Udaman1 was asking about Braun coaching the Bears again.oskidunker said:He doesnt. I asked him in the mens room at Haas.udaman1 said:
what if Braun wanted back in?
SF Comicle on Hoops Program
11,306 Views |
123 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by calumnus
Setting aside the issue of whether Cal could negotiate a TV deal of their own separate from the PAC-XX, why would Apple TV want Cal when almost any other school would be more attractive to subscribers?Bobodeluxe said:
Stream the games on Appletv. Schedule them as wanted by the home team. Watch at your convenience. UC is not a semi-professional sports team owner.
You're kidding, right? Losing Wilcox to Oregon would have been the best thing to happen to Cal football since the hiring of Jeff Tedford.socaltownie said:
I understand the Wilcox contract extension - because losing him if that really was going to happen to Oregon would have been program busting.
Assuming the PACleftovers want any exposure, at all, on screens. A penny a viewer would be better than what appears to be coming.Eastern Oregon Bear said:Setting aside the issue of whether Cal could negotiate a TV deal of their own separate from the PAC-XX, why would Apple TV want Cal when almost any other school would be more attractive to subscribers?Bobodeluxe said:
Stream the games on Appletv. Schedule them as wanted by the home team. Watch at your convenience. UC is not a semi-professional sports team owner.
BearlyCareAnymore said:This is what should scare the crap out of you (and I've been trying to tell you this since Wyking):philbert said:
Pretty solid and brutally honest take.It looks like Cal is going to fire Mark Fox, but it'll need to do far more than that to clean up this mess. Here's my look at the Bears' path forward: https://t.co/bymZXh5ubP
— Connor Letourneau (@Con_Chron) March 9, 2023UCLA is a basketball school and has a lot more support from students and alums. The question isn't whether Cal will increase revenue by spending more, which every post here seems to focus on. It is whether they will increase net revenue which no one seems to want to deal with because they don't like the answer. If Cal spends that $4.4M will they make $4.4M more? I doubt it, but more importantly, Cal doubts it. That is the issue.Quote:
According to JohnCanzano.com, an independent sports columnist, last season's empty seats and 12-20 record didn't keep Cal from generating $153,000 more in revenue than a UCLA team that reached the Sweet 16. That's because the Bears skimped on travel expenses, coaching salaries and game-day costs, spending just $7.5 million on the entire program $4.4 million less than the Bruins.
Cal will fire Fox because the buyout isn't that large, they'll get some donor to pay it, and not firing Fox will be an open and very public white flag that will cost it more in support than paying the buyout. Those that always see losing as a coaching issue will be appeased (a group that is dwindling, but Cal is just trying to hang on as long as they can to a donor base that is aging out anyway).
Fox was a terrible hire and what many of us said at the time has quickly become obvious. He needs to be fired. It is unlikely (not impossible - you have to try - but unlikely) that a new coach is going to resolve things unless Cal changes and Cal is unlikely to change because they have no incentive to. Blaming Cal's fortunes on coaching is like blaming Old Yeller's death on a gunshot to the head. Yeah, the gunshot polished him off, but the rabies wasn't going away.
Looks like John Canzano doesn't know the difference between revenue and profit so not sure how much he can be trusted. No way we had more revenue than UCLA. We clearly have no expenses for a practice facility and a cheap (but expensive on a per win basis) coach so maybe we out-profitted UCLA ... Hard to imagine.
I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
Golden One said:You're kidding, right? Losing Wilcox to Oregon would have been the best thing to happen to Cal football since the hiring of Jeff Tedford.socaltownie said:
I understand the Wilcox contract extension - because losing him if that really was going to happen to Oregon would have been program busting.
Other than the fact that Knowlton would pick his replacement.
sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
Econ141 said:BearlyCareAnymore said:This is what should scare the crap out of you (and I've been trying to tell you this since Wyking):philbert said:
Pretty solid and brutally honest take.It looks like Cal is going to fire Mark Fox, but it'll need to do far more than that to clean up this mess. Here's my look at the Bears' path forward: https://t.co/bymZXh5ubP
— Connor Letourneau (@Con_Chron) March 9, 2023UCLA is a basketball school and has a lot more support from students and alums. The question isn't whether Cal will increase revenue by spending more, which every post here seems to focus on. It is whether they will increase net revenue which no one seems to want to deal with because they don't like the answer. If Cal spends that $4.4M will they make $4.4M more? I doubt it, but more importantly, Cal doubts it. That is the issue.Quote:
According to JohnCanzano.com, an independent sports columnist, last season's empty seats and 12-20 record didn't keep Cal from generating $153,000 more in revenue than a UCLA team that reached the Sweet 16. That's because the Bears skimped on travel expenses, coaching salaries and game-day costs, spending just $7.5 million on the entire program $4.4 million less than the Bruins.
