cut baseball and reclassify Rugby to a Club sport, the net was a large financial negative to the campus, (not athletics). There are some campus donating whales that donate to rugby, baseball and water sports....those donors threatened to pull campus donations too. That's why that decision was reversed.

It sounds simple to cut some sports...but it will likely cost the campus some big donors. Many here are overlooking that part of the puzzle when they focus on how the AD can turn things around. There's a much bigger picture.

The issue has to be though then the "tax" that is imposed upon those donations.

Lets say that Baseball is important to donor X and they make their general donation contingent to baseball remaining. Now that is GREAT for Baseball (and the general endownment) but who gets hurt on this is the other sports who have to subsidize baseball directly (and the GE indirectly).

I am all fine and dandy with targetted donations. Happens ALL the time. But a good university will really think about how this hurts the overall strategic mission and the main issue right now is that we have sports that require subsidies (because of the nature of TV viewership) and who is paying those subsidies are the 2 revenue sports. To add fuel to the fire its is middle class afrtican american kids who largely are paying it - to the benfit of upper middle class white kids whose entry to cal is facilitated by playing non -revenue sports.
Take care of your Chicken
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

Alkiadt said:

Shocky1 said:

agreed, the chancellor who may be gone in a couple of months will not pay the buyout from her discretionary fund

but knowlton got the ability to make the buyout with athletic department funds if he chooses to do so but it will require him to start making the tough decisions that will eventually need to be made such as cutting sports which will require reclassifying rugby as a club sport & cutting baseball even to tho he's signed an agreement of support thru 2035...and it would require managing expenses for his entire department including markeisha everrett's bloated 11 person communications department which could be rightsized to 2-3 people, that's the buyout money right there

why should donors pay for the buyout when he's the dumb azz who extended the head coach thru 2025 without consulting with anybody?

the other major issue is the con artist's $125,000,000+ basketball/olympic sports practice facility which is never gonna be built, there's a better chance of getting hit by an asteroid from uranus than the 1st shovel ever going into the ground on this

alky, we want the same thing, the magic of cal basketball at haas pavilion

we both probably laugh when casual fans say we nobody will want to take the job when there's literally every up & coming assistant coach & mid major head coach including joe pasternak that would jump at the opportunity to make $1,900,000+ in the san francisco bay area building a legit program


When Birgeneau and Barbour tried to cut baseball and reclassify Rugby to a Club sport, the net was a large financial negative to the campus, (not athletics). There are some campus donating whales that donate to rugby, baseball and water sports....those donors threatened to pull campus donations too. That's why that decision was reversed.

It sounds simple to cut some sports...but it will likely cost the campus some big donors. Many here are overlooking that part of the puzzle when they focus on how the AD can turn things around. There's a much bigger picture.

The issue has to be though then the "tax" that is imposed upon those donations.

Lets say that Baseball is important to donor X and they make their general donation contingent to baseball remaining. Now that is GREAT for Baseball (and the general endownment) but who gets hurt on this is the other sports who have to subsidize baseball directly (and the GE indirectly).

I am all fine and dandy with targetted donations. Happens ALL the time. But a good university will really think about how this hurts the overall strategic mission and the main issue right now is that we have sports that require subsidies (because of the nature of TV viewership) and who is paying those subsidies are the 2 revenue sports. To add fuel to the fire its is middle class afrtican american kids who largely are paying it - to the benfit of upper middle class white kids whose entry to cal is facilitated by playing non -revenue sports.
I'm assuming you meant basketball as one of the revenue sports, but how can we consider it such, with only a handful of fans buying tickets? TV revenues can't be enough to subsidize much, can they?
SFCityBear
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

Everyone is overthinking this.

Just terminate Fox for cause. Or fraud. Or many other reasons he has violated his contract in four years pretending to be a coach.

If that doesn't work, just hand him a shovel - and tell him to start work on the dedicated practice facility. I bet he'll stop digging and quit in a week.
I understand the firing for cause, which I assume is losing too many games, but where is the fraud for which he should be fired? And where has he violated his contract? Just asking.
SFCityBear
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

BeachedBear said:

Everyone is overthinking this.

Just terminate Fox for cause. Or fraud. Or many other reasons he has violated his contract in four years pretending to be a coach.

