Fox was OK for a mid-major 20 years ago, That was enough to get him a P5 job that he held onto for 9 years before getting fired. He sat out a year and Cal picked him up off the garbage pile.

I think his success at Nevada was overvalued. He was playing out the players and system that Trent had put in place. But he did so well enough to get uplifted. That was the only time he moved up. Taking over at Cal after Jones/Williams debacle was a lateral mercy move at best.

I also think Fox does well with the older coaching fraternity and AD speak. That is why he stayed so long at Georgia and why he remains at Cal.

Defensively, his scheme seems designed well, but executed poorly. This could be due to talent or coaching.

Offensively, his schemes seem outdated AND poorly executed. He hides it by limiting posessions. The W/L wouldn't be different, but I'm confident we would score better and look better if he just rolled out the ball and todl the players to have fun.

Off the court and outside of practice, FOX is missing every box and shows no sign of changing.

Other coaches and commentators will say Fox is doing an admirable job, given the challenges. But it is pretty obvious that they simply feel sorry for him and have nothing better to say about him.

Like so many others, what made me a success in my 20s and 30s was outdated by my forties. I've adapted and changed every five years since then. Most people do. Fox doesn't - he is sort of a backwards unicorn.

eastcoastcal said:

---

Before you immediately reply he's awful, let me explain the question: He's obviously a terrible recruiter but one question which has been on my mind, and I don't believe has fully been debated on this board, at least formally, is whether Fox is a decent/mediocre coach who has awful results because of terrible recruiting, or is he both a terrible recruiter and coach (in terms of gameplanning and in-game coaching)?

As noted in the recent article BI published, Fox was considered a good coach at least in terms of x's and o's coming into this job. Additionally, supposedly the players respect his game-planning & basketball knowledge. However, watching the games, our spacing & off-ball movement are atrocious, and at times this team looks like it is learning how to play competitive basketball for the first time.

With that in mind, what do you guys think? Is Fox an okay/mediocre coach in terms of scheme/x's and o's, or is he a bad coach in addition to his obvious awfulness at recruiting

---

I think you left out a couple of important components of being a head coach. Can he inspire his players and does he bring anything to the table in terms of engaging fans. That said, I think he is a terrible coach. Obviously he can't recruit, which is totally unsurprising to me considering how he treats players. He's never encouraging, totally impatient, and throws them under the bus instead of ever taking responsibility for his inability to do anything beyond the pedestrian in terms of strategy or tactics. There's nothing creative about his coaching on either side of the ball. After five decades of this crap (OK, it may only feel that long) how would you describe the identity of a Mark Fox coached team, other than really bad? Slow-paced and boring yet inefficient? Slow-placed and inefficient and boring? Boring, slow-paced and inefficient and with no hope for the future?

He sucks. He's worse than Dick Edwards at the end, and those teams were my first as a Cal student. I've been a fan through bad and good and bad and good, but I'm no longer a fan. I don't even know when they're playing this year because I'm not willing to invest one bit of emotion into this heap of crap. Wyking was more fun than this. That should tell you all you need to know.

This may not just be about Fox but his coaching staff too, but he is the one that constructed it.

Who can you say has gotten better since this coaching staff has been here?

I would say Lars and 2K, but even those guys incrementally. Lars does has good footwork now in the post and a soft touch, but overall he still struggles with so many other things. 2K is also better, but still plays at times like he's 1st or 2nd year in the program. Besides them, I mean Grant didn't get much better over 6 years, Joel has had so much placed on him and he is such a great/smart kid (Haas Business School), but we underutilize his speed and he still has a hard time finishing. Guys like Hyder, Bowser, Roberson -- they haven't gotten any better.

The developmental aspect of this coaching staff is really poor. I mean even with just fundamentals like rebounding.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Who can you say has gotten better since this coaching staff has been here?

---

Paris Austin improved greatly on defense under Fox. That may have been more due to motivation than to technique but it was real.

I think you can take what has been posted here, put it together, and you've mostly got the answers.

Fox has never been considered a good x's and o's offensive coach.