Cal will fire Fox because the buyout isn't that large, they'll get some donor to pay it, and not firing Fox will be an open and very public white flag that will cost it more in support than paying the buyout. Those that always see losing as a coaching issue will be appeased (a group that is dwindling, but Cal is just trying to hang on as long as they can to a donor base that is aging out anyway).
Fox was a terrible hire and what many of us said at the time has quickly become obvious. He needs to be fired. It is unlikely (not impossible - you have to try - but unlikely) that a new coach is going to resolve things unless Cal changes and Cal is unlikely to change because they have no incentive to. Blaming Cal's fortunes on coaching is like blaming Old Yeller's death on a gunshot to the head. Yeah, the gunshot polished him off, but the rabies wasn't going away.
Looks like John Canzano doesn't know the difference between revenue and profit so not sure how much he can be trusted. No way we had more revenue than UCLA. We clearly have no expenses for a practice facility and a cheap (but expensive on a per win basis) coach so maybe we out-profitted UCLA ... Hard to imagine.
I think it is clear from context that he meant net revenue, though the language used was poor. Also not sure if he was the one who used that language or if it was the Chronicle restating his point since that wasn't a quote
Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
Agreed, so long as Cal takes advantage of it. When Missouri hired Martin and Cal received that buyout money, I thought that was THE chance for the program to take a huge step up. What did Cal do instead? Hired Wyking and essentially set the program back years if not decades!Golden One said:You're kidding, right? Losing Wilcox to Oregon would have been the best thing to happen to Cal football since the hiring of Jeff Tedford.socaltownie said:
I understand the Wilcox contract extension - because losing him if that really was going to happen to Oregon would have been program busting.
I agree with this. I was pretty neutral on the Martin hire as his track record had some question marks. Yes, he had that sweet sixteen run, but that seemed like catching lightening in a bottle. Also the trend at Tennessee wasn't great and clearly the fans pushing for his termination says they weren't thrilled either. After he arrived and I saw the lack of offensive coaching, poor player development and really questionable recruiting strategy, I realized why Tennessee fans were upset. I was glad to see him go. Of course, wasn't expecting Williams to make one of the worst coaching decisions ever made with Wyking.sluggo said:Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
agree. many programs use search firms ... it's a red herring.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
high-level search firm (e.g. exec search firm) meet with you (and any other people you ask them to talk to) and ask about the role and characteristics you're looking for. Then they find a long list of candidates based on their network, etc., and return and discuss with you, and reduce to a short list of 3-4 to focus on.
They arrange interviews, help with negotiations, references, background checks, etc.
Search firms are enablers. They do give input/advice, but design the process and decision-making on how you want to do it
Using a search firm is not the problem. The AD decision on the characteristics, process and decisions were the problem
Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.HKBear97! said:I agree with this. I was pretty neutral on the Martin hire as his track record had some question marks. Yes, he had that sweet sixteen run, but that seemed like catching lightening in a bottle. Also the trend at Tennessee wasn't great and clearly the fans pushing for his termination says they weren't thrilled either. After he arrived and I saw the lack of offensive coaching, poor player development and really questionable recruiting strategy, I realized why Tennessee fans were upset. I was glad to see him go. Of course, wasn't expecting Williams to make one of the worst coaching decisions ever made with Wyking.sluggo said:Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
The real questions about the search firm are how good were they at vetting available candidates? How detailed do they get in their search? Do they have relationships with preferred clients that they push? Given JK's inexperience in hiring coaches in revenue sports, did he rely too much on them vs other sources?
Not all search firms are equal. As Wilner wrote:
Collegiate Sports Associates helped Tennessee find Rick Barnes and Virginia Tech find Buzz Williams. But the North Carolina-based firm has a mixed record, at best, when it comes to openings in the western third of the country.
In recent years, it has assisted on searches at Santa Clara (Herb Sendek), Fresno State (Justin Hutson), San Jose State (Jean Prioleau), Pacific (Damon Stoudamire), New Mexico (Craig Neal) and Utah State (Tim Druyea).
Not all search firms are equal. As Wilner wrote:
Collegiate Sports Associates helped Tennessee find Rick Barnes and Virginia Tech find Buzz Williams. But the North Carolina-based firm has a mixed record, at best, when it comes to openings in the western third of the country.
In recent years, it has assisted on searches at Santa Clara (Herb Sendek), Fresno State (Justin Hutson), San Jose State (Jean Prioleau), Pacific (Damon Stoudamire), New Mexico (Craig Neal) and Utah State (Tim Druyea).
yeah, there are good search firms and bad ones.philbert said:
The real questions about the search firm are how good were they at vetting available candidates? How detailed do they get in their search? Do they have relationships with preferred clients that they push? Given JK's inexperience in hiring coaches in revenue sports, did he rely too much on them vs other sources?
