UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity
Excellent history, but I have to chide you: Woolpert's name was Phil, not Pete.

---

No . . . Pete Woolpert, Phil Newell.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity
Excellent history, but I have to chide you: Woolpert's name was Phil, not Pete.

---

when he messed up the Phil/Pete thing he lost all credibility. Woolpert coached at SI, a day in age when HS coaches moved into the college ranks. Bay Area Hs basketball used to be a thing. Castlemont, El Cerrito, College Park, DLS would play some of the LA powerhouses, Verbum Dei, PV in the Cable Car Classic.

cal83dls79 said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity
Excellent history, but I have to chide you: Woolpert's name was Phil, not Pete.

---

when he messed up the Phil/Pete thing he lost all credibility. Woolpert coached at SI, a day in age when HS coaches moved into the college ranks. Bay Area Hs basketball used to be a thing. Castlemont, El Cerrito, College Park, DLS would play some of the LA powerhouses, Verbum Dei, PV in the Cable Car Classic.

---

Add SF Poly and Mack.

joe amos yaks said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity
Excellent history, but I have to chide you: Woolpert's name was Phil, not Pete.

---

when he messed up the Phil/Pete thing he lost all credibility. Woolpert coached at SI, a day in age when HS coaches moved into the college ranks. Bay Area Hs basketball used to be a thing. Castlemont, El Cerrito, College Park, DLS would play some of the LA powerhouses, Verbum Dei, PV in the Cable Car Classic.

---

Add SF Poly and Mack.

---

McClymonds....yeah, that's where Claiborne went after DLS, now he actually "recruited", thanks to BART. Greg the "Ice " Payton, Lamont the "Glide" Gibson, Gerald the "Skate" Price and Paul Payne who went on to play FB at Brown. ...and the lone white dude Don rhe "dominating" Swain.. they don't have names like this anymore. I forget but it was either Castlemont or El Cerrito that had an Asian coach who was the best damn coach I have ever seen outside of Al Claiborne

cal83dls79 said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity
Excellent history, but I have to chide you: Woolpert's name was Phil, not Pete.

---

when he messed up the Phil/Pete thing he lost all credibility. Woolpert coached at SI, a day in age when HS coaches moved into the college ranks. Bay Area Hs basketball used to be a thing. Castlemont, El Cerrito, College Park, DLS would play some of the LA powerhouses, Verbum Dei, PV in the Cable Car Classic.

---

Add SF Poly and Mack.

---

McClymonds....yeah, that's where Claiborne went after DLS, now he actually "recruited", thanks to BART. Greg the "Ice " Payton, Lamont the "Glide" Gibson, Gerald the "Skate" Price and Paul Payne who went on to play FB at Brown. ...and the lone white dude Don rhe "dominating" Swain.. they don't have names like this anymore. I forget but it was either Castlemont or El Cerrito that had an Asian coach who was the best damn coach I have ever seen outside of Al Claiborne

---

Berkeley HS Coach Gene Nakamura who coached both girls and boys BB.

SFCityBear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

His (Wyking Jones') involvement in the front court was widely reported when he was hired and discussed on Bear Insider as well. Here's an excerpt from one article: "You want to get a guy who understands the value of family, team, winning," Martin told reporters after adding Jones to his staff. "Just as important and probably most important is work with big guys and their development. That's very important for our guys. I wanted to hire a guy who could take our big guys to another level."

---

Thank you for providing the information, but I think it is a leap from "hiring a guy who could take our big guys to another level" to say that "he was in charge of the frontcourt", which to me means he would be in charge of all big man recruiting, in charge of all teaching the bigs basketball skills. From the ESPN article, I would say about his Hollywood experience, (not that it influenced his hiring as Cal coach), but I'd rather have had a director than an actor. Actors, like players TAKE direction. I would rather have had a director for a coach, someone used to GIVING direction. I asked a couple of times in the hiring process, "What big men has Wyking developed as an assistant? Maybe at Louisville? If he was in charge of Okoroh, Rooks and Rabb as an assistant, I saw little improvement in any of them. Defensively, yes. Okoroh and Rooks did improve some on defense, enough to play in a help defense scheme. But offensively, none of them improved. They scored a few more points, but they took more shots and shot a lower percentage to do it. No one rebounded better per minute. As a head coach, someone else probably has charge of the bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO or Lee over the season. I think if that was a reason he was hired as an assistant in charge of bigs, he has had little success. until Vanover. Can you believe the almost incredible improvement in Vanover from the beginning of the season? It is like and day. He went from being a very iffy freshman who looked slow, lightly skilled, weak, soft, to a guy I'm hoping will not leave early in a year or two for the NBA.

