Fox's first season W-L record doesn't tell the whole story, which includes driving his best players out.
How does this season compare to Mark Fox's first season?
8,060 Views |
69 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by calumnus
concernedparent said:Mark Fox last season, 3 wins. Mark Madsen so far, 10 wins. Not really possible for literal exponential growth but more than tripling the wins with some season to go seems to me at least metaphorically, exponentially better.HKBear97! said:Perhaps you need to define "exponential". To me that means significantly better. As of now, Madsen is on pace to just about match Fox's first year 14 win total while all of the top players are gone after this season. At this moment in time, that doesn't strike me as significantly better.bearister said:
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.
Like I said above, the original post was talking about Fox's first year. Madsen has seven more chances to get four more wins to match Fox's first season.
HKBear97! said:concernedparent said:Mark Fox last season, 3 wins. Mark Madsen so far, 10 wins. Not really possible for literal exponential growth but more than tripling the wins with some season to go seems to me at least metaphorically, exponentially better.HKBear97! said:Perhaps you need to define "exponential". To me that means significantly better. As of now, Madsen is on pace to just about match Fox's first year 14 win total while all of the top players are gone after this season. At this moment in time, that doesn't strike me as significantly better.bearister said:
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.
Like I said above, the original post was talking about Fox's first year. Madsen has seven more chances to get four more wins to match Fox's first season.
Madsen only needs 1 more win to equal Fox's 7-11 in conference his first year.
Fox in his first year won 6 more games, 3 more conference games, than Wyking did the previous year.
Madsen has already won 7 more games, 4 more conference games, than Fox did last year, and that is with 7 more games to go.
stu said:
Fox's first season W-L record doesn't tell the whole story, which includes driving his best players out.
Nor does Madsen's first year record tell the whole story. I'm bracing myself for a tough finish to the conference season for the Bears, probably finishing with an 8-12 conference record, or worse. And yet this season has been so much more than that because of all the things Madsen has done off the court to excite the Cal basketball community and energize the program. He has already been a fabulous ambassador for Cal basketball. Fox did none of that stuff. In fact, whether it was disrespecting the players right from the beginning, or shutting out the media, etc., Fox actually did the opposite.
So even if the first year record is the same, Madsen has been far more enjoyable and encouraging for the fans, and gives every indication that he will take the program in a positive trajectory; whereas Fox was personally unpleasant and gave off the opposite vibes for the trajectory of the program (which indeed came to pass)..
I'll take the Madsen version of first-year-mediocrity over the Fox version any day of the week.
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?
Gotta keep Tyson.
dimitrig said: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?
Gotta keep Tyson.
If we lose him, it will only be to the NBA.
I'm feeling really good about Madsen bringing in more good transfers for next year... provided he gets at least competitive NIL backing.
Calegends.com (Talk to your wealthiest Cal buddies!)
He will need to transition to more high school recruits fairly quickly: Pretty soon, the extra "COVID year" is going to cycle through and there will be less eligibility years for grads.
After reading this thread, I've come to a conclusion.
Comparing any coach's ability and/or performance to that of Mark Fox' should really be taken as an insult by whoever that coach is.
Comparing any coach's ability and/or performance to that of Mark Fox' should really be taken as an insult by whoever that coach is.
I was in such a rush to defend Madsen from the ultimate insult of being compared to Fox (or Wyking) that I 3^3'd it and hit post before I gave it any thought.calumnus said:concernedparent said:Mark Fox last season, 3 wins. Mark Madsen so far, 10 wins. Not really possible for literal exponential growth but more than tripling the wins with some season to go seems to me at least metaphorically, exponentially better.HKBear97! said:Perhaps you need to define "exponential". To me that means significantly better. As of now, Madsen is on pace to just about match Fox's first year 14 win total while all of the top players are gone after this season. At this moment in time, that doesn't strike me as significantly better.bearister said:
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.
