Fox did some decent things his first year: He got the PG, Paris Austin, to up his game. And we were trending upward right when COVID ended the season. But there was already a fissure developing between Fox and Matt Bradley, plus we found out that he wasn't an effective recruiter.

Importantly, it was always apparent that Fox just wasn't into the face-of-the-franchise aspect of the job, which Madsen excels at. All the "people stuff" is where Madsen is great and Fox basically didn't even make an effort. And last time I checked, the players, the potential future players and the fans (including the donors!) are all people.

At the end of the 2019-20 season, there were some positives to point to... kinda sorta... but this is different: There is a buzz around the program now. And I am really encouraged to see the existing players play so much better with each other, over the past several games.

If we can come up with competitive funding, we will be on a roll, I am fairly sure.

Calegends.com

Results about the same trajectories couldn't differ more. Madsen is doing SO much better than Fox's negative recruiting and marketing.

Big C said:

---

Fox did some decent things his first year: He got the PG, Paris Austin, to up his game. And we were trending upward right when COVID ended the season. But there was already a fissure developing between Fox and Matt Bradley, plus we found out that he wasn't an effective recruiter.

Importantly, it was always apparent that Fox just wasn't into the face-of-the-franchise aspect of the job, which Madsen excels at. All the "people stuff" is where Madsen is great and Fox basically didn't even make an effort. And last time I checked, the players, the potential future players and the fans (including the donors!) are all people.

At the end of the 2019-20 season, there were some positives to point to... kinda sorta... but this is different: There is a buzz around the program now. And I am really encouraged to see the existing players play so much better with each other, over the past several games.

If we can come up with competitive funding, we will be on a roll, I am fairly sure.

Calegends.com

---

Fox is an old school screaming control freak coach, which can produce short term results. Problem is every year Fox ran off most of the modest remaining talent Wyking recruited until we had the worst record scoring the fewest points out of hundreds of schools in the country and the worst record in our history. So, yeah his first year Fox achieved modest, unsustainable results, almost as good as Madsen has achieved. Difference is Madsen is a coach players want to play for. That will have long term benefits.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

Fox did some decent things his first year: He got the PG, Paris Austin, to up his game. And we were trending upward right when COVID ended the season. But there was already a fissure developing between Fox and Matt Bradley, plus we found out that he wasn't an effective recruiter.

Importantly, it was always apparent that Fox just wasn't into the face-of-the-franchise aspect of the job, which Madsen excels at. All the "people stuff" is where Madsen is great and Fox basically didn't even make an effort. And last time I checked, the players, the potential future players and the fans (including the donors!) are all people.

At the end of the 2019-20 season, there were some positives to point to... kinda sorta... but this is different: There is a buzz around the program now. And I am really encouraged to see the existing players play so much better with each other, over the past several games.

If we can come up with competitive funding, we will be on a roll, I am fairly sure.

Calegends.com

---

Fox is an old school screaming control freak coach, which can produce short term results. Problem is every year Fox ran off most of the modest remaining talent Wyking recruited until we had the worst record scoring the fewest points out of hundreds of schools in the country and the worst record in our history. So, yeah his first year Fox achieved modest, unsustainable results, almost as good as Madsen has achieved. Difference is Madsen is a coach players want to play for. That will have long term benefits.

---

Fox is Cronin light without the recruits

That means he played ugly ball, couldn't recruit, and had poor relationships with his players

Fox trended downward and would have continued if he was the coach this season. Madsen has changed the narative on Cal basketball and is trending up

A huge difference in my mind regarding the public perception in the first year is that Fox had significant detractors from the beginning, whereas there has been pretty universal excitement for Madsen. That has affected the way their first season is perceived.

At the risk of speaking for others, those who were down on Fox from the beginning generally pointed to his mediocre and declining record at Georgia and that nobody had hired him after that gig. Fox was seen as a low-budget, unimaginative, easy hire (because not in demand), and people generally hated the interim Athletic Director at the time (sound familiar?), and so even more reason to be against the hire from the beginning.