Quote:

---

Moreover, the buzzword when Wyking was hired was "continuity". Mike Williams - "That's where we are as a basketball program," Williams said. "We have a very solid foundation. We got that from Coach Montgomery and Coach Martin. We think we can continue to build on that and Wyking is the coach to do that. ... I do think we're on an upward trajectory and I don't want to see us fall back." In another press release, he said "We fully believe our men's basketball program is on an upward trajectory, and Wyking is poised to continue that momentum and take our program to even greater heights." Another from Bear Territory - " It also serves to keep some level of continuity. One main reason for keeping Jones -- who was named the interim head coach after the departure of Martin -- was to retain a recruiting class consisting of three four-stars, one delayed enrollee and one international commit"

---

Either Williams was lying like a rug, or he knows less about basketball than I already thought. The program at the end of the 2017 season was a shambles, brought on by Cuonzo's failure to at least replace the players he inherited from Montgomery, and his failure to think ahead when he recruited one-and-dones Rabb and Brown. Cuonzo is the one who did a "complete teardown" of the Cal program. Cuonzo first lost Mathews, his best shooter, to a personal dispute. Then he lost Rabb to the NBA. Then he lost Bird, Mullins, Singer, RMB, and Domingo to graduation. That was an ENTIRE ROTATION. Once Wyking took over, Cal lost Charlie Moore, who left to be closer to his father, who had a stroke. Then he lost Rooks who left to be close to his family after the death of his father. Those last two was not under Wyking's control. He began 9 players short of a team. He had no players who had started more than a handful of games and played more than a handful of minutes. Cuonzo Martin had built NOTHING at Cal. He had wrecked the program, maybe for years to come If you have evidence that Wyking Jones as an assistant had any part in Cuonzo's inability or lack of success in recruiting to fill all the holes in his roster, then please give it now. Otherwise, it is Cuonzo's responsibility. He was so lucky that he was able to land the Mizzou job and escape the same fate that Wyking Jones met in his first season and beyond. As for losing recruits, that nearl always happens. I think your recruit rankings are the highest rankings, not the average for each player. There was only one top 100 player, Baker, #72 RCSI, and he has been injured and of little help to Kentucky.

Quote:

---

You call out the "Fire Wyking Crowd" for only focusing on the wins and losses record instead of considering other aspects of the job he's done. However, you too only focus on his stint as the head coach and completely disregard the fact he was part of this program for two years before being elevated (already knew the school, area, recruiting targets, admissions, where the bathrooms were, etc.). He was obviously part of the recruiting plans and was hired to keep an upward trajectory, not a complete tear down. He's utterly failed in that regard, yet you hang that on Cuonzo, not Wyking.

---

I don't disregard the fact that he was here for two years on Cuonzo's staff. I said at the time, it was not the best of hires. I said I would never hire anyone from Cuonzo's staff, because I thought CM was an awful coach. None of his players improved over time, and some got worse. The team never looked good, always underachieved, in my opinion. I would disagree with you if you think Wyking Jones did a "tear down of the program" I think he has desperately tried to fill the holes, but he has not been good at some of his talent evaluations. I would not have recruited Winston, McCullogh, but McNeill was a good evaluation. JHD was Cuonzo's I think, but I don't think I would have recruited him. His evaluation of Bradley and Kelly was good, and his evaluation of Vanover could turn out to be outstanding. I don't blame Jones for Theo. We don't have enough facts to do that, do we? Chauca was a Cuonzo recruit, a completely wasted scholarship like Winston. I would have given Chauca his walking papers long ago. I said at the time of his hiring that Jones was not the best hire. I really did not like his plan to use a full court press and fast tempo with a team of freshmen, 2 seniors (one very slow), and an out of control Coleman. I really did not like it when he announced Coleman was his" go to guy." I knew we were in trouble. But I want the AD to judge not whether WJ was a bad hire, but whether he is the best man for the job next season based on what he has done this season with a team so very very young. Let him look at all the facts, not just wins and losses.

Quote:

---

Big picture - the record, average margin of defeat, roster imbalance, departure of Theo, departure of Chauca, Winston and McCullough, huge decline in attendance - what more do you need to tell you this was a bad hire?

---

Big picture it will take 4 years, maybe 3 to rebuild the program from the time Cuonzo fled Berkeley. Season records for these first two seasons, they are small picture stuff, and don't mean squat. Roster imbalance was created by Cuonzo, and takes 2-3 recruiting classes to fix. WJ has had one recruiting class. In the 2017 class, WJ started so late, he took what he could get. No coach gets much if anything in his first class. Braun got no one. Monty did well, getting only Jorge. Cuonzo did well, getting only KO. In two more years we can fully judge WJ on McNeill. I appreciate your love for Theo, but we don't know what really caused the rift. Chauca, Winston, McC were wasted schollies to begin with. The decline in attendance, I agree with you, and it won't be fixed until Cal wins, because most fans only care about wins. I never said Wyking was a good hire, but I'm beginning to enjoy the hire right now. If you can't give WJ any credit, can't you at least put aside your personal contempt for the coach and enjoy the streak? These three games have been fun, haven't they?

---

Let me see if I understand this:

[ol]

Direct quote from Cuonzo about Wyking was he "wanted to hire a guy who could take our big guys to another level" and you admit that during his time as an assistant you "saw little improvement in any of them". So he did not meet expectations as an assistant coach.

You did not like anyone from Cuonzo's staff because you thought he was an awful coach.

You question Wyking's talent evaluations.

You question Wyking's game planning, such as his plan to use a full court press and fast tempo with a team of freshmen, 2 seniors (one very slow), and an out of control Coleman.

You inexplicably disregard the season records for these first two seasons as they "don't mean squat", yet they're the two worst seasons in modern history. These are not simply bad records, they are HISTORICALLY BAD records. We set a SCHOOL RECORD 16 game losing streak. We lost 23 Pac-12 games in a row (in a historically weak Pac-12). We lost to Chaminade CHAMINADE! By 24 points.