Those who say the game has passed him by are essentially correct. When socaltownie says he's a poor man's Ben Howland, that's pretty accurate in terms of x's and o's, Howland was better at other aspects of coaching.

I do think his defensive schemes are good, and concernedparent correctly says that on defense it is more complicated. While part of the defensive numbers are deceptive due to tempo, I also believe his defensive efficiency numbers aren't as good as they should be purely based on scheme, partly because it is difficult to play good defense for 40 minutes when the offense stinks. If a) Fox could avoid having the opposition get transition buckets from the bad offense, and b) the Fox defense could maintain its focus and intensity for 40 minutes in spite of the offense stinking up the joint and it feeling like there is little hope for victory, I think Fox's defensive efficiency numbers would look a lot better. Those two "ifs," however, are too often missing. Then there is also the question of having players who can execute the scheme, and whether Fox has enough of them to play 40 minutes of quality defense.

As also discussed, player development also appears to be an issue. It isn't the case that he gets no development out of anybody, but the amount of development is less than what you expect from a good coach.

Outside of both the sales aspect and the scouting aspect of recruiting, Fox's style might once have been ok for recruiting if he were a proven winner, but it is now a big problem, because not only is it even harder to recruit guys to play for his "poor man's Ben Howland" scheme, it is also harder to recruit guys to play for an old school guy, a boring offensive coach who always seems angry, annoyed, irritated, and/or contemptuous. Life is too short for most recruits to want to play for a guy like that (even if he has been a consistent winner, in 2023 too many players just won't go there), and in the era of the portal and no sit outs, it is also too easy to lose talent when guys are fed up with it. Part of this ties into what was mentioned elsewhere, the inability to inspire players.

One thing I will say in Fox's favor, the players give better effort than I think most coaches could get when the team is pretty much out of a game, or when the season is clearly going nowhere. That says something for the coaching staff. The bad news is that we get way too many chances to see that in action.

Fox's inability to engage fans has been pointed out, which isn't really either an x's and o'x or a recruiting issue, but is a coach issue. The number one thing that will get fans engaged is winning, but especially since there is no winning, it would be nice if Fox could do other things to engage fans, but it just isn't him.

Throw all of this together and you to where Cal basketball is today. Ugh.

I think on some level that trying to analyze Fox's "coaching" ability masks a much bigger issue, which is that the job of a P5 men's basketball coach encompasses a whole lot of things, of which x's and o's offensive/defensive coaching is but a part. Any narrow focus on just one aspect of his responsibilities only serves to muddy the waters of how awful a P5 head coach he is.

Basically, he should receive an F or F- in recruiting, player retention, media relations, fan base engagement, program promotion and sideline demeanor in games to just mention a few of those roles. I think that he should also receive an F or F- in his offensive x's and o's coaching, but others may argue that he might be worthy of a C- or D there. I even think his defensive coaching has been atrocious this year, as our defensive efficiency is very poor by advanced metrics. Others have analyzed quite well how even in the coaching his style is one better suited to the game 20 years ago or so.

So what is the point of trying to isolate how good he is at just one part of the overall responsibilities for which he is incredibly well compensated, when the overall picture is quite clear?

(edited to fix an incomplete sentence)

Fox may be a decent on-court, X's and O's coach under the right circumstances, but just watching the games this season (and I have watched most all of them, many in person), we often look totally clueless out there, and this with a roster that is more experienced than most.

So no, he is failing at the X's and O's this year.

I believe what happened was, because it was the best he could do, he got guys who were mostly kind of long and kind of athletic, hoping he could coach 'em up. He could not, clearly.

Right now, it is a failure in all areas, at all levels. I'm glad for the players that they were able to have that little 3-of-4 win spurt. Maybe they can get 1-2 more. They are good guys, out there trying their best.

bluesaxe said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Before you immediately reply he's awful, let me explain the question: He's obviously a terrible recruiter but one question which has been on my mind, and I don't believe has fully been debated on this board, at least formally, is whether Fox is a decent/mediocre coach who has awful results because of terrible recruiting, or is he both a terrible recruiter and coach (in terms of gameplanning and in-game coaching)?

