Coaching short lists

11,773 Views | 77 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by PtownBear1
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

calbear80 said:

Should we add USF's coach to the short list? USF was pretty bad s couple of years ago and now they are 12-1 with victories over Cal and Stabfurd.

Go Bears!
I'm definitely a whole lot more interested in how USF does this year than I've ever been. Big question is can he recruit at this level. I don't know what his history is.

What level would that be? PAC 12 level? You mean the level of the teams he has been spanking? When I met him and Randy Bennett almost 20 years ago my take away was: I want that young guy as my coach, not his boss.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Yogi Is King
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Yogi Bear said:

calbear80 said:

Should we add USF's coach to the short list? USF was pretty bad s couple of years ago and now they are 12-1 with victories over Cal and Stabfurd.

Go Bears!
I'm definitely a whole lot more interested in how USF does this year than I've ever been. Big question is can he recruit at this level. I don't know what his history is.
What level would that be? PAC 12 level? You mean the level of the teams he has been spanking? When I met him and Randy Bennett almost 20 years ago my take away was: I want that young guy as my coach, not his boss.
Yeah. The one thing Why King? has done a decent job at is recruiting. No huge stars, but some solid players. Kelly looks like a nice find. Vanover might be something in a couple of years.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

bearister said:

Yogi Bear said:

calbear80 said:

Should we add USF's coach to the short list? USF was pretty bad s couple of years ago and now they are 12-1 with victories over Cal and Stabfurd.

Go Bears!
I'm definitely a whole lot more interested in how USF does this year than I've ever been. Big question is can he recruit at this level. I don't know what his history is.
What level would that be? PAC 12 level? You mean the level of the teams he has been spanking? When I met him and Randy Bennett almost 20 years ago my take away was: I want that young guy as my coach, not his boss.
Yeah. The one thing Why King? has done a decent job at is recruiting. No huge stars, but some solid players. Kelly looks like a nice find. Vanover might be something in a couple of years.

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.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
PtownBear1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

PtownBear1 said:

So I get that BB is a loser investment, but I'm thinking there would be an opportunity to get a higher ROI on another million to hire a decent head coach. I'm just throwing numbers out but if for example that extra million meant BB profit would go from negative $3m to negative $1m it would be well worth it.


No actually you miss the point. Cal basketball makes money. Not a lot, but some. But it doesn't make much difference if we win or lose. There won't be ROI there


Can you provide any data to support this claim? I would be interested in how profits compared in the 2015/2016 season vs. last season for instance.
sonofabear51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Went to a lot of USF games back in the late '80's as well as Cal home games. Saw a lot of good, entertaining games on the Hilltop, especially when Loyola had Gathers and Westhead et al, and Jim Harrick was at Pepperdine. Today's game against furd looked pretty ugly, but USF seemed in control till the end, especially when furd hit a bunch of 3 pointers to make it close. Go Dons!! Its been a while, hopefully they can win the WCC outright this year!
Start Slowly and taper off
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PtownBear1 said:

OaktownBear said:

PtownBear1 said:

So I get that BB is a loser investment, but I'm thinking there would be an opportunity to get a higher ROI on another million to hire a decent head coach. I'm just throwing numbers out but if for example that extra million meant BB profit would go from negative $3m to negative $1m it would be well worth it.


No actually you miss the point. Cal basketball makes money. Not a lot, but some. But it doesn't make much difference if we win or lose. There won't be ROI there


Can you provide any data to support this claim? I would be interested in how profits compared in the 2015/2016 season vs. last season for instance.
Sure. You can do as much in depth analysis as you want. Here is the link to the athletic department financial statements:

https://calbears.com/sports/2013/4/17/208204144.aspx

Basketball's operating revenue for 2015-2016 was $9.54M. For 2016-2017 it was $10.8 M. The latter is by a good margin the highest it has ever been.