3^2 = 3x3 = 9, so it is literally exponential growth so far. Next year would have to be 27, which seems unlikely, and as there is an upper limit it could not continue beyond (total number of games) an S shaped logistics curve is the most realistic optimistic projection.
concernedparent said:I was in such a rush to defend Madsen from the ultimate insult of being compared to Fox (or Wyking) that I 3^3'd it and hit post before I gave it any thought.calumnus said:concernedparent said:Mark Fox last season, 3 wins. Mark Madsen so far, 10 wins. Not really possible for literal exponential growth but more than tripling the wins with some season to go seems to me at least metaphorically, exponentially better.HKBear97! said:Perhaps you need to define "exponential". To me that means significantly better. As of now, Madsen is on pace to just about match Fox's first year 14 win total while all of the top players are gone after this season. At this moment in time, that doesn't strike me as significantly better.bearister said:
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.
3^2 = 3x3 = 9, so it is literally exponential growth so far. Next year would have to be 27, which seems unlikely, and as there is an upper limit it could not continue beyond (total number of games) an S shaped logistics curve is the most realistic optimistic projection.
In Ken Pom this team is better than any Jones or Fox team and is better than Martin's first. So far, so good.
The transfer portal has changed things. Much of the team is made up of guys who played for Madsen previously so there is <some> question if he can repeat it next year. I am very confident he can and will. If we hold our own in the ACC next year (can manage the travel, win more games than we lose) we will be a big story and we will be VERY attractive team for West Coast recruits. The B1G and B12 are very tough basketball conferences, but the ACC has a mystique and a better (deeper) collection of noteworthy programs. Madsen will become a big name nationally, but if he turns down Stanford and is happy raising his family in Danville, I think we have him locked in.
Fox's best season was his first season because he had a strategy to eek out some wins by slowing the game down and playing tough defense. He had the buy in of the players that year because they came off a bad season and his message of having a plan to win more games made sense to the players that stuck around. He also inherited a better situation from Wyking Jones than Madsen did from him. If he would have handled his introduction to the players better and kept the talent that ended up transferring, he would have done even better than he did.
Madsen's first year is a bit deceiving because the team has been involved in an NCAA leading number of games decided by single digits and has the worst win percentage in those games. In other words, Madsen has lost a lot of close games.
Of course, the ability to win these games is the sign of a good coach and good program but coming off of such a terrible season last season, it is tremendously encouraging that the team has been competitive in all but a few games this season. I also think that the team's ability to win close games is affected by how many new players there are. It takes time to build the confidence as a team and trust in each other that allows a team to end up on the winning side of a close game.
I'm much higher on Madsen than I was with Fox at this point in their respective first seasons. I just think that Madsen's personality and his chosen playing style has a much better chance to attract the type of talent we need to be competitive and I expect him to get better at the Xs and Os as he settles into the job.
Madsen's first year is a bit deceiving because the team has been involved in an NCAA leading number of games decided by single digits and has the worst win percentage in those games. In other words, Madsen has lost a lot of close games.
Of course, the ability to win these games is the sign of a good coach and good program but coming off of such a terrible season last season, it is tremendously encouraging that the team has been competitive in all but a few games this season. I also think that the team's ability to win close games is affected by how many new players there are. It takes time to build the confidence as a team and trust in each other that allows a team to end up on the winning side of a close game.
I'm much higher on Madsen than I was with Fox at this point in their respective first seasons. I just think that Madsen's personality and his chosen playing style has a much better chance to attract the type of talent we need to be competitive and I expect him to get better at the Xs and Os as he settles into the job.
evanluck said:
Fox's best season was his first season because he had a strategy to eek out some wins by slowing the game down and playing tough defense. He had the buy in of the players that year because they came off a bad season and his message of having a plan to win more games made sense to the players that stuck around. He also inherited a better situation from Wyking Jones than Madsen did from him. If he would have handled his introduction to the players better and kept the talent that ended up transferring, he would have done even better than he did.