[/ol]
So after all that, you not only think Wyking deserves a third year, he actually deserves a fourth. Got it.

Funny thing is, he'll probably be back next year, we'll win what, 15 games? in front of dozens of fans and you'll be posting about "progress". But hey, wins and losses don't matter, right?

And for the record, I don't hold personal contempt for Wyking. I simply don't share your belief that he'll somehow figure it all out in the next year or two. It's much more likely he'll be yet another poor-to-mediocre former Cal coach.

SFCityBear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

His (Wyking Jones') involvement in the front court was widely reported when he was hired and discussed on Bear Insider as well. Here's an excerpt from one article: "You want to get a guy who understands the value of family, team, winning," Martin told reporters after adding Jones to his staff. "Just as important and probably most important is work with big guys and their development. That's very important for our guys. I wanted to hire a guy who could take our big guys to another level."

---

Thank you for providing the information, but I think it is a leap from "hiring a guy who could take our big guys to another level" to say that "he was in charge of the frontcourt", which to me means he would be in charge of all big man recruiting, in charge of all teaching the bigs basketball skills. From the ESPN article, I would say about his Hollywood experience, (not that it influenced his hiring as Cal coach), but I'd rather have had a director than an actor. Actors, like players TAKE direction. I would rather have had a director for a coach, someone used to GIVING direction. I asked a couple of times in the hiring process, "What big men has Wyking developed as an assistant? Maybe at Louisville? If he was in charge of Okoroh, Rooks and Rabb as an assistant, I saw little improvement in any of them. Defensively, yes. Okoroh and Rooks did improve some on defense, enough to play in a help defense scheme. But offensively, none of them improved. They scored a few more points, but they took more shots and shot a lower percentage to do it. No one rebounded better per minute. As a head coach, someone else probably has charge of the bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO or Lee over the season. I think if that was a reason he was hired as an assistant in charge of bigs, he has had little success. until Vanover. Can you believe the almost incredible improvement in Vanover from the beginning of the season? It is like and day. He went from being a very iffy freshman who looked slow, lightly skilled, weak, soft, to a guy I'm hoping will not leave early in a year or two for the NBA.

Quote:

---

Moreover, the buzzword when Wyking was hired was "continuity". Mike Williams - "That's where we are as a basketball program," Williams said. "We have a very solid foundation. We got that from Coach Montgomery and Coach Martin. We think we can continue to build on that and Wyking is the coach to do that. ... I do think we're on an upward trajectory and I don't want to see us fall back." In another press release, he said "We fully believe our men's basketball program is on an upward trajectory, and Wyking is poised to continue that momentum and take our program to even greater heights." Another from Bear Territory - " It also serves to keep some level of continuity. One main reason for keeping Jones -- who was named the interim head coach after the departure of Martin -- was to retain a recruiting class consisting of three four-stars, one delayed enrollee and one international commit"

---

Either Williams was lying like a rug, or he knows less about basketball than I already thought. The program at the end of the 2017 season was a shambles, brought on by Cuonzo's failure to at least replace the players he inherited from Montgomery, and his failure to think ahead when he recruited one-and-dones Rabb and Brown. Cuonzo is the one who did a "complete teardown" of the Cal program. Cuonzo first lost Mathews, his best shooter, to a personal dispute. Then he lost Rabb to the NBA. Then he lost Bird, Mullins, Singer, RMB, and Domingo to graduation. That was an ENTIRE ROTATION. Once Wyking took over, Cal lost Charlie Moore, who left to be closer to his father, who had a stroke. Then he lost Rooks who left to be close to his family after the death of his father. Those last two was not under Wyking's control. He began 9 players short of a team. He had no players who had started more than a handful of games and played more than a handful of minutes. Cuonzo Martin had built NOTHING at Cal. He had wrecked the program, maybe for years to come If you have evidence that Wyking Jones as an assistant had any part in Cuonzo's inability or lack of success in recruiting to fill all the holes in his roster, then please give it now. Otherwise, it is Cuonzo's responsibility. He was so lucky that he was able to land the Mizzou job and escape the same fate that Wyking Jones met in his first season and beyond. As for losing recruits, that nearl always happens. I think your recruit rankings are the highest rankings, not the average for each player. There was only one top 100 player, Baker, #72 RCSI, and he has been injured and of little help to Kentucky.

Quote:

---

You call out the "Fire Wyking Crowd" for only focusing on the wins and losses record instead of considering other aspects of the job he's done. However, you too only focus on his stint as the head coach and completely disregard the fact he was part of this program for two years before being elevated (already knew the school, area, recruiting targets, admissions, where the bathrooms were, etc.). He was obviously part of the recruiting plans and was hired to keep an upward trajectory, not a complete tear down. He's utterly failed in that regard, yet you hang that on Cuonzo, not Wyking.