However, if you want to look at things more accurately, you need to realize that about half of that comes from the conference. We get it by fielding a team. Some of the difference between the two years is an increase in payout from the conference. However, the big thing I'd be curious about is that there is an unusual "Other revenue" line of $1.2M for basketball last year that many times higher than that category has ever been and it pretty much accounts for the difference in revenue between last year and the several years preceding it. I have to think it isn't recurring, so I'd guess our stable revenue is about $10M. Our ticket sales +contributions last year totaled $4.3M. Other than that and conference contributions you have a bunch of nickel and dime categories that aren't going to move the needle. The highest we made in normal ticket sales and contributions was 2015-2016, $4.68M. You can go through the years and add those two numbers. Those are the main numbers that have some possibility of moving up or down based on winning. You will find that they don't fluctuate much. They have essentially steadily climbed. There is a reason for that. Most of the money comes from chairbacks. That money is relatively stable. There aren't that many alums willing to donate the amount to buy those seats. Those seats are priced way over market value. Those alums do buy them and donate because they support the program as a whole. They may not show up to the games if they are ugly, but they still purchase. The seats in the rest of the arena are chump change.

If you look at the numbers, and you really scratched, and I was being EXTREMELY generous, you MAY be able to argue an increase in $1M a year IF Cal won a conference title and stayed in that realm. That would be blowing the doors off any prior year's ticket sales. So basically, you are going to have to argue that a program that has never made more than $4.68M in ticket sales and contributions is going to somehow increase that by the $1.5M more you want to pay a coach and basically guarantee that increase in revenue. Given the numbers do you really see that?

And, paying another $1M is not going to make the odds of that success very good. And you have basically bet $1M on maybe a 1 out of 20 shot that you get your money back. Most likely you lose. On top of that, right now you are looking at historically bad results. Frankly, I think most coaches even at Jones' salary would do better and subsequently might see a little increase in ticket sales over Jones. Cal's best fiscal play is to take a shot at another cheap coach because historically winning doesn't bring in the extra $1.5M you are looking at paying. Right now, Cal's best bet is to play conservative, take the couple mil a year it gets by being the Washington Generals of the conference, and don't get risky. Cal is all about finances right now. Unless some donors are willing to pull together like $10M to cover 5 years of extra salary, don't expect to see it.

Football is different. The dollars in ticket sales and contributions can swing millions based on success, and the total dollars there are a lot higher than in basketball. Operating revenue for football is $45M vs. $10M for basketball. That is why Cal is more likely to spend on football.
PtownBear1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for the info and detailed response Oaktown.

It does look like tickets sales increased by ~$1m a year and contributions by about ~500k in Cuonzo's last two seasons vs. Cuonzo's first year and Monty's tenure on average. However, I'm really curious to see data from last season to see if and how those numbers were impacted under Wyking. The latest financials from that Cal site link are for the period ending June 30, 2017.
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Al Skinner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Skinner
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
Ccajon2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear said:

My general thought on this season/Wyking remains the same. Let's punt on the coaching move till after next season, here's my plan and how to sell it:

1. The top priority for basketball right now should be long term infrastructure, i.e. the facility. Yeah, selling this to donors with how we're currently trending and a possibly similar year 3 is tough, my pitch is this - Let's get the facility under way now, and by year 3 Wyking has either miraculously turned things around (competing for a tourney seed) or we go out and get the best coach your money and a new facility in progress can buy.

Don't worry too much about keeping players/recruiting in tact. In basketball that can all change in one off season with the right staff. Don't worry too much about losing the fan base, you've already lost it. Don't worry about Wyking, his time with this program is fleeting. Get the big picture stuff in order first.

We can do this because we've already hit rock bottom (save sanctions or something tragic).