As noted in the recent article BI published, Fox was considered a good coach at least in terms of x's and o's coming into this job. Additionally, supposedly the players respect his game-planning & basketball knowledge. However, watching the games, our spacing & off-ball movement are atrocious, and at times this team looks like it is learning how to play competitive basketball for the first time.

With that in mind, what do you guys think? Is Fox an okay/mediocre coach in terms of scheme/x's and o's, or is he a bad coach in addition to his obvious awfulness at recruiting

---

I think you left out a couple of important components of being a head coach. Can he inspire his players and does he bring anything to the table in terms of engaging fans. That said, I think he is a terrible coach. Obviously he can't recruit, which is totally unsurprising to me considering how he treats players. He's never encouraging, totally impatient, and throws them under the bus instead of ever taking responsibility for his inability to do anything beyond the pedestrian in terms of strategy or tactics. There's nothing creative about his coaching on either side of the ball. After five decades of this crap (OK, it may only feel that long) how would you describe the identity of a Mark Fox coached team, other than really bad? Slow-paced and boring yet inefficient? Slow-placed and inefficient and boring? Boring, slow-paced and inefficient and with no hope for the future?

He sucks. He's worse than Dick Edwards at the end, and those teams were my first as a Cal student. I've been a fan through bad and good and bad and good, but I'm no longer a fan. I don't even know when they're playing this year because I'm not willing to invest one bit of emotion into this heap of crap. Wyking was more fun than this. That should tell you all you need to know.

---

Exactly. Summed up my feelings perfectly.

When Cal beat his Georgia team on a neutral court by 30 or something as he fumed and yelled at his players and the refs, then acted pissed like he had been wronged and threw his players under the bus in the post game I thought "I am so glad THAT guy is not Cal's coach." He would have been on my list of worst possible coaches to hire for Cal, and I am serious. He is a Frankenstein's monster of the worst traits in a basketball gosch. There are guys that are jerks, but they really know their basketball. Then there are guys that are jerks, in part because of, or to hide, the fact that they do not have any answers because they are not very smart and really don't know the game deeply. They think the answer is always "try harder" and tgey do that by screaming louder.

The sooner he is gone the better.

BeachedBear said:

---

Like so many others, what made me a success in my 20s and 30s was outdated by my forties. I've adapted and changed every five years since then. Most people do. Fox doesn't - he is sort of a backwards unicorn.

---

Eastcoast... not answering your question but want to specifically call out the bolded for you... as someone at the beginning of what I am sure will be a terrific career (in whatever you do) the above is some of the best advice I ever received.

"Be careful, because what's holding you back from future success is what made you successful in the past."

Now that's not to say that practicing a skill doesn't matter, or a good work ethic isn't important, but like Beached said, the world changes - fast - and we need to adapt.

Cal8285 said:

---

Fox's inability to engage fans has been pointed out, which isn't really either an x's and o'x or a recruiting issue, but is a coach issue. The number one thing that will get fans engaged is winning, but especially since there is no winning, it would be nice if Fox could do other things to engage fans, but it just isn't him.

Throw all of this together and you to where Cal basketball is today. Ugh.

---

I think this point would have been good for him at the beginning. But by this year it was too late. In fact, the more I saw him the less I wanted to see him (or Cal). They had some social media post of him at the Notre Dame game and it reflexively made me angry to see him featured. That's how bad it is.

Oakbear said:

---

stu said:

---

In my inexpert opinion Fox is a fair-to-goof defensive coach and a poor offensive coach. To me the offense looks disorganized but that could be partly due to recruiting players without great offensive skills.

---

this, he is a 50% coach, and frankly, his lack of offensive coaching leads to some of his recruiting difficulties

---

We are in the 200's in defensive efficiency. He produces teams with low opponent points per game by slowing down the game on offense (we are near last in the country, in the 350s in tempo), creating the illusion of good defense. He His defensive sets are not particularly sophisticated. Pretty much straight up man defense as he was probably taught in high school and junior college. We are particularly bad at dealing with screens, switching and defending the 3. He just really emphasizes effort on defense, expending energy, staying glued to your man, denying the ball and shots, and gets that by being an in your face hard ass. Again, probably the way it was taught to him in high school.