Not all search firms are equal.
my point is using a search firm was not the problem.
it's up to the clients to make the right decisions, and the client selects the search firm (is responsible for selecting a good one)
I can't read the article, but is it saying that one candidate could be Martin?4thGenCal said:Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.HKBear97! said:I agree with this. I was pretty neutral on the Martin hire as his track record had some question marks. Yes, he had that sweet sixteen run, but that seemed like catching lightening in a bottle. Also the trend at Tennessee wasn't great and clearly the fans pushing for his termination says they weren't thrilled either. After he arrived and I saw the lack of offensive coaching, poor player development and really questionable recruiting strategy, I realized why Tennessee fans were upset. I was glad to see him go. Of course, wasn't expecting Williams to make one of the worst coaching decisions ever made with Wyking.sluggo said:Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
he was a good choice first time, but wouldn't be my first choice now. but I would be ok hiring Martin again, especially if it means we would have otherwise hired Tim Miles who would be a terrible choice
Martin gave awaybthe Bakersfield game. Ibwill not attend if he comes back. He can praise rhe lord somewhere else.HoopDreams said:I can't read the article, but is it saying that one candidate could be Martin?4thGenCal said:Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.HKBear97! said:I agree with this. I was pretty neutral on the Martin hire as his track record had some question marks. Yes, he had that sweet sixteen run, but that seemed like catching lightening in a bottle. Also the trend at Tennessee wasn't great and clearly the fans pushing for his termination says they weren't thrilled either. After he arrived and I saw the lack of offensive coaching, poor player development and really questionable recruiting strategy, I realized why Tennessee fans were upset. I was glad to see him go. Of course, wasn't expecting Williams to make one of the worst coaching decisions ever made with Wyking.sluggo said:Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
he was a good choice first time, but wouldn't be my first choice now. but I would be ok hiring Martin again, especially if it means we would have otherwise hired Tim Miles who would be a terrible choice
Go Bears!
HKBear97! said:Agreed, so long as Cal takes advantage of it. When Missouri hired Martin and Cal received that buyout money, I thought that was THE chance for the program to take a huge step up. What did Cal do instead? Hired Wyking and essentially set the program back years if not decades!Golden One said:You're kidding, right? Losing Wilcox to Oregon would have been the best thing to happen to Cal football since the hiring of Jeff Tedford.socaltownie said:
I understand the Wilcox contract extension - because losing him if that really was going to happen to Oregon would have been program busting.
Wyking was here 2 years and left a young team of:
Vanover C
Kelly PF
Sueing SF
Bradley SG
Paris PG
Though very young, that was arguably as good or better of a roster as Monty left Cuonzo and Cuonzo left Jones. The program was not "set back decades" by Wyking's two years. A good hire 4 years ago and the coach builds on that core 5, not destroying it.
oskidunker said:Martin gave awaybthe Bakersfield game. Ibwill not attend if he comes back. He can praise rhe lord somewhere else.HoopDreams said:I can't read the article, but is it saying that one candidate could be Martin?4thGenCal said:Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.HKBear97! said:I agree with this. I was pretty neutral on the Martin hire as his track record had some question marks. Yes, he had that sweet sixteen run, but that seemed like catching lightening in a bottle. Also the trend at Tennessee wasn't great and clearly the fans pushing for his termination says they weren't thrilled either. After he arrived and I saw the lack of offensive coaching, poor player development and really questionable recruiting strategy, I realized why Tennessee fans were upset. I was glad to see him go. Of course, wasn't expecting Williams to make one of the worst coaching decisions ever made with Wyking.sluggo said:Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
he was a good choice first time, but wouldn't be my first choice now. but I would be ok hiring Martin again, especially if it means we would have otherwise hired Tim Miles who would be a terrible choice
We forgave Wilcox for Lupoi, we forgave Moby for being a jerk at the Furd and for the Shove and we are willing to forgive Pasternak for the Kick. Martin and the team mailing it in for the NIT because he is leaving is unforgivable?
We need to hire based on the prospects for the future.
I don't want Martin because I want a coach that is more offense oriented.
However the main reason I don't want Martin now is he is 51 and is officially a retread.
9 years ago Martin was a rising young coach coming off of a Sweet 16 with Tennessee.
The Jeff Tedford of 2012 was not the Jeff Tedford of 2003.
The Ben Braun of 2008 was not the Ben Braun of 1999.
The best bet is to hire up and coming, energetic, positive, young coaches and hope they catch fire and ride that until they flame out or burn out, or develop a sustainable long term program (usually by hiring and mentoring good assistants and delegating). If they don't catch fire early (Wyking, Wilcox) it is probably best to rinse and repeat. It is tough to build upward momentum if you don't turn around things immediately (Tedford).
