Coaching short lists

11,649 Views | 77 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by PtownBear1
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

SFCityBear said:

cal83dls79 said:

Bear19 said:

bearister said:

I agree we have skilled players. We have 6 or 7 guys that can take it to the hoop and finish and some outside shooters as well. Defense and rebounding involve as much attitude as skill. Sometimes I think we need an attitude adjustment in those two areas.
Do you really think 6-7 players have enough talent to start, much less play, at any other Pac-12 school? Don't forget that this year, the Pac-12 is solidly ranked at the bottom of the Power 5 conferences. Maybe 2-3 Pac-12 teams might get into the March Tourney at the most.

Our lads barely beat Cal Poly SLO on our own floor. Cal Poly SLO carries an approximate rank of 300 in college MBB. Even accounting for the poor coaching, results in games seem to point to a distinct lack of talent on the hardwood.
we have had many successful or non-dismal years with 6-7 lads, with less talent. The arc of development under the recent regime has been dismal...and don't ask me to post stats and stuff...Name any area of our play that went from bad to ok, horrible to ok, ok to good, these last two years? Tough to do. That's coaching. But you get what you pay for.
I think in our haste to condemn the coach, we overlook, even bury his accomplishments. Last year many fans here wrote about what a poor-shooting team Cal was. This year we have made huge improvement in shooting the ball, and are so far one of the better shooting teams in the country. Read my thread on Cal's shooting for all the statistics, which do not lie.

Last year, many fans said we had no offensive plan. Last year, Wyking Jones had no point guard. This year he has one. In only 11 games, Wyking Jones Cal team has already had three games where they looked like they had an offensive plan, where most of their baskets came by way of an assist pass. That, I think is more good looking offensive games than all of last season.

For years, Cal fans complained about our coaches' inablity to recruit good players. Braun and Montgomery both were often criticized as not being able to recruit. Along came Counzo, who recruited two top rated recruits, and very little else. Wyking Jones has already demonstrated that he can recruit good players. He has filled every need except getting a center who can help right away, and that is a rare commodity. He has upgraded every position from last year, except center, and he has added some depth.

Finally, the few players he has left from last year's team all have improved individually. The head coach, Wyking Jones has had a hand in all of this.

I am fully aware of this team's deficiencies: We are not very good at defense and rebounding, and in most games, the offense struggles to play together. They are all young players with little experience. They make mistakes, and they panic when they get behind. They are freshmen and sophomores, for goodness sakes! What the heck do you want, the Warriors in Cal uniforms?

What do you want in a head coach? John Wooden? He won a lot of NCAA championships, but he struggled for many years before winning one, and Pete Newell had to retire first, and give him a chance to even get invited to the NCAA tournament. Jones has never been a head coach. He has made some blunders in all phases of coaching so far, but he is learning, and so are his players, in baby steps. And it is tough to take baby steps when you are supposed to be running a gauntlet. Cal fans are merciless, and unforgiving.

So if you don't see some positive signs of small improvement here and there, then perhaps you are smoking too much of whatever you are already smoking.
You see recruiting talent. So far I do not. I see middling Pac-12 talent. Combine that with someone learning on the job and you can anticipate poor performance year over year. Moreover, once recruits realize that their coach is learning on the job you will see it decline from current levels.
You are making a lot of assumptions. First, I did not say I saw recruiting "talent", nor did I say it was PAC12 talent. The recruits are freshmen. If you said a recruit had to be PAC12 ready to start as a freshmen, or he was not "talent", then I would say you would have missed out on a lot of recruits who became very good players in year 2, 3, or 4. What I said was I saw an "upgrade" at every position. Isn't Austin an upgrade from McNeil at PG? Isn't McNeil an upgraded at SG over Coleman? Isn't Kelly an upgrade over Marcus Lee? I sure think so, offensively, at least. In another lineup with Sueing at PF, and Bradley at SF, then I see Sueing as an upgrade over Lee (offensively, nearly equal in rebounding, and Kelly a big upgrade over the King offensively. Bradley is a better shooter than Sueing.

You also make assumptions about coaches learning on the job. Some make the grade, some don't. Pete Newell had never had a day of coaching experience before he was appointed head coach at USF. He was fresh out of the Navy, and 3 years later USF won the NIT in 1949, the real national championship in those days. With all due respect, I think you assume too much that is not provable, and it is leading you to anticipate too much. We need to let the season and maybe next season play out to make an honest judgment. If Cal completely tanks it in conference, then maybe I change my mind.

I don't understand your last sentence. Do you mean the recruits we have on the team now, or the potential recruits we are hoping to land? It seems to me that the recruits on the team now already know the coach is learning on the job, and they haven't bailed yet. The recruits coming in next Fall signed knowing full well that Jones is learning on the job.