Absolutely well said SCB this the best post yet on the subject of WJ staying or leaving.
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Yogi Is King
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cal83dls79 said:

Al Skinner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Skinner
To replace Why King?
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

cal83dls79 said:

Al Skinner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Skinner
To replace Why King?
His track record speaks for itself. Not sure what lead to his firing as the story was untold. Look at his record at BC. Multiple 18+ win years, had a "bad year" and then let go.. Wyking might have multiple 18 loss seasons given the opportunity. BC is similar in its academic standards and never recruited the top talent but played tough, smart basketball. Only 7 tourney appearances.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
Yogi Is King
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cal83dls79 said:

Yogi Bear said:

cal83dls79 said:

Al Skinner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Skinner
To replace Why King?
His track record speaks for itself. Not sure what lead to his firing as the story was untold. Look at his record at BC. Multiple 18+ win years, had a "bad year" and then let go.. Wyking might have multiple 18 loss seasons given the opportunity. BC is similar in its academic standards and never recruited the top talent but played tough, smart basketball. Only 7 tourney appearances.
Why did he drop down to Kennesaw State, where he hasn't been all that good? Something strange there.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

PtownBear1 said:

OaktownBear said:

PtownBear1 said:

So I get that BB is a loser investment, but I'm thinking there would be an opportunity to get a higher ROI on another million to hire a decent head coach. I'm just throwing numbers out but if for example that extra million meant BB profit would go from negative $3m to negative $1m it would be well worth it.


No actually you miss the point. Cal basketball makes money. Not a lot, but some. But it doesn't make much difference if we win or lose. There won't be ROI there


Can you provide any data to support this claim? I would be interested in how profits compared in the 2015/2016 season vs. last season for instance.
Sure. You can do as much in depth analysis as you want. Here is the link to the athletic department financial statements:

https://calbears.com/sports/2013/4/17/208204144.aspx

Basketball's operating revenue for 2015-2016 was $9.54M. For 2016-2017 it was $10.8 M. The latter is by a good margin the highest it has ever been.

However, if you want to look at things more accurately, you need to realize that about half of that comes from the conference. We get it by fielding a team. Some of the difference between the two years is an increase in payout from the conference. However, the big thing I'd be curious about is that there is an unusual "Other revenue" line of $1.2M for basketball last year that many times higher than that category has ever been and it pretty much accounts for the difference in revenue between last year and the several years preceding it. I have to think it isn't recurring, so I'd guess our stable revenue is about $10M. Our ticket sales +contributions last year totaled $4.3M. Other than that and conference contributions you have a bunch of nickel and dime categories that aren't going to move the needle. The highest we made in normal ticket sales and contributions was 2015-2016, $4.68M. You can go through the years and add those two numbers. Those are the main numbers that have some possibility of moving up or down based on winning. You will find that they don't fluctuate much. They have essentially steadily climbed. There is a reason for that. Most of the money comes from chairbacks. That money is relatively stable. There aren't that many alums willing to donate the amount to buy those seats. Those seats are priced way over market value. Those alums do buy them and donate because they support the program as a whole. They may not show up to the games if they are ugly, but they still purchase. The seats in the rest of the arena are chump change.

If you look at the numbers, and you really scratched, and I was being EXTREMELY generous, you MAY be able to argue an increase in $1M a year IF Cal won a conference title and stayed in that realm. That would be blowing the doors off any prior year's ticket sales. So basically, you are going to have to argue that a program that has never made more than $4.68M in ticket sales and contributions is going to somehow increase that by the $1.5M more you want to pay a coach and basically guarantee that increase in revenue. Given the numbers do you really see that?

And, paying another $1M is not going to make the odds of that success very good. And you have basically bet $1M on maybe a 1 out of 20 shot that you get your money back. Most likely you lose. On top of that, right now you are looking at historically bad results. Frankly, I think most coaches even at Jones' salary would do better and subsequently might see a little increase in ticket sales over Jones. Cal's best fiscal play is to take a shot at another cheap coach because historically winning doesn't bring in the extra $1.5M you are looking at paying. Right now, Cal's best bet is to play conservative, take the couple mil a year it gets by being the Washington Generals of the conference, and don't get risky. Cal is all about finances right now. Unless some donors are willing to pull together like $10M to cover 5 years of extra salary, don't expect to see it.

Football is different. The dollars in ticket sales and contributions can swing millions based on success, and the total dollars there are a lot higher than in basketball. Operating revenue for football is $45M vs. $10M for basketball. That is why Cal is more likely to spend on football.


That's very informative. Thanks.

Question - so if cal makes the sweet 16, do the proceeds get split evenly in conference or does cal make any additional revenue?