Fox, Miles or Martin are retreads. Even Travis DeCuire is now 52. Wilcox is only 46, but he seem tired.
4 years ago Dennis Gates was 39, that would have been a good bet.
Good post, but I definitely disagree on the NIL impact JP would have - should He be hired. I for one would step up heavily (not appropriate to throw out my already privately stated pledge) but so would some key donor's who have quietly said so, privately as well. Now we can quibble on how much NIL would need to be raised to get Cal into the upper half of the conf quickly, but its safe to say it would need to be $2M+-/year to bring in 3 excellent high level recruits and 3 solid contributors. JP would raise that amount - His proven fund raising record at UCSB resulted in $10M during his 4 seasons there.BearlyCareAnymore said:I think that football and basketball are a different proposition at Cal. I think that investing money in football gives a better return than basketball. Cal still sees football as the key to funding all sports and Cal still wants to maintain its non-revenue sports programs. It is very possible that one or both of those variables could change in the near future, but they haven't yet, so while Cal isn't willing to break the bank on football, they will spend more. Your second paragraph is exactly right and it is what I have been saying for a long time. Cal doesn't really need revenue sports anymore and few of its applicants care enough to ding Cal for being bad, and Cal doesn't need more applicants. If you have high schoolers recently you would know that UC's do very little marketing compared to other schools. I think my kid got more marketing from Alabama than then UC's. UCLA has the most applicants of any school. The UC's don't care. Apply or don't. And if they cared, frankly, among their demographic, old school revenue sports is not where it is at.socaltownie said:Yes. But isn't that a seperate argument and one that also involves football?BearlyCareAnymore said:This is what should scare the crap out of you (and I've been trying to tell you this since Wyking):philbert said:
Pretty solid and brutally honest take.It looks like Cal is going to fire Mark Fox, but it'll need to do far more than that to clean up this mess. Here's my look at the Bears' path forward: https://t.co/bymZXh5ubP
— Connor Letourneau (@Con_Chron) March 9, 2023UCLA is a basketball school and has a lot more support from students and alums. The question isn't whether Cal will increase revenue by spending more, which every post here seems to focus on. It is whether they will increase net revenue which no one seems to want to deal with because they don't like the answer. If Cal spends that $4.4M will they make $4.4M more? I doubt it, but more importantly, Cal doubts it. That is the issue.Quote:
According to JohnCanzano.com, an independent sports columnist, last season's empty seats and 12-20 record didn't keep Cal from generating $153,000 more in revenue than a UCLA team that reached the Sweet 16. That's because the Bears skimped on travel expenses, coaching salaries and game-day costs, spending just $7.5 million on the entire program $4.4 million less than the Bruins.
Cal will fire Fox because the buyout isn't that large, they'll get some donor to pay it, and not firing Fox will be an open and very public white flag that will cost it more in support than paying the buyout. Those that always see losing as a coaching issue will be appeased (a group that is dwindling, but Cal is just trying to hang on as long as they can to a donor base that is aging out anyway).
Fox was a terrible hire and what many of us said at the time has quickly become obvious. He needs to be fired. It is unlikely (not impossible - you have to try - but unlikely) that a new coach is going to resolve things unless Cal changes and Cal is unlikely to change because they have no incentive to. Blaming Cal's fortunes on coaching is like blaming Old Yeller's death on a gunshot to the head. Yeah, the gunshot polished him off, but the rabies wasn't going away.
Cal (and a number of other UCs) are fairly unique creatures - unlike most other P5s there is NO compelling business case to be made for being good in sports. Cal AGAIN saw a record number of applicants this fall. They do not NEED additional selectivity to juice rankings. Indeed, given the pressure from Sacramento you could make an argument that sports success HURTS cal because getting more applicants from students looking for successful athletic teams further decreases admission rates and pisses off those in Sacto more (look at UCLA right now and the political pressure they are under on admissions).
But if you don't spend $ you can still be better than this. THere are minimal costs in finding an energic coach who will embrace east bay hoops and make cal the "local team". Indeed, such an approach WOULD solve a serious problem Cal faces - lack of diversity and the political pressures that it faces on that front.
You are absolutely right in your last paragraph. As I said, the buyout isn't large now and they'll get an alum to pay it. You have to take a shot. I'm sure we will get better because it is hard not to. (said the same thing with Wyking, and that didn't exactly work out) Whatever we are willing to spend, we should always strive to be our best for that amount, and no we haven't been our best. I just don't know that, yeah, we could be 8th place in conference is really what people here are imagining. And while there is a chance of being better, I think it is pretty small. People are grasping now. Someone says with zero evidence that the donors will fully fund NIL if Pasternak is the guy, and that has been repeated over and over because it is a tiny branch to people sinking in quicksand. He may improve things if donors have confidence in him, but I don't see Cal's NIL being competitive anytime soon. (to be clear, I think Pasternak is a good candidate, just this is overblown).