If that doesn't work, just hand him a shovel - and tell him to start work on the dedicated practice facility. I bet he'll stop digging and quit in a week.
I understand the firing for cause, which I assume is losing too many games, but where is the fraud for which he should be fired? And where has he violated his contract? Just asking.
He has not.
Go Bears!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

socaltownie said:

Alkiadt said:

Shocky1 said:

agreed, the chancellor who may be gone in a couple of months will not pay the buyout from her discretionary fund

but knowlton got the ability to make the buyout with athletic department funds if he chooses to do so but it will require him to start making the tough decisions that will eventually need to be made such as cutting sports which will require reclassifying rugby as a club sport & cutting baseball even to tho he's signed an agreement of support thru 2035...and it would require managing expenses for his entire department including markeisha everrett's bloated 11 person communications department which could be rightsized to 2-3 people, that's the buyout money right there

why should donors pay for the buyout when he's the dumb azz who extended the head coach thru 2025 without consulting with anybody?

the other major issue is the con artist's $125,000,000+ basketball/olympic sports practice facility which is never gonna be built, there's a better chance of getting hit by an asteroid from uranus than the 1st shovel ever going into the ground on this

alky, we want the same thing, the magic of cal basketball at haas pavilion

we both probably laugh when casual fans say we nobody will want to take the job when there's literally every up & coming assistant coach & mid major head coach including joe pasternak that would jump at the opportunity to make $1,900,000+ in the san francisco bay area building a legit program


When Birgeneau and Barbour tried to cut baseball and reclassify Rugby to a Club sport, the net was a large financial negative to the campus, (not athletics). There are some campus donating whales that donate to rugby, baseball and water sports....those donors threatened to pull campus donations too. That's why that decision was reversed.

It sounds simple to cut some sports...but it will likely cost the campus some big donors. Many here are overlooking that part of the puzzle when they focus on how the AD can turn things around. There's a much bigger picture.

The issue has to be though then the "tax" that is imposed upon those donations.

Lets say that Baseball is important to donor X and they make their general donation contingent to baseball remaining. Now that is GREAT for Baseball (and the general endownment) but who gets hurt on this is the other sports who have to subsidize baseball directly (and the GE indirectly).

I am all fine and dandy with targetted donations. Happens ALL the time. But a good university will really think about how this hurts the overall strategic mission and the main issue right now is that we have sports that require subsidies (because of the nature of TV viewership) and who is paying those subsidies are the 2 revenue sports. To add fuel to the fire its is middle class afrtican american kids who largely are paying it - to the benfit of upper middle class white kids whose entry to cal is facilitated by playing non -revenue sports.
I'm assuming you meant basketball as one of the revenue sports, but how can we consider it such, with only a handful of fans buying tickets? TV revenues can't be enough to subsidize much, can they?


Definitely a revenue sport.

The PAC-12 shares TV revenues equally so we draft off of UCLA and Arizona.

The question of whether basketball is "profitable" and generates a lot of excess revenue depends a lot on accounting.

Here is a pretty good analysis:
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/does-cal-still-view-mbb-as-a-revenue
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Hi SF City! Beached Bear is venting his frustrations. Losing does not constitute "for cause". There are specific stipulations in the contract (doing post-game pressers during the season was identified here as one of those, recently). There is also a "conduct" clause, which is what's often violated in the case of "for cause" terminations.

Coaches whose problem is that they are not succeeding vis-a-vis W/L need to be terminated "without cause". You could edit a "low light" video of plays this season that would be enough to make a Furdie laugh, but it wouldn't be sufficient to warrant a for-cause termination.

One of the things that irks me about Fox (probably 3rd or 4th priority though) is that he does pretty much the bare minimum to promote the program... but makes sure to do those post-game pressers! Okay I guess higher on the list would be having a program more worthy of promoting.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

SFCityBear said:

BeachedBear said:

Everyone is overthinking this.

Just terminate Fox for cause. Or fraud. Or many other reasons he has violated his contract in four years pretending to be a coach.

If that doesn't work, just hand him a shovel - and tell him to start work on the dedicated practice facility. I bet he'll stop digging and quit in a week.
I understand the firing for cause, which I assume is losing too many games, but where is the fraud for which he should be fired? And where has he violated his contract? Just asking.
He has not.


Agreed, nothing substantial. That is why he is showing up for post game interviews, because not doing so would be a clear violation.