The second reason, and perhaps the single biggest difference between the two coaches, is that Fox held an infamous introductory meeting with the players that was all about "you're going to work hard or get out" type of stuff (I don't remember the specifics, I'm sure others will chime in). It was a bad look in itself, but more importantly it seemed to cause almost all our talented players (of which we actually had several) to promptly transfer out. Even worse (or maybe better), the speech at that meeting went public. I think the athletic department actually put parts of it out on social media. Again, it was bad. So it gave the early detractors even more reason to dislike Fox even before the season started.

I wasn't one of those early detractors. And I was even frustrated by them. I am much more of the "benefit of the doubt", at least to start. But there's no doubt that those early detractors were proven to be correct.

So, while you're right that on paper there was reason to be encouraged by the record and significant improvement that first year for Fox, there were other significant differences that had at least part of the Cal community view it much more negatively than how Madsen's first season with similar record is being perceived. Also, I think many people recognize that Madsen's season was impacted early by injuries, and would probably have been even better with better health early in the season.

eastcoastcal said:

---

I was looking at our record year by year and saw that Fox's first season had us go 14-18, and 7-11 in conference. I suspect we'll end around 14-18ish this year too. Obviously, Madsen has brought in more talent than Fox ever did, but I would love to know from people who actually were around for Fox's first season on how this compares trajectory-wise.

It seems to me, based off reading forum posts, that there was cautious optimism but a "wait and see" approach after Fox's first year. Clearly improved the results from the year prior, but needed to continue to see the trajectory improve. How does that compare to where you are now? I absolutely love Madsen but I also recognize that we're going to be losing the lion's share of our talent after this year with Fardaws, Keonte, and Cone graduating + Tyson perhaps looking to the NBA. Do you feel similarly to where you were with Fox 4 years ago? Better? Worse? Unsure?

---

Fox was a proven low-ceiling coach and a retread (whose floor turned out to be lower than expected). Madson, although fairly unproven, brings hope and excitement. He may or may not turn out to be the one, but he has already started to make Cal hoops relevant again. Let's hope he can grow on it.

Lots of good points. Let me summarize. Madsen's team is fun to watch and has improved throughout the year. Fox's teams weren't and didn't.

I grew up loving basketball. Wyking made me look away. Fox made me hate basketball (though this wasn't as apparent in his first year as I was initially cautiously optimistic). Madsen's got me excited to watch Cal basketball once more.

eastcoastcal said:

---

I was looking at our record year by year and saw that Fox's first season had us go 14-18, and 7-11 in conference. I suspect we'll end around 14-18ish this year too. Obviously, Madsen has brought in more talent than Fox ever did, but I would love to know from people who actually were around for Fox's first season on how this compares trajectory-wise.

It seems to me, based off reading forum posts, that there was cautious optimism but a "wait and see" approach after Fox's first year. Clearly improved the results from the year prior, but needed to continue to see the trajectory improve. How does that compare to where you are now? I absolutely love Madsen but I also recognize that we're going to be losing the lion's share of our talent after this year with Fardaws, Keonte, and Cone graduating + Tyson perhaps looking to the NBA. Do you feel similarly to where you were with Fox 4 years ago? Better? Worse? Unsure?

---

After the Wyking/Fox dumpster fire, Madsen has injected some much needed excitement. However, I'm still not convinced. At the end of the day, despite the much-hyped transfer talent Madsen brought in, Cal is four games under .500 despite a weak schedule and an historically weak Pac-12. Not to mention there's not much power-conference-level talent returning before joining a tougher ACC next year. Will be interesting to see how long the honeymoon lasts unless Madsen secures an influx of talent that produces on-court success in the next year or two. I'm watching more games than I did under Wyking/Fox, which is something, but to me the jury is still very much out.

Fox looked like he could teach in year 1. Players dod look more fundamentally sound. The problem was _everything_ else which started to show and really it was evident that first team meeting by the. Idy language of nearly every player in the room. Please let's not speak of mark fox again....what a horrible hire.

Wyking and his staff were basically AAU coaches and tried to run an AAU system. Why over his head

Fox was an old school ugly ball coach that was terrible with player and recruit relationships.