Monty's comments are at once real and also disingenuous. Do Cal and Stanford need to take lots of sub 3.0 GPA kids to succeed in basketball at the highest level. Probably. Should they? Probably not. Will they? No. It is clear that a lot of people do not understand grade inflation and Monty is playing on that lack of knowledge. 3.0 is the new 2.0. It is so easy to get a 3.0 you have to have a learning disability, be monumentally stupid, or just not care. I'm in favor of finding the kids in group 1 and helping them. We can talk academic support all we want, though. The latter group which makes up most of the talent pool, mostly just want to play basketball. They aren't looking for support. What you need is to pass them on paper, and Cal and Stanford aren't going to do that. The reality here is that the guys on the top teams are now professional, minor league players looking for the biggest pay day with the ability to focus maximum effort on training while being unfettered by stuff that isn't going to lead to a basketball career. Which makes a lot of sense for them, whether or not that minor league system should be run by America's universities. Cal doesn't have the package to offer those guys if it wanted to, and I think it is clear at this point that it doesn't want to. So you are left competing using the ones that couldn't get that deal or the ones who maybe could have, but also value the academic side. Think what would happen to Cal's ability to pull top engineering students if Cal suddenly required those students to spend 80% of their time studying history. They'd be gone. Well, why would basketball players be any different? They want to study their chosen field, not a bunch of other stuff. Plenty of schools let them do that.
I just don't see it happening. Yes, we can be better. But what I see is a college system that has evolved to have a huge success disparity. It is basically like if the MLB decided to add all the Triple A teams to the majors. Yeah, you could maybe be the best of the Triple A teams, but you are still going to get slaughtered by 30 teams. I've lost interest in that proposition.
4thGenCal,4thGenCal said:
Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.
Would appreciate your thoughts (or anyone else's who might know). Is there a sense and understanding among those in the Cal athletic department that the design of Haas when it first opened was pretty darn good (not as good as Harmon was, of course), and then, with all the subtle structural changes they've made over the years, they have made Haas a rather sterile and far less exciting environment?
I won't rehash all the structural changes that I'm talking about, but one example is how the student section has half the depth that it used to have (perhaps 7 rows instead of 14) and it has been cut into two halves (or is it three thirds?) by the access to the stupid little donor room. I recently watched a tape of a game from one of Haas' earliest years and was struck by how much of a cooler place it looked versus what exists today (and it wasn't simply due to a difference in attendance).
Thx.
yes, this…
Chapman_is_Gone said:4thGenCal,4thGenCal said:
Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.
Would appreciate your thoughts (or anyone else's who might know). Is there a sense and understanding among those in the Cal athletic department that the design of Haas when it first opened was pretty darn good (not as good as Harmon was, of course), and then, with all the subtle structural changes they've made over the years, they have made Haas a rather sterile and far less exciting environment?
I won't rehash all the structural changes that I'm talking about, but one example is how the student section has half the depth that it used to have (perhaps 7 rows instead of 14) and it has been cut into two halves (or is it three thirds?) by the access to the stupid little donor room. I recently watched a tape of a game from one of Haas' earliest years and was struck by how much of a cooler place it looked versus what exists today (and it wasn't simply due to a difference in attendance).
Thx.