Madsen's first year is a bit deceiving because the team has been involved in an NCAA leading number of games decided by single digits and has the worst win percentage in those games. In other words, Madsen has lost a lot of close games.
Of course, the ability to win these games is the sign of a good coach and good program but coming off of such a terrible season last season, it is tremendously encouraging that the team has been competitive in all but a few games this season. I also think that the team's ability to win close games is affected by how many new players there are. It takes time to build the confidence as a team and trust in each other that allows a team to end up on the winning side of a close game.
I'm much higher on Madsen than I was with Fox at this point in their respective first seasons. I just think that Madsen's personality and his chosen playing style has a much better chance to attract the type of talent we need to be competitive and I expect him to get better at the Xs and Os as he settles into the job.
Ken Pomeroy has a factor called "Luck" that explains any discrepancy in W/L record from the offensive and defensive strength of the team. This Madsen team is #300 in "Luck." Fox's first team was #11 in "Luck" and he got that playing at the #315 "Tempo." So Fox was lucky to have a W/L record close to the unlucky W/L record Madden has.
Moreover, slow down, hero ball with Bradley, then throw Bradley under the bus after a loss, was not sustainable.
evanluck said:
Fox's best season was his first season because he had a strategy to eek out some wins by slowing the game down and playing tough defense. He had the buy in of the players that year because they came off a bad season and his message of having a plan to win more games made sense to the players that stuck around. He also inherited a better situation from Wyking Jones than Madsen did from him. If he would have handled his introduction to the players better and kept the talent that ended up transferring, he would have done even better than he did.
Madsen's first year is a bit deceiving because the team has been involved in an NCAA leading number of games decided by single digits and has the worst win percentage in those games. In other words, Madsen has lost a lot of close games.
Of course, the ability to win these games is the sign of a good coach and good program but coming off of such a terrible season last season, it is tremendously encouraging that the team has been competitive in all but a few games this season. I also think that the team's ability to win close games is affected by how many new players there are. It takes time to build the confidence as a team and trust in each other that allows a team to end up on the winning side of a close game.
I'm much higher on Madsen than I was with Fox at this point in their respective first seasons. I just think that Madsen's personality and his chosen playing style has a much better chance to attract the type of talent we need to be competitive and I expect him to get better at the Xs and Os as he settles into the job.
If this team could come back next season I am sure they would win 20+ games. Problem is most of the key contributors are leaving. We are not in an era where we are looking for incremental progress. It's win now at all costs.
That is one reason why I can't be optimistic about the close losses like I might have in another era. Jason Kidd only spent 2 years at Cal but they were transformative. That's the kind of turnaround Madsen needs to execute.
That said, at least we aren't a laughingstock anymore. Madsen needs to turn that into big-time recruits now. How is our NIL looking?
Raise your hand if you would like to relegate Mark Fox, his 1st season, heck, all his seasons, to the dustbin of history.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
strangely similiar to a public debate I saw on TV when the participants were asked a specific question about a participant that wasn't there.
I understand what you're saying, and you're not wrongdimitrig said:evanluck said:
Fox's best season was his first season because he had a strategy to eek out some wins by slowing the game down and playing tough defense. He had the buy in of the players that year because they came off a bad season and his message of having a plan to win more games made sense to the players that stuck around. He also inherited a better situation from Wyking Jones than Madsen did from him. If he would have handled his introduction to the players better and kept the talent that ended up transferring, he would have done even better than he did.
Madsen's first year is a bit deceiving because the team has been involved in an NCAA leading number of games decided by single digits and has the worst win percentage in those games. In other words, Madsen has lost a lot of close games.
Of course, the ability to win these games is the sign of a good coach and good program but coming off of such a terrible season last season, it is tremendously encouraging that the team has been competitive in all but a few games this season. I also think that the team's ability to win close games is affected by how many new players there are. It takes time to build the confidence as a team and trust in each other that allows a team to end up on the winning side of a close game.