He won some games by playing ugly ball which emphasized tough conservative defense and take the air out of the basket offense.

My only interaction was when he pushed past me with a scowl on his face leaving the court.

Madsen has nothing in common with either coach which is a good thing. My only interaction with Madsen was awesome who went out of his way to talk to me and was totally present and positive, and like others was invited to attend a practice

drizzlybear said:

---

A huge difference in my mind regarding the public perception in the first year is that Fox had significant detractors from the beginning, whereas there has been pretty universal excitement for Madsen. That has affected the way their first season is perceived.

At the risk of speaking for others, those who were down on Fox from the beginning generally pointed to his mediocre and declining record at Georgia and that nobody had hired him after that gig. Fox was seen as a low-budget, unimaginative, easy hire (because not in demand), and people generally hated the interim Athletic Director at the time (sound familiar?), and so even more reason to be against the hire from the beginning.

The second reason, and perhaps the single biggest difference between the two coaches, is that Fox held an infamous introductory meeting with the players that was all about "you're going to work hard or get out" type of stuff (I don't remember the specifics, I'm sure others will chime in). It was a bad look in itself, but more importantly it seemed to cause almost all our talented players (of which we actually had several) to promptly transfer out. Even worse (or maybe better), the speech at that meeting went public. I think the athletic department actually put parts of it out on social media. Again, it was bad. So it gave the early detractors even more reason to dislike Fox even before the season started.

I wasn't one of those early detractors. And I was even frustrated by them. I am much more of the "benefit of the doubt", at least to start. But there's no doubt that those early detractors were proven to be correct.

So, while you're right that on paper there was reason to be encouraged by the record and significant improvement that first year for Fox, there were other significant differences that had at least part of the Cal community view it much more negatively than how Madsen's first season with similar record is being perceived. Also, I think many people recognize that Madsen's season was impacted early by injuries, and would probably have been even better with better health early in the season.

---

More than just perception, Wyking left Fox some decent players (Sueing, Bradley, Vanover, Andre Kelly); all of them eventually transferred out but played significant minutes at other D1 stops, including for good teams. Fox left the cupboard bare. The best holdover is Jalen Celestine, who is skilled, but had minimal production up to this point. Fox inherited an injured program only 3 seasons away from a #4 seed. Madsen inherited a moribund one that was a national punchline for bad college basketball.

I have never read so many positive comments about Mark Fox before. -16 in a row was who he really was. He was an arrogant @$$h@le that we paid $8.25M to in return for a conference record of 17-61 (.218). F that guy.

We paid Wyking Jones $5M for a conference record of 5-31 (.139).

Bottom line: Cal paid $13.2M for 22 conference wins spread over 6 seasons….aka Grand Larceny.

Civil Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

A huge difference in my mind regarding the public perception in the first year is that Fox had significant detractors from the beginning, whereas there has been pretty universal excitement for Madsen. That has affected the way their first season is perceived.

At the risk of speaking for others, those who were down on Fox from the beginning generally pointed to his mediocre and declining record at Georgia and that nobody had hired him after that gig. Fox was seen as a low-budget, unimaginative, easy hire (because not in demand), and people generally hated the interim Athletic Director at the time (sound familiar?), and so even more reason to be against the hire from the beginning.

The second reason, and perhaps the single biggest difference between the two coaches, is that Fox held an infamous introductory meeting with the players that was all about "you're going to work hard or get out" type of stuff (I don't remember the specifics, I'm sure others will chime in). It was a bad look in itself, but more importantly it seemed to cause almost all our talented players (of which we actually had several) to promptly transfer out. Even worse (or maybe better), the speech at that meeting went public. I think the athletic department actually put parts of it out on social media. Again, it was bad. So it gave the early detractors even more reason to dislike Fox even before the season started.

I wasn't one of those early detractors. And I was even frustrated by them. I am much more of the "benefit of the doubt", at least to start. But there's no doubt that those early detractors were proven to be correct.