---

I don't disregard the fact that he was here for two years on Cuonzo's staff. I said at the time, it was not the best of hires. I said I would never hire anyone from Cuonzo's staff, because I thought CM was an awful coach. None of his players improved over time, and some got worse. The team never looked good, always underachieved, in my opinion. I would disagree with you if you think Wyking Jones did a "tear down of the program" I think he has desperately tried to fill the holes, but he has not been good at some of his talent evaluations. I would not have recruited Winston, McCullogh, but McNeill was a good evaluation. JHD was Cuonzo's I think, but I don't think I would have recruited him. His evaluation of Bradley and Kelly was good, and his evaluation of Vanover could turn out to be outstanding. I don't blame Jones for Theo. We don't have enough facts to do that, do we? Chauca was a Cuonzo recruit, a completely wasted scholarship like Winston. I would have given Chauca his walking papers long ago. I said at the time of his hiring that Jones was not the best hire. I really did not like his plan to use a full court press and fast tempo with a team of freshmen, 2 seniors (one very slow), and an out of control Coleman. I really did not like it when he announced Coleman was his" go to guy." I knew we were in trouble. But I want the AD to judge not whether WJ was a bad hire, but whether he is the best man for the job next season based on what he has done this season with a team so very very young. Let him look at all the facts, not just wins and losses.

Quote:

---

Big picture - the record, average margin of defeat, roster imbalance, departure of Theo, departure of Chauca, Winston and McCullough, huge decline in attendance - what more do you need to tell you this was a bad hire?

---

Big picture it will take 4 years, maybe 3 to rebuild the program from the time Cuonzo fled Berkeley. Season records for these first two seasons, they are small picture stuff, and don't mean squat. Roster imbalance was created by Cuonzo, and takes 2-3 recruiting classes to fix. WJ has had one recruiting class. In the 2017 class, WJ started so late, he took what he could get. No coach gets much if anything in his first class. Braun got no one. Monty did well, getting only Jorge. Cuonzo did well, getting only KO. In two more years we can fully judge WJ on McNeill. I appreciate your love for Theo, but we don't know what really caused the rift. Chauca, Winston, McC were wasted schollies to begin with. The decline in attendance, I agree with you, and it won't be fixed until Cal wins, because most fans only care about wins. I never said Wyking was a good hire, but I'm beginning to enjoy the hire right now. If you can't give WJ any credit, can't you at least put aside your personal contempt for the coach and enjoy the streak? These three games have been fun, haven't they?

---

4thGenCal said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

His (Wyking Jones') involvement in the front court was widely reported when he was hired and discussed on Bear Insider as well. Here's an excerpt from one article: "You want to get a guy who understands the value of family, team, winning," Martin told reporters after adding Jones to his staff. "Just as important and probably most important is work with big guys and their development. That's very important for our guys. I wanted to hire a guy who could take our big guys to another level."

---

Thank you for providing the information, but I think it is a leap from "hiring a guy who could take our big guys to another level" to say that "he was in charge of the frontcourt", which to me means he would be in charge of all big man recruiting, in charge of all teaching the bigs basketball skills. From the ESPN article, I would say about his Hollywood experience, (not that it influenced his hiring as Cal coach), but I'd rather have had a director than an actor. Actors, like players TAKE direction. I would rather have had a director for a coach, someone used to GIVING direction. I asked a couple of times in the hiring process, "What big men has Wyking developed as an assistant? Maybe at Louisville? If he was in charge of Okoroh, Rooks and Rabb as an assistant, I saw little improvement in any of them. Defensively, yes. Okoroh and Rooks did improve some on defense, enough to play in a help defense scheme. But offensively, none of them improved. They scored a few more points, but they took more shots and shot a lower percentage to do it. No one rebounded better per minute. As a head coach, someone else probably has charge of the bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO or Lee over the season. I think if that was a reason he was hired as an assistant in charge of bigs, he has had little success. until Vanover. Can you believe the almost incredible improvement in Vanover from the beginning of the season? It is like and day. He went from being a very iffy freshman who looked slow, lightly skilled, weak, soft, to a guy I'm hoping will not leave early in a year or two for the NBA.

Quote:

---

Moreover, the buzzword when Wyking was hired was "continuity". Mike Williams - "That's where we are as a basketball program," Williams said. "We have a very solid foundation. We got that from Coach Montgomery and Coach Martin. We think we can continue to build on that and Wyking is the coach to do that. ... I do think we're on an upward trajectory and I don't want to see us fall back." In another press release, he said "We fully believe our men's basketball program is on an upward trajectory, and Wyking is poised to continue that momentum and take our program to even greater heights." Another from Bear Territory - " It also serves to keep some level of continuity. One main reason for keeping Jones -- who was named the interim head coach after the departure of Martin -- was to retain a recruiting class consisting of three four-stars, one delayed enrollee and one international commit"

---

Either Williams was lying like a rug, or he knows less about basketball than I already thought. The program at the end of the 2017 season was a shambles, brought on by Cuonzo's failure to at least replace the players he inherited from Montgomery, and his failure to think ahead when he recruited one-and-dones Rabb and Brown. Cuonzo is the one who did a "complete teardown" of the Cal program. Cuonzo first lost Mathews, his best shooter, to a personal dispute. Then he lost Rabb to the NBA. Then he lost Bird, Mullins, Singer, RMB, and Domingo to graduation. That was an ENTIRE ROTATION. Once Wyking took over, Cal lost Charlie Moore, who left to be closer to his father, who had a stroke. Then he lost Rooks who left to be close to his family after the death of his father. Those last two was not under Wyking's control. He began 9 players short of a team. He had no players who had started more than a handful of games and played more than a handful of minutes. Cuonzo Martin had built NOTHING at Cal. He had wrecked the program, maybe for years to come If you have evidence that Wyking Jones as an assistant had any part in Cuonzo's inability or lack of success in recruiting to fill all the holes in his roster, then please give it now. Otherwise, it is Cuonzo's responsibility. He was so lucky that he was able to land the Mizzou job and escape the same fate that Wyking Jones met in his first season and beyond. As for losing recruits, that nearl always happens. I think your recruit rankings are the highest rankings, not the average for each player. There was only one top 100 player, Baker, #72 RCSI, and he has been injured and of little help to Kentucky.