There are claims here he is holding out players as an excuse for losing. If he is doing that I would say that is a violation of his contract, but even that would be hard to prove because you need to know his intent, and he can just say he is looking out for player health and welfare.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


Hi SF City! Beached Bear is venting his frustrations. Losing does not constitute "for cause". There are specific stipulations in the contract (doing post-game pressers during the season was identified here as one of those, recently). There is also a "conduct" clause, which is what's often violated in the case of "for cause" terminations.

Coaches whose problem is that they are not succeeding vis-a-vis W/L need to be terminated "without cause". You could edit a "low light" video of plays this season that would be enough to make a Furdie laugh, but it wouldn't be sufficient to warrant a for-cause termination.

One of the things that irks me about Fox (probably 3rd or 4th priority though) is that he does pretty much the bare minimum to promote the program... but makes sure to do those post-game pressers! Okay I guess higher on the list would be having a program more worthy of promoting.
This. The man is SO mailing it in. I have watched losing coaches (see Tedford during the Poncho period) who literally were slowing killing themselves over the losses and trying to do everything to keep interest high.

THen there is Mark Fox.
Take care of your Chicken
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


Hi SF City! Beached Bear is venting his frustrations. Losing does not constitute "for cause". There are specific stipulations in the contract (doing post-game pressers during the season was identified here as one of those, recently). There is also a "conduct" clause, which is what's often violated in the case of "for cause" terminations.

Coaches whose problem is that they are not succeeding vis-a-vis W/L need to be terminated "without cause". You could edit a "low light" video of plays this season that would be enough to make a Furdie laugh, but it wouldn't be sufficient to warrant a for-cause termination.

One of the things that irks me about Fox (probably 3rd or 4th priority though) is that he does pretty much the bare minimum to promote the program... but makes sure to do those post-game pressers! Okay I guess higher on the list would be having a program more worthy of promoting.


Exactly, there is vague language in the contract that you could make an argument he is not fulfilling, but nothing substantial. He just needs to get through the next two months going through the motions without blowing up at reporters, shoving players or fans or doing anything egregious. Sadly, not caring is his safest path to getting paid $millions.
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Remember we had Buh still on salary but doing some desk job for a while? Well we can do something like that with Fox although I would just tell him go take a vacation on admin leave on us, until we get our act together to figure out a buyout (it would be discounted for present value). I would rather not see him shaking his head with a scowl on the bench and his pathetic pressers anymore.
I don't know why people blame Fox or Knowlton when we can just blame Buh.

I don't understand, however, why anyone would want to play for Fox.

I went to my one (and likely only) game of the season on Sunday, bought seats at a good price on the secondary market way down low, west side between center court and the end of the Cal bench. I had a nice view of Fox for the game, and with that small crowd, from that distance you could hear a lot.

What is truly remarkable is that the shaking his head with a scowl is constant, whether he is on the bench or standing closer to center court to call out a play, whether things are going well for the Bears (which wasn't much in that game) or poorly. Harriman at least knows how to be encouraging players at times and not being constantly disgusted and contemptuous. The muttering of f bombs from Fox is quite frequent, so much that my wife called the f bomb "the official swear word of the Golden Bears basketball team." To be fair, however, he drops his god damns in there, too.

My wife was amazed that Fox could spend two whole hours constantly looking angry, annoyed, irritated, and/or contemptuous. In my opinion, the contemptuous is the worst part. Express an attitude of contempt towards your players and it is hard to get 40 minutes of max effort out of them. And why would anyone sign up to play for this guy who shows such contempt for his players, and it is there on his face for everyone to see? Even if they're playing poorly, be a coach, not a contemptuous jerk.

I realize that Sunday's game was overall pretty horrific, but we played pretty good D for 15 minutes. And for the whole game, some (not all) of the 3's we gave up were tough shots that you have to live with if they go in.

With 5 minutes left in the half, we were up 12-11. 11 points surrendered in 15 minutes! Is that a D problem? OSU had the ball near the end of a well defended possession, and Akanno, shooting 24% from 3 coming into the game, hits a desperation 3 as the shot clock expires with 4:54 left in the half. Okay, maybe Newell could have gotten a little closer because Akanno didn't have any time to drive past him, but otherwise you don't really want to be to tight on the 24% 3 point shooter who can drive past you. Lars then got 3 of his 5 points (fouled by Akanno on his layup, hits the and-one), Cal back up 15-14. We play another 28 seconds of good D and Akanno scores in the paint as the shot clock expires, maybe Roberson should have gotten more help because the shot clock was expiring and there probably wasn't time for a pass and score. Looking at video of the telecast, Monty and Robinson were (justifiably) praising the D on that possession, but it was the possession that gave OSU the lead for good at 16-15, and arguably there was a lapse at the end. Akanno gets a deflection on the next Cal possession, OSU gets the ball, and with around 10 seconds left on the shot clock, Akanno gets a decent look and hits a 3, getting some space again perhaps because he was shooting 24% coming into the game.