So, while you're right that on paper there was reason to be encouraged by the record and significant improvement that first year for Fox, there were other significant differences that had at least part of the Cal community view it much more negatively than how Madsen's first season with similar record is being perceived. Also, I think many people recognize that Madsen's season was impacted early by injuries, and would probably have been even better with better health early in the season.

---

More than just perception, Wyking left Fox some decent players (Sueing, Bradley, Vanover, Andre Kelly); all of them eventually transferred out but played significant minutes at other D1 stops, including for good teams. Fox left the cupboard bare. The best holdover is Jalen Celestine, who is skilled, but had minimal production up to this point. Fox inherited an injured program only 3 seasons away from a #4 seed. Madsen inherited a moribund one that was a national punchline for bad college basketball.

---

I'm not sure that is fair. There wasn't a single player on the roster from that #4 seed team. Least we forget, Martin also left the cupboard bare with Coleman being the best-returning player.

---

No but perceptions and buzz drive recruiting and fundraising. An 7th grader in 2017 could go on to graduate high school only knowing Cal as one of the worst, or maybe the worst, major conference team. A couple bad years and a bad coach can look like a blip after a good run, 2 bad coaches producing national conversation-level bad results over 6 years is something entirely different.

bearister said:

---

I have never read so many positive comments about Mark Fox before. -16 in a row was who he really was. He was an arrogant @$$h@le that we paid $8.25M to in return for a conference record of 17-61 (.218). F that guy.

We paid Wyking Jones $5M for a conference record of 5-31 (.139).

Bottom line: Cal paid $13.2M for 22 conference wins spread over 6 seasons….aka Grand Larceny.

---

You left out the money for the 1 year extension Knowlton gave Fox "for COVID." So his total pay from Cal was over $10 million.

3-29 (.094) worst record in the entire country. Lowest scoring team in the entire country.

bearister said:

---

Well, at least the verdict isn't out on the fact Madsen is better by an exponential factor than the last two dipsticks, and you may want to make that three when you consider #3 lost to Cal State Bakersfield in the 1st Round of the NIT as the cherry on top of the end of his reign.
Doesn't his legacy basically boil down to 1 year of Jaylen Brown and 2 years of Ivan Rabb?*

*….and setting in motion the cratering of the Cal basketball program and destruction of the fan base, with an able assist from the AD, naturally.

---

Madsen is exponentially better? Um, no, not based on current results and roster configuration. Obviously better than Wyking - an empty chair would have been better than Wyking. We'll see after this season if he's better than Fox. I think (hope) he will be, but until then, this over-the-top praise for Madsen is misplaced. There's actually a thread about extending Madsen. Huh!!???? Will Cal fans never learn?

I didn't realize it was considered "over the top praise" to state Mark Madsen is better than Mark Fox by an exponential factor. There are some local high school coaches that can wear that badge too.

HKBear97! said:

---

bearister said:

---

Well, at least the verdict isn't out on the fact Madsen is better by an exponential factor than the last two dipsticks, and you may want to make that three when you consider #3 lost to Cal State Bakersfield in the 1st Round of the NIT as the cherry on top of the end of his reign.
Doesn't his legacy basically boil down to 1 year of Jaylen Brown and 2 years of Ivan Rabb?*

*….and setting in motion the cratering of the Cal basketball program and destruction of the fan base, with an able assist from the AD, naturally.

---

Madsen is exponentially better? Um, no, not based on current results and roster configuration. Obviously better than Wyking - an empty chair would have been better than Wyking. We'll see after this season if he's better than Fox. I think (hope) he will be, but until then, this over-the-top praise for Madsen is misplaced. There's actually a thread about extending Madsen. Huh!!???? Will Cal fans never learn?

---

I think some Cal fans have already forgotten how truly bad Mark Fox was. It's not that his team finished 3-28 in the first year he took over. He was 3-28 in his fourth year. My guess is, that's the worst record in NCAA history for any coach who was in his fourth year of coaching a team.

HKBear97! said:

---

bearister said:

---

Well, at least the verdict isn't out on the fact Madsen is better by an exponential factor than the last two dipsticks, and you may want to make that three when you consider #3 lost to Cal State Bakersfield in the 1st Round of the NIT as the cherry on top of the end of his reign.
Doesn't his legacy basically boil down to 1 year of Jaylen Brown and 2 years of Ivan Rabb?*

*….and setting in motion the cratering of the Cal basketball program and destruction of the fan base, with an able assist from the AD, naturally.