Quote:

---

You call out the "Fire Wyking Crowd" for only focusing on the wins and losses record instead of considering other aspects of the job he's done. However, you too only focus on his stint as the head coach and completely disregard the fact he was part of this program for two years before being elevated (already knew the school, area, recruiting targets, admissions, where the bathrooms were, etc.). He was obviously part of the recruiting plans and was hired to keep an upward trajectory, not a complete tear down. He's utterly failed in that regard, yet you hang that on Cuonzo, not Wyking.

---

I don't disregard the fact that he was here for two years on Cuonzo's staff. I said at the time, it was not the best of hires. I said I would never hire anyone from Cuonzo's staff, because I thought CM was an awful coach. None of his players improved over time, and some got worse. The team never looked good, always underachieved, in my opinion. I would disagree with you if you think Wyking Jones did a "tear down of the program" I think he has desperately tried to fill the holes, but he has not been good at some of his talent evaluations. I would not have recruited Winston, McCullogh, but McNeill was a good evaluation. JHD was Cuonzo's I think, but I don't think I would have recruited him. His evaluation of Bradley and Kelly was good, and his evaluation of Vanover could turn out to be outstanding. I don't blame Jones for Theo. We don't have enough facts to do that, do we? Chauca was a Cuonzo recruit, a completely wasted scholarship like Winston. I would have given Chauca his walking papers long ago. I said at the time of his hiring that Jones was not the best hire. I really did not like his plan to use a full court press and fast tempo with a team of freshmen, 2 seniors (one very slow), and an out of control Coleman. I really did not like it when he announced Coleman was his" go to guy." I knew we were in trouble. But I want the AD to judge not whether WJ was a bad hire, but whether he is the best man for the job next season based on what he has done this season with a team so very very young. Let him look at all the facts, not just wins and losses.

Quote:

---

Big picture - the record, average margin of defeat, roster imbalance, departure of Theo, departure of Chauca, Winston and McCullough, huge decline in attendance - what more do you need to tell you this was a bad hire?

---

Big picture it will take 4 years, maybe 3 to rebuild the program from the time Cuonzo fled Berkeley. Season records for these first two seasons, they are small picture stuff, and don't mean squat. Roster imbalance was created by Cuonzo, and takes 2-3 recruiting classes to fix. WJ has had one recruiting class. In the 2017 class, WJ started so late, he took what he could get. No coach gets much if anything in his first class. Braun got no one. Monty did well, getting only Jorge. Cuonzo did well, getting only KO. In two more years we can fully judge WJ on McNeill. I appreciate your love for Theo, but we don't know what really caused the rift. Chauca, Winston, McC were wasted schollies to begin with. The decline in attendance, I agree with you, and it won't be fixed until Cal wins, because most fans only care about wins. I never said Wyking was a good hire, but I'm beginning to enjoy the hire right now. If you can't give WJ any credit, can't you at least put aside your personal contempt for the coach and enjoy the streak? These three games have been fun, haven't they?

---

---

SFCity Bear thanks for the thorough history reviews and info, always informative and i enjoy learning about Coach Newell. Your last post on "big picture" is accurate and many posters don't fully appreciate the time it takes to build a program and ESPECIALLY when starting from scratch. According to the Head coaches i have spoken to (Monty, Pasternak, Larry K, Jay John, Russell Turner, Cuonzo, Eric Reveno, Mark Pope and Bobby Hurley) its an minimum 3 year process - Heck Larry K and Coach K struggled tremendously their first season's.
This team/staff if kept in place will surprise a lot of people with an overall winning record next season.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity
Excellent history, but I have to chide you: Woolpert's name was Phil, not Pete.

---

Thanks for the chide. Another senior moment. I was so tired after writing this, that I didn't proof-read it. Sorry.

4thGenCal said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

His (Wyking Jones') involvement in the front court was widely reported when he was hired and discussed on Bear Insider as well. Here's an excerpt from one article: "You want to get a guy who understands the value of family, team, winning," Martin told reporters after adding Jones to his staff. "Just as important and probably most important is work with big guys and their development. That's very important for our guys. I wanted to hire a guy who could take our big guys to another level."