Finally, we just finished having an experienced coach, not learning on the job, and all he gave us was a couple of top 10 recruits, who stayed a year or two, gave us little team success in terms of expectations, plus the guy couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag on offense. I'm willing to wait a little longer to see what this coach can do. He does not yet have a team composed entirely of his own players. And that is usually the tipping point as to what a coach's team looks like.

SFCityBear
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i totally agree with SF city Bear. First you crawl--then you walk--then, you run. Please see evolution, fairness and common sense.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caltagjohnson said:

Musselman has a great deal at UNR. He is close enough that he can see what it costs to live in California and how congested it is. Probably no one on his current, tournament bound team could get in Cal (or even wants to) Last year he had five, redshirting transfers When did that ever happen at Cal? You will not get any top level coach to come to Cal unless you are willing to pony up Big bucks. Someone from just about any other state would need his salary doubled or tripled just to stay even. Since pot is now legal, just smoke a few joints and dream about paying coach K $15m per year to come to Cal.
I understand Cal recruited the Martin twins, but when you know who left to be an assistant coach at nevada, he 'brought the twins with him'

not sure if it's true, but it makes sense

and the rest is history
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who can come in and build on what is here/keep the foundation in place enough to a point where a total rebuild isn't a necessity? If changes have to be made.
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

cal83dls79 said:

Bear19 said:

bearister said:

I agree we have skilled players. We have 6 or 7 guys that can take it to the hoop and finish and some outside shooters as well. Defense and rebounding involve as much attitude as skill. Sometimes I think we need an attitude adjustment in those two areas.
Do you really think 6-7 players have enough talent to start, much less play, at any other Pac-12 school? Don't forget that this year, the Pac-12 is solidly ranked at the bottom of the Power 5 conferences. Maybe 2-3 Pac-12 teams might get into the March Tourney at the most.

Our lads barely beat Cal Poly SLO on our own floor. Cal Poly SLO carries an approximate rank of 300 in college MBB. Even accounting for the poor coaching, results in games seem to point to a distinct lack of talent on the hardwood.
we have had many successful or non-dismal years with 6-7 lads, with less talent. The arc of development under the recent regime has been dismal...and don't ask me to post stats and stuff...Name any area of our play that went from bad to ok, horrible to ok, ok to good, these last two years? Tough to do. That's coaching. But you get what you pay for.
Freethrow shooting, three-point shooting, field goal percentage, turnovers. Don't ask me to post stats and stuff.
to quote Booger McFarland, "stats are like a bikini, they reveal some things but not everything".... did I just quote Booger? I believe if you look closely our openents performance has improved as well in many areas YOY:
.471 to .492 fg%
.518 to .557 2p%
.399 to .395 3p % (347th rank to 343)
.721 to 762 Ft%
135 rank to 270 rank forcing turnovers

But that said, I hope those improvements you highlighted are sustainable and not nullified by our oponent's own gains as we move to Pac 12 play
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
calbear80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hope our new AD has a short list and has already made some contacts to see who is available/interested.

Go Bears!
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cal83dls79 said:

Civil Bear said:

cal83dls79 said:

Bear19 said:

bearister said:

I agree we have skilled players. We have 6 or 7 guys that can take it to the hoop and finish and some outside shooters as well. Defense and rebounding involve as much attitude as skill. Sometimes I think we need an attitude adjustment in those two areas.
Do you really think 6-7 players have enough talent to start, much less play, at any other Pac-12 school? Don't forget that this year, the Pac-12 is solidly ranked at the bottom of the Power 5 conferences. Maybe 2-3 Pac-12 teams might get into the March Tourney at the most.

Our lads barely beat Cal Poly SLO on our own floor. Cal Poly SLO carries an approximate rank of 300 in college MBB. Even accounting for the poor coaching, results in games seem to point to a distinct lack of talent on the hardwood.
we have had many successful or non-dismal years with 6-7 lads, with less talent. The arc of development under the recent regime has been dismal...and don't ask me to post stats and stuff...Name any area of our play that went from bad to ok, horrible to ok, ok to good, these last two years? Tough to do. That's coaching. But you get what you pay for.
Freethrow shooting, three-point shooting, field goal percentage, turnovers. Don't ask me to post stats and stuff.
to quote Booger McFarland, "stats are like a bikini, they reveal some things but not everything".... did I just quote Booger? I believe if you look closely our openents performance has improved as well in many areas YOY:
.471 to .492 fg%
.518 to .557 2p%
.399 to .395 3p % (347th rank to 343)
.721 to 762 Ft%
135 rank to 270 rank forcing turnovers