Fair, although not very different than the seasons Montgomery had right before him (so Martin building on Montgomery perhaps?). And how did it play out in the end? No post-season the first year, lost to Hawaii in the first round the second which was inexcusable even with the injuries and then he bolted and phoned it in against Bakersfield in the NIT. Aside from Brown and Rabb, the rest of the recruiting was questionable. I think his experience at Missouri proved out he's not a very good coach.4thGenCal said:Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.HKBear97! said:I agree with this. I was pretty neutral on the Martin hire as his track record had some question marks. Yes, he had that sweet sixteen run, but that seemed like catching lightening in a bottle. Also the trend at Tennessee wasn't great and clearly the fans pushing for his termination says they weren't thrilled either. After he arrived and I saw the lack of offensive coaching, poor player development and really questionable recruiting strategy, I realized why Tennessee fans were upset. I was glad to see him go. Of course, wasn't expecting Williams to make one of the worst coaching decisions ever made with Wyking.sluggo said:Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
Rehiring Martin would be the most Cal thing to do, which makes me think that it will happen. He would be last on my list no matter how long it was. Okay, Ben Braun would be below.HKBear97! said:Fair, although not very different than the seasons Montgomery had right before him (so Martin building on Montgomery perhaps?). And how did it play out in the end? No post-season the first year, lost to Hawaii in the first round the second which was inexcusable even with the injuries and then he bolted and phoned it in against Bakersfield in the NIT. Aside from Brown and Rabb, the rest of the recruiting was questionable. I think his experience at Missouri proved out he's not a very good coach.4thGenCal said:Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.HKBear97! said:I agree with this. I was pretty neutral on the Martin hire as his track record had some question marks. Yes, he had that sweet sixteen run, but that seemed like catching lightening in a bottle. Also the trend at Tennessee wasn't great and clearly the fans pushing for his termination says they weren't thrilled either. After he arrived and I saw the lack of offensive coaching, poor player development and really questionable recruiting strategy, I realized why Tennessee fans were upset. I was glad to see him go. Of course, wasn't expecting Williams to make one of the worst coaching decisions ever made with Wyking.sluggo said:Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
And? We finished in last place both years and looked terrible doing it, not to mention the off-court issues (Theo, how he kicked out two scholarship players). Knowlton had to fire Wyking. Then Knowlton decided to swing the pendulum the other way and hire the antithesis of Wyking in Fox, which was exactly the wrong way to go, furthering the downward spiral. If Williams didn't make that idiotic mistake with Wyking, we would be in a much different spot right now.calumnus said:HKBear97! said:Agreed, so long as Cal takes advantage of it. When Missouri hired Martin and Cal received that buyout money, I thought that was THE chance for the program to take a huge step up. What did Cal do instead? Hired Wyking and essentially set the program back years if not decades!Golden One said:You're kidding, right? Losing Wilcox to Oregon would have been the best thing to happen to Cal football since the hiring of Jeff Tedford.socaltownie said:
I understand the Wilcox contract extension - because losing him if that really was going to happen to Oregon would have been program busting.
Wyking was here 2 years and left a young team of:
Vanover C
Kelly PF
Sueing SF
Bradley SG
Paris PG
Though very young, that was arguably as good or better of a roster as Monty left Cuonzo and Cuonzo left Jones. The program was not "set back decades" by Wyking's two years. A good hire 4 years ago and the coach builds on that core 5, not destroying it.
62-39, 28 straight home wins, #14 national ranking, average attendance 10k all done over just 3 seasons - Cal supporters would run a marathon for anything close to that. Cuonzo was successful at Cal and would have stayed and continue to be, had the administration/dept supported him to a much greater degree. He and his wife, enjoyed their time here, He was worn down by the lack of support on many levels. To win at Cal as He did overall proves his effectiveness - especially in light of the next 2 coaches results over 6 seasons. Not by any means outstanding/ with some areas of weakness - but the body of work/results were solid.HKBear97! said:Fair, although not very different than the seasons Montgomery had right before him (so Martin building on Montgomery perhaps?). And how did it play out in the end? No post-season the first year, lost to Hawaii in the first round the second which was inexcusable even with the injuries and then he bolted and phoned it in against Bakersfield in the NIT. Aside from Brown and Rabb, the rest of the recruiting was questionable. I think his experience at Missouri proved out he's not a very good coach.4thGenCal said:Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.HKBear97! said:I agree with this. I was pretty neutral on the Martin hire as his track record had some question marks. Yes, he had that sweet sixteen run, but that seemed like catching lightening in a bottle. Also the trend at Tennessee wasn't great and clearly the fans pushing for his termination says they weren't thrilled either. After he arrived and I saw the lack of offensive coaching, poor player development and really questionable recruiting strategy, I realized why Tennessee fans were upset. I was glad to see him go. Of course, wasn't expecting Williams to make one of the worst coaching decisions ever made with Wyking.sluggo said:Neutral on Martin. Never saw one of his teams play. Had a good record. Concerned that some vocal fans wanted him gone, but thought there might be a racial component.calumnus said:sluggo said:I was open minded about Martin, but considerably less excited when he could not design a functional offense out of Rabb, Brown, Wallace, Bird, and Mathews. And I did not think recruiting at that level was sustainable. Who knows what would have happened with more time, but I know I did not enjoy watching his teams play, although I appreciated the talent he brought in. I liked the early Monty years best.calumnus said:sluggo said:Yes, it seems like the goal with Fox was someone who won enough and did not cheat in recruiting (when that was a thing) so that the Knowlton could go back to playing solitaire on his computer.Cal8285 said:Wilner is simply wrong.philbert said:No, they hired him because Knowlton let the search firm (Collegiate Sports Associates) do the heavy lifting.https://t.co/zGd4Pu4UBo https://t.co/hUKyHlsZl7
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) March 9, 2023
He's right that Fox wasn't hired because Cal is cheap. After all, someone like Gates would have come as cheap as Fox. But he's completely wrong that Fox was hired because Knowlton let the search firm do the heavy lifting.