---

Thank you for providing the information, but I think it is a leap from "hiring a guy who could take our big guys to another level" to say that "he was in charge of the frontcourt", which to me means he would be in charge of all big man recruiting, in charge of all teaching the bigs basketball skills. From the ESPN article, I would say about his Hollywood experience, (not that it influenced his hiring as Cal coach), but I'd rather have had a director than an actor. Actors, like players TAKE direction. I would rather have had a director for a coach, someone used to GIVING direction. I asked a couple of times in the hiring process, "What big men has Wyking developed as an assistant? Maybe at Louisville? If he was in charge of Okoroh, Rooks and Rabb as an assistant, I saw little improvement in any of them. Defensively, yes. Okoroh and Rooks did improve some on defense, enough to play in a help defense scheme. But offensively, none of them improved. They scored a few more points, but they took more shots and shot a lower percentage to do it. No one rebounded better per minute. As a head coach, someone else probably has charge of the bigs, but I didn't see much improvement in KO or Lee over the season. I think if that was a reason he was hired as an assistant in charge of bigs, he has had little success. until Vanover. Can you believe the almost incredible improvement in Vanover from the beginning of the season? It is like and day. He went from being a very iffy freshman who looked slow, lightly skilled, weak, soft, to a guy I'm hoping will not leave early in a year or two for the NBA.

Quote:

---

Moreover, the buzzword when Wyking was hired was "continuity". Mike Williams - "That's where we are as a basketball program," Williams said. "We have a very solid foundation. We got that from Coach Montgomery and Coach Martin. We think we can continue to build on that and Wyking is the coach to do that. ... I do think we're on an upward trajectory and I don't want to see us fall back." In another press release, he said "We fully believe our men's basketball program is on an upward trajectory, and Wyking is poised to continue that momentum and take our program to even greater heights." Another from Bear Territory - " It also serves to keep some level of continuity. One main reason for keeping Jones -- who was named the interim head coach after the departure of Martin -- was to retain a recruiting class consisting of three four-stars, one delayed enrollee and one international commit"

---

Either Williams was lying like a rug, or he knows less about basketball than I already thought. The program at the end of the 2017 season was a shambles, brought on by Cuonzo's failure to at least replace the players he inherited from Montgomery, and his failure to think ahead when he recruited one-and-dones Rabb and Brown. Cuonzo is the one who did a "complete teardown" of the Cal program. Cuonzo first lost Mathews, his best shooter, to a personal dispute. Then he lost Rabb to the NBA. Then he lost Bird, Mullins, Singer, RMB, and Domingo to graduation. That was an ENTIRE ROTATION. Once Wyking took over, Cal lost Charlie Moore, who left to be closer to his father, who had a stroke. Then he lost Rooks who left to be close to his family after the death of his father. Those last two was not under Wyking's control. He began 9 players short of a team. He had no players who had started more than a handful of games and played more than a handful of minutes. Cuonzo Martin had built NOTHING at Cal. He had wrecked the program, maybe for years to come If you have evidence that Wyking Jones as an assistant had any part in Cuonzo's inability or lack of success in recruiting to fill all the holes in his roster, then please give it now. Otherwise, it is Cuonzo's responsibility. He was so lucky that he was able to land the Mizzou job and escape the same fate that Wyking Jones met in his first season and beyond. As for losing recruits, that nearl always happens. I think your recruit rankings are the highest rankings, not the average for each player. There was only one top 100 player, Baker, #72 RCSI, and he has been injured and of little help to Kentucky.

Quote:

---

You call out the "Fire Wyking Crowd" for only focusing on the wins and losses record instead of considering other aspects of the job he's done. However, you too only focus on his stint as the head coach and completely disregard the fact he was part of this program for two years before being elevated (already knew the school, area, recruiting targets, admissions, where the bathrooms were, etc.). He was obviously part of the recruiting plans and was hired to keep an upward trajectory, not a complete tear down. He's utterly failed in that regard, yet you hang that on Cuonzo, not Wyking.

---

I don't disregard the fact that he was here for two years on Cuonzo's staff. I said at the time, it was not the best of hires. I said I would never hire anyone from Cuonzo's staff, because I thought CM was an awful coach. None of his players improved over time, and some got worse. The team never looked good, always underachieved, in my opinion. I would disagree with you if you think Wyking Jones did a "tear down of the program" I think he has desperately tried to fill the holes, but he has not been good at some of his talent evaluations. I would not have recruited Winston, McCullogh, but McNeill was a good evaluation. JHD was Cuonzo's I think, but I don't think I would have recruited him. His evaluation of Bradley and Kelly was good, and his evaluation of Vanover could turn out to be outstanding. I don't blame Jones for Theo. We don't have enough facts to do that, do we? Chauca was a Cuonzo recruit, a completely wasted scholarship like Winston. I would have given Chauca his walking papers long ago. I said at the time of his hiring that Jones was not the best hire. I really did not like his plan to use a full court press and fast tempo with a team of freshmen, 2 seniors (one very slow), and an out of control Coleman. I really did not like it when he announced Coleman was his" go to guy." I knew we were in trouble. But I want the AD to judge not whether WJ was a bad hire, but whether he is the best man for the job next season based on what he has done this season with a team so very very young. Let him look at all the facts, not just wins and losses.

Quote:

---

Big picture - the record, average margin of defeat, roster imbalance, departure of Theo, departure of Chauca, Winston and McCullough, huge decline in attendance - what more do you need to tell you this was a bad hire?