---

Madsen is exponentially better? Um, no, not based on current results and roster configuration. Obviously better than Wyking - an empty chair would have been better than Wyking. We'll see after this season if he's better than Fox. I think (hope) he will be, but until then, this over-the-top praise for Madsen is misplaced. There's actually a thread about extending Madsen. Huh!!???? Will Cal fans never learn?

---

I honestly believe Wyking was better than Fox. Not initially, but he was building his roster, had a good young team and they were improving, finally started winning at the end.

Fox ran off talent. We got worse every year until we were finally the worst record with the lowest scoring team out of 330 in the entire country. You cannot be a WORSE program "builder" than that. No one can be worse than the very worst. And Fox drove us to having the worst record with the lowest scoring team in the country. Entirely his roster.

Firing Wyking made sense, but as some of us said at the time, if we knew the replacement was going to be Mark Fox we would have preferred to keep Wyking Jones. And Fox turned out to be even worse than we feared. Horrible press conferences throwing playmakers under the bus or excuse making and blaming. No observers allowed at his horrific, abusive practices…. Finally the worst record in the entire country and our history.

I do agree that it is too soon to extend Madsen.

drizzlybear said:

---

At the risk of speaking for others, those who were down on Fox from the beginning generally pointed to his mediocre and declining record at Georgia and that nobody had hired him after that gig.

---

This was the reason I disliked the hire from the start. A coach can be an a**hole if he wins, but nothing about Fox's prior resume suggested he would be able to win at Cal.

If you're not going to break the bank for a new coach (and Cal isn't), then you need to hire either:

1. An assistant who had success at a major program.
2. A head coach who had success at a smaller program.

Madsen fits the second category (and you could argue his time with the Lakers kind of qualifies him for the first). A fine hire, a guy who is looking to grow. Fox had no such upside; he was mediocre at a major program. Bad hire. He also would have been even more of a disaster in the NIL era.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

bearister said:

---

Well, at least the verdict isn't out on the fact Madsen is better by an exponential factor than the last two dipsticks, and you may want to make that three when you consider #3 lost to Cal State Bakersfield in the 1st Round of the NIT as the cherry on top of the end of his reign.
Doesn't his legacy basically boil down to 1 year of Jaylen Brown and 2 years of Ivan Rabb?*

*….and setting in motion the cratering of the Cal basketball program and destruction of the fan base, with an able assist from the AD, naturally.

---

Madsen is exponentially better? Um, no, not based on current results and roster configuration. Obviously better than Wyking - an empty chair would have been better than Wyking. We'll see after this season if he's better than Fox. I think (hope) he will be, but until then, this over-the-top praise for Madsen is misplaced. There's actually a thread about extending Madsen. Huh!!???? Will Cal fans never learn?

---

I think some Cal fans have already forgotten how truly bad Mark Fox was. It's not that his team finished 3-28 in the first year he took over. He was 3-28 in his fourth year. My guess is, that's the worst record in NCAA history for any coach who was in his fourth year of coaching a team.

---

Hah, he was worse than that! 3-29

Losses in his 4th year to

UC Davis
Kansas State
UC San Diego
Southern
Texas State
TCU
Clemson
USC
Arizona
Eastern Washington
Butler
Santa Clara
Utah
WSU
UW
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
ASU
USC
UCLA
UW
WSU
Oregon
Oregon State
WSU

Under Fox, we we were eventually the #7 UC campus in basketball, behind UCLA (sure), UC Santa Barbara (OK), UC Irvine (ouch) , UC Riverside (double ouch), uC Davis (my God) and with losses two years in a row to UC San Diego….

According to Sagarin under Fox we were the #22 team in the state of California.

Again, we were #330, dead last in scoring in the entire country. It wasn't only that we played incredibly slow. Only two schools in the entire country had a worse shooting percentage. It was horrifically, historically bad basketball.