Fox calls timeout with 3:13 left in the half, there is no form of encouragement for what has been right on D, just total Fox negativity. OK, maybe he needed to make some adjustments, Akanno has now hit his third 3 of the game, so point out that the game plan wasn't to guard him close but he's hot from 3, and change it up a little. Maybe Fox did that, I don't know, but Fox was clearly not being at all encouraging, just displaying that attitude of anger, annoyance, irritation, and contempt.

I'm thinking, I hope Fox's attitude doesn't cause the team to go into the tank. My wife agreed. Guess what? The team goes into the tank for the rest of the half, the Bears don't score again, have a really stupid end of the half possession with a desperation Askew 3 pointer with enough time on the clock for OSU to get a transition 2 pointer at the horn and we're now down 27-15.

And the loss was because of poor D? If there was poor D for much of the last 23 minutes, I think it was largely because Fox's attitude made for worse D. And when the team scores 15 points in the first half and 30 total in the first 34 minutes (before OSU up 28 quits playing hard and yields 18 points in the last six minutes), I don't know how you have a postgame presser and blame the D. I seriously think Buh deserves about as much blame as the D.

Then there was a second half Fox interaction with the officials that drove me crazy. With around 7 minutes left in the game, Okafor blocks a shot down low but the ball goes right to OSU for a put back, OSU now up 56-30. The ball is inbounded quickly and Brown goes pretty quickly. Fox is standing right in front of me on the sidelines so I see him signaling calmly for Cal's final timeout, not sure when he started. The refs don't grant a timeout, Brown is pushing the ball, he sees an opening and drives to the bucket but slips and can't get rid of the ball before he is out of bounds.

Fox is pissed at the refs for not granting a timeout. Since it isn't the last two minutes of the second half or an overtime period, either Fox has to have called it before the ball was inbounded or a player has to call it with a live ball. I'm not sure if Fox thinks he called it before the ball was inbounded (if he did, he didn't yell for it and Cal inbounded quickly), or if he thinks a Cal player saw his signal and called for a timeout while Brown was pushing ahead (fast action where it would be hard to see a player off the ball calling a TO).

In any event, one of the refs responds to Fox from across the court, "My bad." I'm not sure why it was his bad, maybe it was, maybe he's just trying to placate Fox. Fox, however, is having none of that. The ref repeats his "My bad." Fox is disgusted, and goes ahead and calls his last timeout. Towards the end of the timeout, the ref is by the Cal bench talking with Fox again, and Fox is still pissed at the ref. The ref is calmly trying to explain something to Fox, but Fox just wants to be disgusted with the ref, even though the ref took the blame. The expression I read on the ref's face was an exasperated, eye-rolling, "What a jerk" expression. What a great way to have a good relationship with the officials, you can't simply accept a "my bad" and move on when you're down 26 late in the game, instead acting contemptuously toward the ref and making him think you're a jerk for the next time for the next time he calls your game.

I wish Knowlton could say, "My bad," fire Fox, and move on. If the Bears were winning, I still wouldn't want Fox as coach. If the price of winning is having a guy like that as coach, I'd rather lose. But having a guy like that in order to have the worst team in Cal history? Good grief.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yessir another masterpiece by @8285, which is a welcome sight and a reminder of better days.

It is incredulous to believe that we have been through the early days of Ben Braun, Monty, Cuonzo, Wyking and Fox. How in the world are we in such a pathetic spot?