---

Big picture it will take 4 years, maybe 3 to rebuild the program from the time Cuonzo fled Berkeley. Season records for these first two seasons, they are small picture stuff, and don't mean squat. Roster imbalance was created by Cuonzo, and takes 2-3 recruiting classes to fix. WJ has had one recruiting class. In the 2017 class, WJ started so late, he took what he could get. No coach gets much if anything in his first class. Braun got no one. Monty did well, getting only Jorge. Cuonzo did well, getting only KO. In two more years we can fully judge WJ on McNeill. I appreciate your love for Theo, but we don't know what really caused the rift. Chauca, Winston, McC were wasted schollies to begin with. The decline in attendance, I agree with you, and it won't be fixed until Cal wins, because most fans only care about wins. I never said Wyking was a good hire, but I'm beginning to enjoy the hire right now. If you can't give WJ any credit, can't you at least put aside your personal contempt for the coach and enjoy the streak? These three games have been fun, haven't they?

---

---

SFCity Bear thanks for the thorough history reviews and info, always informative and i enjoy learning about Coach Newell. Your last post on "big picture" is accurate and many posters don't fully appreciate the time it takes to build a program and ESPECIALLY when starting from scratch. According to the Head coaches i have spoken to (Monty, Pasternak, Larry K, Jay John, Russell Turner, Cuonzo, Eric Reveno, Mark Pope and Bobby Hurley) its an minimum 3 year process - Heck Larry K and Coach K struggled tremendously their first season's.
This team/staff if kept in place will surprise a lot of people with an overall winning record next season.

---

And thank you for your information. I had only heard Montgomery say it. I hope you are right.

Go Bears!

R90 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

It was a different time back then. Newell wished us good luck. He said not to worry about the Yogis. They are always around.

---

It was a very different time. Next time you'll have to tell him about tribalism and how our society has evolved so that many people are locked into one viewpoint or another and choose only to accept information that validates their group's perspective.

Also mention the ignore feature. I'm sure he would advocate using it liberally.

---

Well said. And in far fewer words than I could have. Thanks.

HKBear97! said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Big picture it will take 4 years, maybe 3 to rebuild the program from the time Cuonzo fled Berkeley. Season records for these first two seasons, they are small picture stuff, and don't mean squat. Roster imbalance was created by Cuonzo, and takes 2-3 recruiting classes to fix. WJ has had one recruiting class. In the 2017 class, WJ started so late, he took what he could get. No coach gets much if anything in his first class. Braun got no one. Monty did well, getting only Jorge. Cuonzo did well, getting only KO. In two more years we can fully judge WJ on McNeill. I appreciate your love for Theo, but we don't know what really caused the rift. Chauca, Winston, McC were wasted schollies to begin with. The decline in attendance, I agree with you, and it won't be fixed until Cal wins, because most fans only care about wins. I never said Wyking was a good hire, but I'm beginning to enjoy the hire right now. If you can't give WJ any credit, can't you at least put aside your personal contempt for the coach and enjoy the streak? These three games have been fun, haven't they?

---

Let me see if I understand this:

[ol]

Direct quote from Cuonzo about Wyking was he "wanted to hire a guy who could take our big guys to another level" and you admit that during his time as an assistant you "saw little improvement in any of them". So he did not meet expectations as an assistant coach.

You did not like anyone from Cuonzo's staff because you thought he was an awful coach.

You question Wyking's talent evaluations.

You question Wyking's game planning, such as his plan to use a full court press and fast tempo with a team of freshmen, 2 seniors (one very slow), and an out of control Coleman.

You inexplicably disregard the season records for these first two seasons as they "don't mean squat", yet they're the two worst seasons in modern history. These are not simply bad records, they are HISTORICALLY BAD records. We set a SCHOOL RECORD 16 game losing streak. We lost 23 Pac-12 games in a row (in a historically weak Pac-12). We lost to Chaminade CHAMINADE! By 24 points.

[/ol]
So after all that, you not only think Wyking deserves a third year, he actually deserves a fourth. Got it.

Funny thing is, he'll probably be back next year, we'll win what, 15 games? in front of dozens of fans and you'll be posting about "progress". But hey, wins and losses don't matter, right?

And for the record, I don't hold personal contempt for Wyking. I simply don't share your belief that he'll somehow figure it all out in the next year or two. It's much more likely he'll be yet another poor-to-mediocre former Cal coach.

---

I'd like to help you understand, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Since you are having trouble understanding what I wrote, I suggest you try and take the words at face value, dictionary definition. If you want to argue or debate someone on the Bear Insider, it is best to show enough respect for the other person that you take him at his words, and not try to tell him what he meant, or what he thinks, or what he believes. Don't attempt to force your point down his throat by lying to him or about him for all to see.

1. The quote of mine that you used is a cherry pick. I also wrote in my next sentences that Okoroh, Rooks and Rabb had improved defensively under Jones and Cuonzo, but not offensively. KO and Rooks did not become better rebounders. I did not have any expectations for Wyking Jones, the Cuonzo assistant coach. You'd have to ask Cuonzo Martin whether Jones met expectations, as Cuonzo was the man Wyking had to please, not me.

2. I never wrote that I "did not like anyone from Cuonzo's staff." I wrote that I WOULD NOT HIRE THEM. The reason I would not hire any of them as head coach was I would not want Cal teams to play like Cuonzo's teams played. Cuonzo sent the Cal basketball program into the dumpster, and didn't stick around to see the fire. I would appreciate it if you would not tell me what I think, because you obviously don't know what I think.