I'm much higher on Madsen than I was with Fox at this point in their respective first seasons. I just think that Madsen's personality and his chosen playing style has a much better chance to attract the type of talent we need to be competitive and I expect him to get better at the Xs and Os as he settles into the job.
If this team could come back next season I am sure they would win 20+ games. Problem is most of the key contributors are leaving. We are not in an era where we are looking for incremental progress. It's win now at all costs.
That is one reason why I can't be optimistic about the close losses like I might have in another era. Jason Kidd only spent 2 years at Cal but they were transformative. That's the kind of turnaround Madsen needs to execute.
That said, at least we aren't a laughingstock anymore. Madsen needs to turn that into big-time recruits now. How is our NIL looking?
However, the most important thing that Madsen needed to do was change the narrative on Cal basketball. I think he's done that.
People are forgetting that Madsen had to rebuild this entire roster.
I believe Madsen is going to be able to use this changed narrative, along with his own people skills, to ignite recruiting and also NIL donations (the two are directly connected, of course).
If 2-3 of the early losses had been wins (plausible scenario), we'd be right on track to get into the NIT, which, along with finishing around the middle of the Pac, was a reasonable expectation for this season.
NVBear78 said:
People are forgetting that Madsen had to rebuild this entire roster.
Remember when in 1997-1998 Braun brought in transfers Geno Carlisle and James Kilgore. Those guys were ballers.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister said:NVBear78 said:
People are forgetting that Madsen had to rebuild this entire roster.
Remember when in 1997-1998 Braun brought in transfers Geno Carlisle and James Kilgore. Those guys were ballers.
I think you meant Thomas Kilgore.
One of the things you need to know about Fox's first year is it shouldn't have been Fox's first year.
Knowlton was introduced as AD one month after the last game of Jones' disastrous (until then) 2017/18 season where we went 2-16 in conference. In fairness to Knowlton, absent a scandal, there is almost no scenario in which a new AD comes in and fires one of the two main revenue coaches. But what Knowlton should have absolutely been doing is preparing for the very likely inevitable outcome of the next season. All through the season Knowlton should have been working quietly to cultivate a list of candidates that would be finalists should Wyking Jones have another awful year (which he did). And then literally the next day after the final game, Knowlton should have fired Jones and had the new coach announced (Ok maybe - maybe - a little longer on the new coach announcement). That is what programs who are serious about winning do.
But Knowlton didn't do that. In fact, Knowlton wasn't going to even fire Jones after the 18/19 season where we followed up the previous 2-16 season by going 3-15 (progress!). It wasn't until an outcry from alumni and season ticket holders that Knowlton pulled the trigger almost THREE weeks after the last game. By then though it was too late and so there was Knowlton flat-footed going into panic mode with a rushed coaching search.
For the previous 3 decades Cal basketball had been at least relevant (not necessarily prominent but relevant) on the national scene. Multiple sweet 16s, a conference championship just a few years earlier, always in the upper 3 or 4 in conference attendance, notable players. Despite what some might have said (and say) Cal was and is an attractive destination for the right coach. After all, just three years earlier we had gone undefeated at home, averaging 10K+ a game ranking second in the Pac12 only behind UofA.
But because Knowlton totally dropped the ball, we had to scramble. And we ended up with a simply awful choice, not just subjectively but objectively. It's perfectly fine to take a chance on and upcoming non-power conference coach, which is what we did with Madsen (and with Braun previously). Many times (probably most) it doesn't work out, but it's a reasonable direction. In fact, that is what Georgia did with Fox when they hired him from Reno. And what happened, Fox was a bust. He was, by definition, a loser at Georgia. In nine years, he only went to The Tournament twice (losing each time in the first game), and finished with a losing conference record, his last year finishing 11th. That is definitionally being a loser.