TheFiatLux said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Like so many others, what made me a success in my 20s and 30s was outdated by my forties. I've adapted and changed every five years since then. Most people do. Fox doesn't - he is sort of a backwards unicorn.

---

Eastcoast... not answering your question but want to specifically call out the bolded for you... as someone at the beginning of what I am sure will be a terrific career (in whatever you do) the above is some of the best advice I ever received.

"Be careful, because what's holding you back from future success is what made you successful in the past."

Now that's not to say that practicing a skill doesn't matter, or a good work ethic isn't important, but like Beached said, the world changes - fast - and we need to adapt.

---

noted & your advice is always appreciated. Thank you, sincerely.

how funny it is, that a school like cal, which produces some of the most advanced companies and innovations which constantly have to adapt to a fast-paced world and competitive landscape, can still be so slow moving and opposed to creative & adaptive thinking when it comes to some of our athletics programs

eastcoastcal said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Like so many others, what made me a success in my 20s and 30s was outdated by my forties. I've adapted and changed every five years since then. Most people do. Fox doesn't - he is sort of a backwards unicorn.

---

Eastcoast... not answering your question but want to specifically call out the bolded for you... as someone at the beginning of what I am sure will be a terrific career (in whatever you do) the above is some of the best advice I ever received.

"Be careful, because what's holding you back from future success is what made you successful in the past."

Now that's not to say that practicing a skill doesn't matter, or a good work ethic isn't important, but like Beached said, the world changes - fast - and we need to adapt.

---

noted & your advice is always appreciated. Thank you, sincerely.

how funny it is, that a school like cal, which produces some of the most advanced companies and innovations which constantly have to adapt to a fast-paced world and competitive landscape, can still be so slow moving and opposed to creative & adaptive thinking when it comes to some of our athletics programs

---

Our system does not hire and promote smart, innovative Cal grads to run our university or our athletics administration.

cal83dls79 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

What I don't understand is how they got the Pac12 Network TV crews to uniformly promote the "Poor Coach Fox, his team is decimated by injuries" campaign. I don't recall them doing this with other teams and the Ducks, for one, have had some major injuries (Bol Bol being one). I realize the TV announcers and especially the analysts aren't going to heavily criticize any Pac12 coach, but why they all parrot this injury line is beyond me.

---

Agreed, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but this is nuts. Not one has mentioned that "he is on the hot seat". What universe am I in?

---

What used to be called the Sports Information Department* feeds the announcers talking points. Hence, the endless repetition about our injuries. The people announcing the games are just flat-out not in the business of calling out the coaches, especially if said announcers are in the coaching fraternity themselves.

Montgomery, or even Braun, must cringe at a lot of our bone headedness this season. Imagine what they say in private... over beers. There have probably been 100+ times this season -- no exaggeration -- where we ran clock for 20 seconds and then had to hoist up a ridiculous outside shot, often by a non-shooter. (Of course, they are all non-shooters.) Unbelievable.


* I'm dating myself: What do they call that department now, Media Relations?

dimitrig said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Like so many others, what made me a success in my 20s and 30s was outdated by my forties. I've adapted and changed every five years since then. Most people do. Fox doesn't - he is sort of a backwards unicorn.

---

Eastcoast... not answering your question but want to specifically call out the bolded for you... as someone at the beginning of what I am sure will be a terrific career (in whatever you do) the above is some of the best advice I ever received.

"Be careful, because what's holding you back from future success is what made you successful in the past."

Now that's not to say that practicing a skill doesn't matter, or a good work ethic isn't important, but like Beached said, the world changes - fast - and we need to adapt.

---

noted & your advice is always appreciated. Thank you, sincerely.

how funny it is, that a school like cal, which produces some of the most advanced companies and innovations which constantly have to adapt to a fast-paced world and competitive landscape, can still be so slow moving and opposed to creative & adaptive thinking when it comes to some of our athletics programs

---

That's because Cal mostly doesn't care about some of our athletics programs. When I say Cal I mean students, alumni, administrators, and professors. If we really cared about it we'd be at least as good as UCLA.

---

fans will attend games if we have a winning team