I think as others have noted, it's clear from your breakdown that there's not a ton of upside from the Monty/cuonzo years but there seems to be a huge downside in revenue if cal b-ball is absolute crap.

So I guess based on your assessment, the key is to find a cheap coach who will at least be competent enough to finish middle of the pack?
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

cal83dls79 said:

Yogi Bear said:

cal83dls79 said:

Al Skinner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Skinner
To replace Why King?
His track record speaks for itself. Not sure what lead to his firing as the story was untold. Look at his record at BC. Multiple 18+ win years, had a "bad year" and then let go.. Wyking might have multiple 18 loss seasons given the opportunity. BC is similar in its academic standards and never recruited the top talent but played tough, smart basketball. Only 7 tourney appearances.
Why did he drop down to Kennesaw State, where he hasn't been all that good? Something strange there.

I'm not sure but Kennesaw state has never killed it 123-290 all in. So he's up against it there.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2010/3/30/1396822/al-skinner-fired-boston-college-reaction-analysis

Lots of parallels to Cal. Apparently a Boston Globe writer all but called him lazy and he was doomed. Bay Area writers don't even write about cal hoops anymore , or football for that matter
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Short List:

1. The USF guy
2. The great Justin "Golden Bear" Labagh
SFCityBear
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

I feel like we finally have a good AD who will make a good (non-typiCal) choice. Looking forward to MBB returning to respectability under a real AD.
I am in 100% with you on this, Uth.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

I'm not convinced Cal is willing to spend money on basketball right now and I think that is why you have Wyking in the first place. Unless Wyking was a ploy to demonstrate to donors how low we are willing to go if they don't cough up 100% of the salary.
Somehow I can't see Williams being as so clever as to hatch this plot on the way out.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sunshine pumpers and apologists abound.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
cal83dls79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hasn't that always been the strategy?
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
calbear80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How about Monty for the remainder of this season and hiring a new permanent coach when the season ends?

Go Bears!
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear80 said:

How about Monty for the remainder of this season and hiring a new permanent coach when the season ends?

Go Bears!


How about Steve Kerr for the rest of the season and we consider making him permanent if he does okay?
calbear80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

calbear80 said:

How about Monty for the remainder of this season and hiring a new permanent coach when the season ends?

Go Bears!


How about Steve Kerr for the rest of the season and we consider making him permanent if he does okay?


Steve Kerr is a great coach, but, is not available as he is the highly paid Head Coach of the Warriors.

On the other hand, Monty loves coaching and is available. He probably be willing to take a short-tern coaching job (say no to April) while he almost certainly will not take the permanent position (for the same reasons that he resigned four years ago).

Go Bears!
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
SFCityBear
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear80 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear80 said:

How about Monty for the remainder of this season and hiring a new permanent coach when the season ends?

Go Bears!


How about Steve Kerr for the rest of the season and we consider making him permanent if he does okay?


Steve Kerr is a great coach, but, is not available as he is the highly paid Head Coach of the Warriors.

On the other hand, Monty loves coaching and is available. He probably be willing to take a short-tern coaching job (say no to April) while he almost certainly will not take the permanent position (for the same reasons that he resigned four years ago).

Go Bears!
I assume your assertions about MM's "willingness" is based on the many long conversations you've had with him recently.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
caltagjohnson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All he can get now is three star talent.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Yogi Is King
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear80 said:


On the other hand, Monty loves coaching and is available.
Not anymore
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear80 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear80 said:

How about Monty for the remainder of this season and hiring a new permanent coach when the season ends?

Go Bears!


How about Steve Kerr for the rest of the season and we consider making him permanent if he does okay?


Steve Kerr is a great coach, but, is not available as he is the highly paid Head Coach of the Warriors.

On the other hand, Monty loves coaching and is available. He probably be willing to take a short-tern coaching job (say no to April) while he almost certainly will not take the permanent position (for the same reasons that he resigned four years ago).

Go Bears!


Insert Ricardo Montalban and Herve Villachez picture here.

Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.