It was INEXCUSABLE to hire him. Absolutely inexcusable. He should have never had a first season at Cal. It wasn't his fault he got hired, but the ensuing results were. So, while I'm not answering your question directly, what I am saying is Fox was an awful choice, one that immediately turned off fans. In his first year as coach we averaged 5,600 people per game, at the time the lowest attendance in the history of Haas. Fox would go on to shatter that record averaging barely 2,000 people per game last year, and the lowest average attendance in the 90 year history of Haas Pavilion / Harmon Gym (which was opened in 1933 and only held 6700 people).
Quite a legacy.
Knowlton was introduced as AD one month after the last game of Jones' disastrous (until then) 2017/18 season where we went 2-16 in conference. In fairness to Knowlton, absent a scandal, there is almost no scenario in which a new AD comes in and fires one of the two main revenue coaches. But what Knowlton should have absolutely been doing is preparing for the very likely inevitable outcome of the next season. All through the season Knowlton should have been working quietly to cultivate a list of candidates that would be finalists should Wyking Jones have another awful year (which he did). And then literally the next day after the final game, Knowlton should have fired Jones and had the new coach announced (Ok maybe - maybe - a little longer on the new coach announcement). That is what programs who are serious about winning do.
But Knowlton didn't do that. In fact, Knowlton wasn't going to even fire Jones after the 18/19 season where we followed up the previous 2-16 season by going 3-15 (progress!). It wasn't until an outcry from alumni and season ticket holders that Knowlton pulled the trigger almost THREE weeks after the last game. By then though it was too late and so there was Knowlton flat-footed going into panic mode with a rushed coaching search.
For the previous 3 decades Cal basketball had been at least relevant (not necessarily prominent but relevant) on the national scene. Multiple sweet 16s, a conference championship just a few years earlier, always in the upper 3 or 4 in conference attendance, notable players. Despite what some might have said (and say) Cal was and is an attractive destination for the right coach. After all, just three years earlier we had gone undefeated at home, averaging 10K+ a game ranking second in the Pac12 only behind UofA.
But because Knowlton totally dropped the ball, we had to scramble. And we ended up with a simply awful choice, not just subjectively but objectively. It's perfectly fine to take a chance on and upcoming non-power conference coach, which is what we did with Madsen (and with Braun previously). Many times (probably most) it doesn't work out, but it's a reasonable direction. In fact, that is what Georgia did with Fox when they hired him from Reno. And what happened, Fox was a bust. He was, by definition, a loser at Georgia. In nine years, he only went to The Tournament twice (losing each time in the first game), and finished with a losing conference record, his last year finishing 11th. That is definitionally being a loser.
It was INEXCUSABLE to hire him. Absolutely inexcusable. He should have never had a first season at Cal. It wasn't his fault he got hired, but the ensuing results were. So, while I'm not answering your question directly, what I am saying is Fox was an awful choice, one that immediately turned off fans. In his first year as coach we averaged 5,600 people per game, at the time the lowest attendance in the history of Haas. Fox would go on to shatter that record averaging barely 2,000 people per game last year, and the lowest average attendance in the 90 year history of Haas Pavilion / Harmon Gym (which was opened in 1933 and only held 6700 people).
Quite a legacy.
85Bear said:bearister said:NVBear78 said:
People are forgetting that Madsen had to rebuild this entire roster.
Remember when in 1997-1998 Braun brought in transfers Geno Carlisle and James Kilgore. Those guys were ballers.
I think you meant Thomas Kilgore.
I did mean Thomas but muscle memory of the SLA guy took over.
On the lamb in South Africa for 27 years. Extradited and served 6.5 years in prison. Released 2009.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Well, THAT Kilgore certainly had a killer instinct that Cal hasn't had in some time. ;-)
TheFiatLux said:
One of the things you need to know about Fox's first year is it shouldn't have been Fox's first year.