You nailed it on the head on what is the worst about Fox, and it's not just the recruiting or the coaching, which is beyond horrible at this point. On top of that he has contempt for his players, who are still playing their asses off, especially on defense, with 3 wins to their credit and a coach that constantly blames them for playing poorly. If it is true that Knowlton didn't protect the student-athletes on the women's swim team when they came to him for help, he is not protecting our men's basketball student athletes from this guy's unrestricted frustrations.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
8285

i am not as close to you but see the same behavior from Fox (you can also get glimpses from TV) and have commented several times

He also does a terrible post game interview which Ive also commented

His demeanor and body language are incredibly bad, but another view into his mindset is he never compliments his players, talk in a hopeful way about the teams future, etc

its always the gloomy, excuse filled narrative and even when he says anything remotely positive, it's always with an matter of fact manner with zero humor

in contrast, Monty answered with intelligent responses where you felt he was talking straight and providing real information about the game

In contrast to Coach Charmin, she usually talks realistically but optimistically about her teams future and praises the players for what they did right balanced with areas that the players need to improve

two different approaches and both vastly better than Fox

so much of the game is about confidence. so much of the game is emotional. i can't imagine Fox's approach is motivating and effective, especially with these players in the current college sports environment
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

8285

i am not as close to you but see the same behavior from Fox (you can also get glimpses from TV) and have commented several times

He also does a terrible post game interview which Ive also commented

His demeanor and body language are incredibly bad, but another view into his mindset is he never compliments his players, talk in a hopeful way about the teams future, etc

its always the gloomy, excuse filled narrative and even when he says anything remotely positive, it's always with an matter of fact manner with zero humor

in contrast, Monty answered with intelligent responses where you felt he was talking straight and providing real information about the game

In contrast to Coach Charmin, she usually talks realistically but optimistically about her teams future and praises the players for what they did right balanced with areas that the players need to improve

two different approaches and both vastly better than Fox

so much of the game is about confidence. so much of the game is emotional. i can't imagine Fox's approach is motivating and effective, especially with these players in the current college sports environment


Mark Fox has been coaching for a long time. He has not had a personality transplant. Who he is has been on full display for decades. That is why I was horrified that we hired him. My pointing this out was called "smearing a good man." I am not calling him a "bad man" (I said "unpleasant") but my point has consistently been that his personality and coaching style is just a horrible fit for Cal, for Cal student athletes in the 21st century and the portal era. The best recruiters as assistants cannot overcome the fact that Fox is the guy they will be playing for. Moreover, it is the opposite of the positive coaching principles my father has dedicated much of his life to writing about, so yeah, I have an opinion about it.

I so wish we had hired Dennis Gates instead.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

SFCityBear said:

socaltownie said:

Alkiadt said:

Shocky1 said:

agreed, the chancellor who may be gone in a couple of months will not pay the buyout from her discretionary fund

but knowlton got the ability to make the buyout with athletic department funds if he chooses to do so but it will require him to start making the tough decisions that will eventually need to be made such as cutting sports which will require reclassifying rugby as a club sport & cutting baseball even to tho he's signed an agreement of support thru 2035...and it would require managing expenses for his entire department including markeisha everrett's bloated 11 person communications department which could be rightsized to 2-3 people, that's the buyout money right there

why should donors pay for the buyout when he's the dumb azz who extended the head coach thru 2025 without consulting with anybody?

the other major issue is the con artist's $125,000,000+ basketball/olympic sports practice facility which is never gonna be built, there's a better chance of getting hit by an asteroid from uranus than the 1st shovel ever going into the ground on this

alky, we want the same thing, the magic of cal basketball at haas pavilion

we both probably laugh when casual fans say we nobody will want to take the job when there's literally every up & coming assistant coach & mid major head coach including joe pasternak that would jump at the opportunity to make $1,900,000+ in the san francisco bay area building a legit program


When Birgeneau and Barbour tried to cut baseball and reclassify Rugby to a Club sport, the net was a large financial negative to the campus, (not athletics). There are some campus donating whales that donate to rugby, baseball and water sports....those donors threatened to pull campus donations too. That's why that decision was reversed.

It sounds simple to cut some sports...but it will likely cost the campus some big donors. Many here are overlooking that part of the puzzle when they focus on how the AD can turn things around. There's a much bigger picture.

The issue has to be though then the "tax" that is imposed upon those donations.

Lets say that Baseball is important to donor X and they make their general donation contingent to baseball remaining. Now that is GREAT for Baseball (and the general endownment) but who gets hurt on this is the other sports who have to subsidize baseball directly (and the GE indirectly).

I am all fine and dandy with targetted donations. Happens ALL the time. But a good university will really think about how this hurts the overall strategic mission and the main issue right now is that we have sports that require subsidies (because of the nature of TV viewership) and who is paying those subsidies are the 2 revenue sports. To add fuel to the fire its is middle class afrtican american kids who largely are paying it - to the benfit of upper middle class white kids whose entry to cal is facilitated by playing non -revenue sports.
I'm assuming you meant basketball as one of the revenue sports, but how can we consider it such, with only a handful of fans buying tickets? TV revenues can't be enough to subsidize much, can they?