Fox was hired because he was the perfect fit for what Knowlton wanted. I don't know how much Knowlton let the search firm do all the heavy lifting, but in the brief window between Jones and the Fox hired, Knowlton was public about what he wanted in the MBB HC.
Fox checked all of Knowlton's boxes, more than any other available candidate. If Knowlton had hired me to identify a coach who checked all his boxes, I probably would have recommended Fox. The problem is that Knowlton's boxes were wrong.
The mistake of the Fox hire had nothing to do with hiring a search firm, and everything to do with what Knowlton was looking for in a head coach.
I would like someone who brings excitement. That means developing talent, playing good basketball, and recruiting at that the level that should be expected given Cal's resources and position in the world. The only coach going back to the 80s whose hire I liked was Monty. I don't expect a hall of fame coach like Monty to fall into Cal's laps, so I would like someone who shows characteristics such that my three goals will be met. Fox was zero for three.
I was pretty excited when, among all the schools that were after him, we were the school that landed Tennessee's up and coming young African American coach days after taking them to the Sweet 16.
Fox acting like the notorious Georgia boosters just stood down for 9 years always came off as sanctimonious BS and excuse-making. It is not like Pete Carroll ever arranged payments to Reggie Bush, but at least he didn't go around bragging about it and claiming everyone else was cheating but USC wasn't.
When it was relayed on this board that Jaylen Brown said he was offered cash to stay home and play for Georgia (and for Fox), Fox defenders on this board called it a lie.
Misplaced loyalties. Now that Fox has delivered the worst W/L record in the entire country after 4 years of "team building" maybe people will consider the possibility that it was true, and it took the assistance of Georgia boosters for Fox to achieve even mediocrity at Georgia and why his sanctimonious "the right way" BS seemed so hypocritical to many of us.
But you weren't excited when Martin was hired?
Knowing Monty and seeing him flame out with the Warriors I was not certain how he would do at Cal, especially with regard to recruiting and the deference the PAC-12 refs showed him at Stanford. However he inherited a great roster from Braun, hired good,complimentary assistants, got good transfers and overlooked players and started winning immediately, which is the key to everything. His teams did usually get the most from their talent, at least in the regular season, which I guess is less frustrating than guys that bring in more talent, and achieve more, but underachieve doing it,
I am glad you too have the same thoughts I have and I have brought it up to the dept. I sit on the court, have access to the donor room etc. I could care less about the room - I am there for a relatively short time of a game (2 hours+-) and don't need a mingling area Ala a football game/longer time commitment. I want a raucous/home crowd environment. Splitting up the student section detracts from that intent of a connected student body the length of the court, the visual look as well. and does dampen the vocal levels of support. I think its about 350K+- to reconnect that area and that room could still be accessed from the outside corridors. Bluntly its way down on the list of priorities of the dept.Chapman_is_Gone said:4thGenCal,4thGenCal said:
Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.
Would appreciate your thoughts (or anyone else's who might know). Is there a sense and understanding among those in the Cal athletic department that the design of Haas when it first opened was pretty darn good (not as good as Harmon was, of course), and then, with all the subtle structural changes they've made over the years, they have made Haas a rather sterile and far less exciting environment?
I won't rehash all the structural changes that I'm talking about, but one example is how the student section has half the depth that it used to have (perhaps 7 rows instead of 14) and it has been cut into two halves (or is it three thirds?) by the access to the stupid little donor room. I recently watched a tape of a game from one of Haas' earliest years and was struck by how much of a cooler place it looked versus what exists today (and it wasn't simply due to a difference in attendance).
Thx.
Yes, but that one season had 4 NBA prospects and a dead-eye 3-point shooter that went on to win an NC at Gonzaga the following year. Clearly, he was not going to be able to sustain that kind of roster as evidenced by the roster he left for Jones. With his overall career record, rehiring Martin now would be worse than hiring Fox in 2019.4thGenCal said:
Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.
I understand that he would still be here if his son had been admitted over thousands of others on the wait list.Civil Bear said:Yes, but that one season had 4 NBA prospects and a dead-eye 3-point shooter that went on to win an NC at Gonzaga the following year. Clearly, he was not going to be able to sustain that kind of roster as evidenced by the roster he left for Jones. With his overall career record, rehiring Martin now would be worse than hiring Fox in 2019.4thGenCal said:
Tough grade on Cuonzo. His record at Cal was very good - 62-39! won 19 straight regular season home wins (28 straight over a 2 year stretch) achieved a #14 regular season national ranking and Haas Arena was rocking with several sell outs and attendance in the 9-10K range/game. He brought in some outstanding players and had several other highly rated recruits that the admissions turned down unfortunately. Yes the offense was stagnate, but the overall results were solid. And his players highly respected him. I was sad to see him go - especially in light of what the following 6 years produced in the W/L column.