Knowlton was introduced as AD one month after the last game of Jones' disastrous (until then) 2017/18 season where we went 2-16 in conference. In fairness to Knowlton, absent a scandal, there is almost no scenario in which a new AD comes in and fires one of the two main revenue coaches. But what Knowlton should have absolutely been doing is preparing for the very likely inevitable outcome of the next season. All through the season Knowlton should have been working quietly to cultivate a list of candidates that would be finalists should Wyking Jones have another awful year (which he did). And then literally the next day after the final game, Knowlton should have fired Jones and had the new coach announced (Ok maybe - maybe - a little longer on the new coach announcement). That is what programs who are serious about winning do.
But Knowlton didn't do that. In fact, Knowlton wasn't going to even fire Jones after the 18/19 season where we followed up the previous 2-16 season by going 3-15 (progress!). It wasn't until an outcry from alumni and season ticket holders that Knowlton pulled the trigger almost THREE weeks after the last game. By then though it was too late and so there was Knowlton flat-footed going into panic mode with a rushed coaching search.
For the previous 3 decades Cal basketball had been at least relevant (not necessarily prominent but relevant) on the national scene. Multiple sweet 16s, a conference championship just a few years earlier, always in the upper 3 or 4 in conference attendance, notable players. Despite what some might have said (and say) Cal was and is an attractive destination for the right coach. After all, just three years earlier we had gone undefeated at home, averaging 10K+ a game ranking second in the Pac12 only behind UofA.
But because Knowlton totally dropped the ball, we had to scramble. And we ended up with a simply awful choice, not just subjectively but objectively. It's perfectly fine to take a chance on and upcoming non-power conference coach, which is what we did with Madsen (and with Braun previously). Many times (probably most) it doesn't work out, but it's a reasonable direction. In fact, that is what Georgia did with Fox when they hired him from Reno. And what happened, Fox was a bust. He was, by definition, a loser at Georgia. In nine years, he only went to The Tournament twice (losing each time in the first game), and finished with a losing conference record, his last year finishing 11th. That is definitionally being a loser.
It was INEXCUSABLE to hire him. Absolutely inexcusable. He should have never had a first season at Cal. It wasn't his fault he got hired, but the ensuing results were. So, while I'm not answering your question directly, what I am saying is Fox was an awful choice, one that immediately turned off fans. In his first year as coach we averaged 5,600 people per game, at the time the lowest attendance in the history of Haas. Fox would go on to shatter that record averaging barely 2,000 people per game last year, and the lowest average attendance in the 90 year history of Haas Pavilion / Harmon Gym (which was opened in 1933 and only held 6700 people).
Quite a legacy.
Moreover, Fox at Georgia became known in basketball circles for his boring, slow-down game, his poor X's and O's, his screaming sideline antics and autocratic style, along with his hypocrisy of pointing the finger at everyone else as an excuse for his poor performance while Georgia boosters continued to do what Georgia boosters do.
Knowlton has been a disaster. The worst person at the most critical time in our history. I've been saying all along we will be lucky to even have an athletics program when he is done. We are lucky others got us into the ACC and Madsen was a good hire, especially given the degree to which he has embraced Cal. Hear next few years are critical.
You are either not paying attention, or you have a burr in the saddle.HKBear97! said: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?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 and Fox shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Madsen is a unicorn and we are so lucky to have him. I can't think of anyone who could have turned this ship around any faster. Everyone was chirping for Dennis Gates or Pasternack. Neither is shining this year.
Madsen had no roster at all last April. In six weeks he and his staff turned some magic and got some high D1 talent, and even some NBA talent. It is ridiculous to expect with the restraints he had, that he could somehow build a top25 team. The first month was a disaster because the team had never played together, and was without Tyson and Kennedy.
Let's see how the roster fills out for 24-25. I don't know how he'll do it, but I expect he pulls in 2-3 more gems.