Definitely a revenue sport.

The PAC-12 shares TV revenues equally so we draft off of UCLA and Arizona.

The question of whether basketball is "profitable" and generates a lot of excess revenue depends a lot on accounting.

Here is a pretty good analysis:
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/does-cal-still-view-mbb-as-a-revenue

FWIW most Pac men's basketball programs break around even, except in very bad year or good years, UofA being the exception (always makes good money). Th article is pretty much on track. For the risk adverse, this means spending big bucks on a coach is a suboptimal approach.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

8285

i am not as close to you but see the same behavior from Fox (you can also get glimpses from TV) and have commented several times

He also does a terrible post game interview which Ive also commented

His demeanor and body language are incredibly bad, but another view into his mindset is he never compliments his players, talk in a hopeful way about the teams future, etc

its always the gloomy, excuse filled narrative and even when he says anything remotely positive, it's always with an matter of fact manner with zero humor

in contrast, Monty answered with intelligent responses where you felt he was talking straight and providing real information about the game

In contrast to Coach Charmin, she usually talks realistically but optimistically about her teams future and praises the players for what they did right balanced with areas that the players need to improve

two different approaches and both vastly better than Fox

so much of the game is about confidence. so much of the game is emotional. i can't imagine Fox's approach is motivating and effective, especially with these players in the current college sports environment
Wow, Monty being mentioned in the same post as Fox. Talk about contrasting coaching abilities. Monty even changed approaches with players from second to second. Some players were given confidence building pep talks at the same time he was lowering the boom on guys who needed a kick in the arse. The one time I saw Fox was at a Pac 12 tourney when the guys upset Furd. Man has just beaten an arch rival and all he could do was yell nasty at his players. What a nice send to remember the coach by after the tournament had just been cancelled due to C-19. You wonder why so many good players transfer...
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal8285 said:

KoreAmBear said:

Remember we had Buh still on salary but doing some desk job for a while? Well we can do something like that with Fox although I would just tell him go take a vacation on admin leave on us, until we get our act together to figure out a buyout (it would be discounted for present value). I would rather not see him shaking his head with a scowl on the bench and his pathetic pressers anymore.
I don't know why people blame Fox or Knowlton when we can just blame Buh.

I don't understand, however, why anyone would want to play for Fox.

I went to my one (and likely only) game of the season on Sunday, bought seats at a good price on the secondary market way down low, west side between center court and the end of the Cal bench. I had a nice view of Fox for the game, and with that small crowd, from that distance you could hear a lot.

What is truly remarkable is that the shaking his head with a scowl is constant, whether he is on the bench or standing closer to center court to call out a play, whether things are going well for the Bears (which wasn't much in that game) or poorly. Harriman at least knows how to be encouraging players at times and not being constantly disgusted and contemptuous. The muttering of f bombs from Fox is quite frequent, so much that my wife called the f bomb "the official swear word of the Golden Bears basketball team." To be fair, however, he drops his god damns in there, too.

My wife was amazed that Fox could spend two whole hours constantly looking angry, annoyed, irritated, and/or contemptuous. In my opinion, the contemptuous is the worst part. Express an attitude of contempt towards your players and it is hard to get 40 minutes of max effort out of them. And why would anyone sign up to play for this guy who shows such contempt for his players, and it is there on his face for everyone to see? Even if they're playing poorly, be a coach, not a contemptuous jerk.

I realize that Sunday's game was overall pretty horrific, but we played pretty good D for 15 minutes. And for the whole game, some (not all) of the 3's we gave up were tough shots that you have to live with if they go in.

With 5 minutes left in the half, we were up 12-11. 11 points surrendered in 15 minutes! Is that a D problem? OSU had the ball near the end of a well defended possession, and Akanno, shooting 24% from 3 coming into the game, hits a desperation 3 as the shot clock expires with 4:54 left in the half. Okay, maybe Newell could have gotten a little closer because Akanno didn't have any time to drive past him, but otherwise you don't really want to be to tight on the 24% 3 point shooter who can drive past you. Lars then got 3 of his 5 points (fouled by Akanno on his layup, hits the and-one), Cal back up 15-14. We play another 28 seconds of good D and Akanno scores in the paint as the shot clock expires, maybe Roberson should have gotten more help because the shot clock was expiring and there probably wasn't time for a pass and score. Looking at video of the telecast, Monty and Robinson were (justifiably) praising the D on that possession, but it was the possession that gave OSU the lead for good at 16-15, and arguably there was a lapse at the end. Akanno gets a deflection on the next Cal possession, OSU gets the ball, and with around 10 seconds left on the shot clock, Akanno gets a decent look and hits a 3, getting some space again perhaps because he was shooting 24% coming into the game.