I have never understood the "Cuonzo leaving the cupboard bare" criticism. So the coach's responsibilities to the program exist after he leaves? It's part of the business. It's normal to have roster turnover during a coaching change. What should he have done? Convinced Rabb and Moore to stay even though he was leaving?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo rubs a lot of Cal fans the wrong way. I wonder why that is?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo rubs a lot of Cal fans the wrong way. I wonder why that is?
Were you at the Nit game when Gonzo tried not to win so he could move on? I was pathetic. He told Rabb to rest so we had no chanceBC Calfan said:
I have never understood the "Cuonzo leaving the cupboard bare" criticism. So the coach's responsibilities to the program exist after he leaves? It's part of the business. It's normal to have roster turnover during a coaching change. What should he have done? Convinced Rabb and Moore to stay even though he was leaving?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo rubs a lot of Cal fans the wrong way. I wonder why that is?
Disgrace.
Go Bears!
Rabb left for the NBA draft and Moore was in Cuonzo's doghouse by the season's end (and was a habitual transferrer). What makes you think they would have stayed? Knowing what he had returning made his choice to bolt all that much easier.BC Calfan said:
I have never understood the "Cuonzo leaving the cupboard bare" criticism. So the coach's responsibilities to the program exist after he leaves? It's part of the business. It's normal to have roster turnover during a coaching change. What should he have done? Convinced Rabb and Moore to stay even though he was leaving?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo rubs a lot of Cal fans the wrong way. I wonder why that is?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo still appeals to some Cal fans. I wonder why that is?
Because in his 3 years here, he reached a higher height than Monty did in 6 (#4 seed in the tourney, top 15 ranking). Under a completely incompetent AD and an admin that yanked him around (as 4thGenCal highlights), he got 1-and-done level players to come.Civil Bear said:Rabb left for the NBA draft and Moore was in Cuonzo's doghouse by the season's end (and was a habitual transferrer). What makes you think they would have stayed? Knowing what he had returning made his choice to bolt all that much easier.BC Calfan said:
I have never understood the "Cuonzo leaving the cupboard bare" criticism. So the coach's responsibilities to the program exist after he leaves? It's part of the business. It's normal to have roster turnover during a coaching change. What should he have done? Convinced Rabb and Moore to stay even though he was leaving?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo rubs a lot of Cal fans the wrong way. I wonder why that is?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo still appeals to some Cal fans. I wonder why that is?
Was he a perfect coach? No. But we haven't had one since Newell, and that's been 60+ years. The level of hatred for him is what makes me wonder if there might be other things that drive that. If you say "I liked Monty better," despite his absolute hatred for recruiting and the ceiling that put on his program at Cal, that's fine, I'm not going to push back on that. But to absolutely hate him for leaving for a job that paid him almost 2x more at a place that wasn't going to shackle him like Cal did and not be afraid of athletic success, I just find that weird.
Well, you got a bit of a strawman going there as I don't hate the man, I just have no desire to bring him back. Yes, he had one exceptional season, partially built on the roster of others, but has nothing to show in his 14-year career that he is capable of repeating it.CalLifer said:Because in his 3 years here, he reached a higher height than Monty did in 6 (#4 seed in the tourney, top 15 ranking). Under a completely incompetent AD and an admin that yanked him around (as 4thGenCal highlights), he got 1-and-done level players to come.Civil Bear said:Rabb left for the NBA draft and Moore was in Cuonzo's doghouse by the season's end (and was a habitual transferrer). What makes you think they would have stayed? Knowing what he had returning made his choice to bolt all that much easier.BC Calfan said:
I have never understood the "Cuonzo leaving the cupboard bare" criticism. So the coach's responsibilities to the program exist after he leaves? It's part of the business. It's normal to have roster turnover during a coaching change. What should he have done? Convinced Rabb and Moore to stay even though he was leaving?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo rubs a lot of Cal fans the wrong way. I wonder why that is?
It's very interesting to me how Cuonzo still appeals to some Cal fans. I wonder why that is?
Was he a perfect coach? No. But we haven't had one since Newell, and that's been 60+ years. The level of hatred for him is what makes me wonder if there might be other things that drive that. If you say "I liked Monty better," despite his absolute hatred for recruiting and the ceiling that put on his program at Cal, that's fine, I'm not going to push back on that. But to absolutely hate him for leaving for a job that paid him almost 2x more at a place that wasn't going to shackle him like Cal did and not be afraid of athletic success, I just find that weird.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Get Great Reviews from Big Game Visitors
by Jim McGill
Bears Hammer Mercyhurst, 81-55.
by Jim McGill
Ultimate Insider Podcast E100: Stanford Wrap-up, SMU Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
From the Other Sideline: Cal vs SMU Preview
by Jim McGill
Cal Takes Down Arizona
by Cal Athletics