The beauty is that we'll do it again, except with a deeper roster (everyone returning improving, which is not a stretch for the freshmen and Celestine who is ready for a bigger role) and more program credibility to recruit with.dimitrig said:evanluck said:
Fox's best season was his first season because he had a strategy to eek out some wins by slowing the game down and playing tough defense. He had the buy in of the players that year because they came off a bad season and his message of having a plan to win more games made sense to the players that stuck around. He also inherited a better situation from Wyking Jones than Madsen did from him. If he would have handled his introduction to the players better and kept the talent that ended up transferring, he would have done even better than he did.
Madsen's first year is a bit deceiving because the team has been involved in an NCAA leading number of games decided by single digits and has the worst win percentage in those games. In other words, Madsen has lost a lot of close games.
Of course, the ability to win these games is the sign of a good coach and good program but coming off of such a terrible season last season, it is tremendously encouraging that the team has been competitive in all but a few games this season. I also think that the team's ability to win close games is affected by how many new players there are. It takes time to build the confidence as a team and trust in each other that allows a team to end up on the winning side of a close game.
I'm much higher on Madsen than I was with Fox at this point in their respective first seasons. I just think that Madsen's personality and his chosen playing style has a much better chance to attract the type of talent we need to be competitive and I expect him to get better at the Xs and Os as he settles into the job.
If this team could come back next season I am sure they would win 20+ games. Problem is most of the key contributors are leaving.
concernedparent said:The beauty is that we'll do it again, except with a deeper roster (everyone returning improving, which is not a stretch for the freshmen and Celestine who is ready for a bigger role) and more program credibility to recruit with.dimitrig said:evanluck said:
Fox's best season was his first season because he had a strategy to eek out some wins by slowing the game down and playing tough defense. He had the buy in of the players that year because they came off a bad season and his message of having a plan to win more games made sense to the players that stuck around. He also inherited a better situation from Wyking Jones than Madsen did from him. If he would have handled his introduction to the players better and kept the talent that ended up transferring, he would have done even better than he did.
Madsen's first year is a bit deceiving because the team has been involved in an NCAA leading number of games decided by single digits and has the worst win percentage in those games. In other words, Madsen has lost a lot of close games.
Of course, the ability to win these games is the sign of a good coach and good program but coming off of such a terrible season last season, it is tremendously encouraging that the team has been competitive in all but a few games this season. I also think that the team's ability to win close games is affected by how many new players there are. It takes time to build the confidence as a team and trust in each other that allows a team to end up on the winning side of a close game.
I'm much higher on Madsen than I was with Fox at this point in their respective first seasons. I just think that Madsen's personality and his chosen playing style has a much better chance to attract the type of talent we need to be competitive and I expect him to get better at the Xs and Os as he settles into the job.
If this team could come back next season I am sure they would win 20+ games. Problem is most of the key contributors are leaving.
It remains to be seen but I do think that is likely, probably with more NIL dollars at his disposal too as he has won over much of the fan base and NIL in basketball will get a lot more bang for the buck. Plus the ACC is going to be fun and should be attractive to recruits.
calfanz said:You are either not paying attention, or you have a burr in the saddle.HKBear97! said: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?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 and Fox shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Madsen is a unicorn and we are so lucky to have him. I can't think of anyone who could have turned this ship around any faster. Everyone was chirping for Dennis Gates or Pasternack. Neither is shining this year.
Madsen had no roster at all last April. In six weeks he and his staff turned some magic and got some high D1 talent, and even some NBA talent. It is ridiculous to expect with the restraints he had, that he could somehow build a top25 team. The first month was a disaster because the team had never played together, and was without Tyson and Kennedy.
Let's see how the roster fills out for 24-25. I don't know how he'll do it, but I expect he pulls in 2-3 more gems.
I'm paying attention, just not through the blue-tinted glasses many on this board are wearing. Yes, last year was terrible but we're comparing the first years of Fox and Madsen and honestly hard to see much of a difference at this point. Terrible OOC record and mediocre showing in a terrible PAC-12, ending with four losses in a row - three by blowout. Now we lose almost the entire starting five with tons of holes to fill before we enter a much stronger ACC next year. This being Cal, Madsen will have all the time in the world to prove himself, but not an auspicious start.