Fox calls timeout with 3:13 left in the half, there is no form of encouragement for what has been right on D, just total Fox negativity. OK, maybe he needed to make some adjustments, Akanno has now hit his third 3 of the game, so point out that the game plan wasn't to guard him close but he's hot from 3, and change it up a little. Maybe Fox did that, I don't know, but Fox was clearly not being at all encouraging, just displaying that attitude of anger, annoyance, irritation, and contempt.

I'm thinking, I hope Fox's attitude doesn't cause the team to go into the tank. My wife agreed. Guess what? The team goes into the tank for the rest of the half, the Bears don't score again, have a really stupid end of the half possession with a desperation Askew 3 pointer with enough time on the clock for OSU to get a transition 2 pointer at the horn and we're now down 27-15.

And the loss was because of poor D? If there was poor D for much of the last 23 minutes, I think it was largely because Fox's attitude made for worse D. And when the team scores 15 points in the first half and 30 total in the first 34 minutes (before OSU up 28 quits playing hard and yields 18 points in the last six minutes), I don't know how you have a postgame presser and blame the D. I seriously think Buh deserves about as much blame as the D.

Then there was a second half Fox interaction with the officials that drove me crazy. With around 7 minutes left in the game, Okafor blocks a shot down low but the ball goes right to OSU for a put back, OSU now up 56-30. The ball is inbounded quickly and Brown goes pretty quickly. Fox is standing right in front of me on the sidelines so I see him signaling calmly for Cal's final timeout, not sure when he started. The refs don't grant a timeout, Brown is pushing the ball, he sees an opening and drives to the bucket but slips and can't get rid of the ball before he is out of bounds.

Fox is pissed at the refs for not granting a timeout. Since it isn't the last two minutes of the second half or an overtime period, either Fox has to have called it before the ball was inbounded or a player has to call it with a live ball. I'm not sure if Fox thinks he called it before the ball was inbounded (if he did, he didn't yell for it and Cal inbounded quickly), or if he thinks a Cal player saw his signal and called for a timeout while Brown was pushing ahead (fast action where it would be hard to see a player off the ball calling a TO).

In any event, one of the refs responds to Fox from across the court, "My bad." I'm not sure why it was his bad, maybe it was, maybe he's just trying to placate Fox. Fox, however, is having none of that. The ref repeats his "My bad." Fox is disgusted, and goes ahead and calls his last timeout. Towards the end of the timeout, the ref is by the Cal bench talking with Fox again, and Fox is still pissed at the ref. The ref is calmly trying to explain something to Fox, but Fox just wants to be disgusted with the ref, even though the ref took the blame. The expression I read on the ref's face was an exasperated, eye-rolling, "What a jerk" expression. What a great way to have a good relationship with the officials, you can't simply accept a "my bad" and move on when you're down 26 late in the game, instead acting contemptuously toward the ref and making him think you're a jerk for the next time for the next time he calls your game.

I wish Knowlton could say, "My bad," fire Fox, and move on. If the Bears were winning, I still wouldn't want Fox as coach. If the price of winning is having a guy like that as coach, I'd rather lose. But having a guy like that in order to have the worst team in Cal history? Good grief.


Great post. Agree 100%
Oakbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Take care of your chicken"

JK almost got it, cept he took care of his turkey
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

BeachedBear said:

Everyone is overthinking this.

Just terminate Fox for cause. Or fraud. Or many other reasons he has violated his contract in four years pretending to be a coach.

If that doesn't work, just hand him a shovel - and tell him to start work on the dedicated practice facility. I bet he'll stop digging and quit in a week.
I understand the firing for cause, which I assume is losing too many games, but where is the fraud for which he should be fired? And where has he violated his contract? Just asking.
Nope. W/L is not for cause. There are other itemized stipulations in his contract. If I have time, I'll dig through and point them out.

As for fraud - that is just me being sardonic - he's pretending to be a real coach.
SRBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I appreciate the donors but they also have to look at the big picture.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.