But that said, I hope those improvements you highlighted are sustainable and not nullified by our oponent's own gains as we move to Pac 12 play

Your FG% statistics prove basically one thing, and that is that opponents are shooting better from inside the arc against Cal, and that is largely due to interior defense, and that in turn is due to having to replace two big experienced seniors with good defensive skills with an inexperienced freshman and an undersized sophomore for most of the minutes, backed up by a very tall, not very strong, inexperienced freshman, and a relatively inexperienced sophomore. In short, we have a very weak post presence on defense, and little or no rim protection, and if Red Auerbach, Pete Newell, or Steve Kerr were the Cal coach, there is not a lot he could do to speed up the development of the current players to give Cal the interior defense it so sorely needs. We need talented bigs with defensive ability. Because we have little interior defense, the tendency for most perimeter defenders is to think of helping out their undersized and less effective interior defenders,rather than always staying with their man or their zone responsibilities. Thus, we give perimeter shooters too many wide open looks. The forced turnovers difference is, I believe, also due to the weak interior defense, and perimeter players being overly willing to help the interior defenders, and playing their opponents too loosely. If only Cal players had the mind-set of first thinking of help when it comes to playing on offense as they do on defense, we might be winning more games, IMO.

You could also have included rebounding in your statistics, as Cal is getting outrebounded almost every night, especially on the offensive side. This was not the case last season, as Cal had Okoroh and Lee up front to battle for boards. I expect that a player like Kelly will develop as he plays and learns to be a better rebounder, and the same is true for Vanover and Anticevich, though Vanover needs some more bulk and strength. This is a 1-2 year process.

I don't consider the improvement in an opponent's FT% to be anything that can be affected or controlled by anything Cal players or coaching can do. We can't guard anyone shooting a free throw, so we can have no effect on his shot (withing the rules, of course). If that is a problem, then we could schedule teams in the pre-conference season who don't shoot free throws well.

SFCityBear
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

BearGreg said:

OTB

Cal Basketball lost money/only broke even for the first time in forever in the 2017-18 season and will lose more money in the 2018-19 season

Season ticket sales and donations are off by $3-4M from where they were in the 2016-17 season.
How can season ticket sales and donations be off by $3-4M when at their highest they are $4.7M? I'm going by the public financial statement. I'm happy to hear an explanation about why the financial statements might not paint an accurate picture, but the picture they paint over many years is that tickets and donations for basketball have ranged from $3.2M - $4.7M. Without further clarification I have to question your statement. I'd be happy to hear that the financials of paying a coach a competitive salary make sense. I'd note, though, that some people that usually know about these things have agreed with me here.

Revenue from ticket sales for the 2016-2017 season is listed on the financial statement as $3,236,708. Revenue from contributions is listed as $1,074,263. Total of $4,310,971. So you are saying ticket sales + contributions this year were $310K-$1.3M?
OTB,

Not sure exactly how to foot what I'm hearing from inside the AD relative to the Fiscal year statements you posted. That said, I'll give it a try. Starting with Monty's last year, which was the Fiscal year 2014 and compare that to Cuonzo's Brown/Rabb season in the Fiscal year 2016 (ends June of the calendar year). The gap in ticket sales was 35k ($1M per Cal's report) and donations gap was @($600k).

The NCAA keeps attendance figures here. As you can see last season was about 50k fewer seats sold than Cuonzo's 2nd season. Per Non Conference attendance this year, it looks like the trend line is for 80k+ fewer seats to be sold this year, using the comparison between 2014 and 2016 as a basis for $ gap, that would put lost ticket sales plus concessions + merch likely creating a gap in the $2M neighborhood. I have no idea how they account for donations as there are myriad buckets that are assigned to the University, AD as a whole, individual sports and then even more specialized one off programs (the latter used often by larger donors). I've been told we're off by 7 figures from 2 years back when the AD looks at all donations related to basketball. You'd then have to consier lower costs from coaching salaries (guess it's $1M). That would put things back at a $2M gap which would have us slightly better than break even. However, it's not a stretch to imagine donors who give to other sports and the University as a whole not writing any checks over displeasure of the Jones hire and the current state of the program. Perhaps that explains the $3-4M number I'm hearing.

This is worthy of further investigation and BI will explore.

Beyond the near term #'s, if you're Jim Knowlton you have to be very worried about the medium term effects of fan and donor apathy around basketball. We're at an absolute nadir of fan interest in basketball since I became a fan in 1985 and the trend line is appalling.



PtownBear1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So my point is correct then. Another $1-1.5m for a decent coach could very likely translate to well over a $1.5m differential in revenue. And a coach of Cuonzo's caliber has in the past resulted in a $3-4m difference vs. the status quo.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.