We had our best PAC-12 showing this season since 2017, we were no better than 3rd worst in the conference during that span.HKBear97! said:Yes, last year was terrible but we're comparing the first years of Fox and Madsen and honestly hard to see much of a difference at this point.calfanz said:You are either not paying attention, or you have a burr in the saddle.HKBear97! said: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?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 and Fox shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Madsen is a unicorn and we are so lucky to have him. I can't think of anyone who could have turned this ship around any faster. Everyone was chirping for Dennis Gates or Pasternack. Neither is shining this year.
Madsen had no roster at all last April. In six weeks he and his staff turned some magic and got some high D1 talent, and even some NBA talent. It is ridiculous to expect with the restraints he had, that he could somehow build a top25 team. The first month was a disaster because the team had never played together, and was without Tyson and Kennedy.
Let's see how the roster fills out for 24-25. I don't know how he'll do it, but I expect he pulls in 2-3 more gems.
Strykur said:We had our best PAC-12 showing this season since 2017, we were no better than 3rd worst in the conference during that span.HKBear97! said:Yes, last year was terrible but we're comparing the first years of Fox and Madsen and honestly hard to see much of a difference at this point.calfanz said:You are either not paying attention, or you have a burr in the saddle.HKBear97! said: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?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 and Fox shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Madsen is a unicorn and we are so lucky to have him. I can't think of anyone who could have turned this ship around any faster. Everyone was chirping for Dennis Gates or Pasternack. Neither is shining this year.
Madsen had no roster at all last April. In six weeks he and his staff turned some magic and got some high D1 talent, and even some NBA talent. It is ridiculous to expect with the restraints he had, that he could somehow build a top25 team. The first month was a disaster because the team had never played together, and was without Tyson and Kennedy.
Let's see how the roster fills out for 24-25. I don't know how he'll do it, but I expect he pulls in 2-3 more gems.
Eh. PAC-12 sucks this year
The difference is that Madsen will go out and get us even better players.
Also, Fox ended his first season by starting a global pandemic...
PAC-12 was a one-trick pony this year but our outlook is much different than in years past.HKBear97! said:Eh. PAC-12 sucks this yearStrykur said:We had our best PAC-12 showing this season since 2017, we were no better than 3rd worst in the conference during that span.HKBear97! said:Yes, last year was terrible but we're comparing the first years of Fox and Madsen and honestly hard to see much of a difference at this point.calfanz said:You are either not paying attention, or you have a burr in the saddle.HKBear97! said: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?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 and Fox shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Madsen is a unicorn and we are so lucky to have him. I can't think of anyone who could have turned this ship around any faster. Everyone was chirping for Dennis Gates or Pasternack. Neither is shining this year.
Madsen had no roster at all last April. In six weeks he and his staff turned some magic and got some high D1 talent, and even some NBA talent. It is ridiculous to expect with the restraints he had, that he could somehow build a top25 team. The first month was a disaster because the team had never played together, and was without Tyson and Kennedy.
Let's see how the roster fills out for 24-25. I don't know how he'll do it, but I expect he pulls in 2-3 more gems.
Big C said:
The difference is that Madsen will go out and get us even better players.
Also, Fox ended his first season by starting a global pandemic...
I think that's more Fauci's fault.
Better, except that Wyking could not coach his way out of a paper bag.calumnus said:HKBear97! said: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?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.
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.
SFCityBear
SFCityBear said:Better, except that Wyking could not coach his way out of a paper bag.calumnus said:HKBear97! said: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?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.
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.
But Fox coaches his way into a paper bag.
Featured Stories
See All
Washington Safety Tristan Dunn Signs With Cal
by Jim McGill
Bears Raise the Bar in Decisive 89-63 Win Over Temple
by Jim McGill