3. Not true. I question SOME of Wyking's talent evaluations, not all. I guess you missed that. Winston, McCullough poor. Kelly, Vanover, Bradley, McNeill pretty good. Coleman, bad. Coleman had his good moments, good games, but he never should have been selected by Wyking as "the go-to guy" to build an offense around. He was not Shareef or Jason Kidd.

4. I questioned that particular strategy for the few games that he used it. I haven't given much thought to his strategy since, and I don't remember posting anything on his strategy since. I would rather see us play man defense, based on the personnel, but it would not make much difference in the outcome of games. We don't have the horses yet to play great defense in either system.

5. I don't "inexplicably" disregard the season records. I did explain them. You are inexplicably disregarding my explanation. Let me simplify it: the two rosters. Jones was handed a roster of 5 players, which consisted of 5 previous mostly benchwarmers, one of whom was a walk-on, one not even as good as the walk-on, and hopes that he Jones could hang on to a recruiting class that was not stellar, the only big an unranked Aussie. Martin handed Wyking no one at all who was capable of playing point guard. Even Baker, who he lost to Kentucky, was not a point guard. No one. Jones had the weakest roster handed to him by a previous coach in Cal history, by miles. In the first season we lost a lot because we had little offense inside or outside, no point guards, and a coach who had never coached at any level before. An experienced coach would not likely have done much better. In year two, 4 of the five players given to Wyking by Cuonzo the year before including 3 starters for 2018, had left the team. We had no seniors, no playable juniors save an average point guard transfer, and no experienced bigs. None. We had no rim protection, no post defense or offense, and maybe only one defender on the team, who fouls and can't shoot. Vanover steadily improved, and now in the last 3 games, you see how important rim protection, post presence can be.

All the teams today play a similar system, style, and pace. Watch any game and the teams look similar. The big difference is in personnel. Some teams have more horses than other teams. This is not the Pete Newell era. You need horses to win now, and coaching is not as relevant. There is not a huge difference in coaching. Today, much of teams' improvement is built by scrimmaging, much more so than in Newell's day. To scrimmage, you need your first string and a full second string capable of competing with the first string. This year and last year, Wyking Jones did not have a team of 5 players who were good enough to push that first string to get better. His rosters have been very deficient.

6. And where did I say or think that Wyking deserves a 3rd year or a 4th year? In your dreams? You flat out lied. You have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, words and thoughts of your own, not mine. Find where I said it, and show it to me. No, you don't "got it."

7. If you don't see any progress in this year's team, then I have nothing to tell you. It is not much progress, but what there has been should be obvious. W's and L's matter, but other things matter as well. Development of character, the maturing of boys into men, teaching them invaluable life lessons, so they don't plagiarize papers or otherwise cheat, respecting team rules, and society's rules and laws, respecting their coaches, learning teamwork, communication skills, and much much more. The coach is a faculty member and his job includes teaching all these things, not just get wins to please the fans.

First you tell me what I said, then you tell me what I think, and now you tell me what I will do and say in the future. You are amazing. I won't have to post in the future, because you will do it for me. I think from now on, I will call you Swami, or better yet, Carnac the Magnicent. Boy how I miss the real Tonight Show and Johnny Carson.

8. How do you know what my beliefs are? Did I ever say that Wyking will "figure it all out in the next year or two.?" No. I did not. You go find where I said that, and show it to me. And if I didn't say it, how come you think I believe it? For the record, I have no such belief. I don't believe in much of anything mortal, maybe least of all a basketball coach trying to gain control of young kids, turn them into men and produce wins. One of the tougher jobs around.

"Never bet on anything that eats" - Amarillo Slim

SFCityBear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Big picture it will take 4 years, maybe 3 to rebuild the program from the time Cuonzo fled Berkeley. Season records for these first two seasons, they are small picture stuff, and don't mean squat. Roster imbalance was created by Cuonzo, and takes 2-3 recruiting classes to fix. WJ has had one recruiting class. In the 2017 class, WJ started so late, he took what he could get. No coach gets much if anything in his first class. Braun got no one. Monty did well, getting only Jorge. Cuonzo did well, getting only KO. In two more years we can fully judge WJ on McNeill. I appreciate your love for Theo, but we don't know what really caused the rift. Chauca, Winston, McC were wasted schollies to begin with. The decline in attendance, I agree with you, and it won't be fixed until Cal wins, because most fans only care about wins. I never said Wyking was a good hire, but I'm beginning to enjoy the hire right now. If you can't give WJ any credit, can't you at least put aside your personal contempt for the coach and enjoy the streak? These three games have been fun, haven't they?

---

Let me see if I understand this:

[ol]

Direct quote from Cuonzo about Wyking was he "wanted to hire a guy who could take our big guys to another level" and you admit that during his time as an assistant you "saw little improvement in any of them". So he did not meet expectations as an assistant coach.

You did not like anyone from Cuonzo's staff because you thought he was an awful coach.

You question Wyking's talent evaluations.

You question Wyking's game planning, such as his plan to use a full court press and fast tempo with a team of freshmen, 2 seniors (one very slow), and an out of control Coleman.

You inexplicably disregard the season records for these first two seasons as they "don't mean squat", yet they're the two worst seasons in modern history. These are not simply bad records, they are HISTORICALLY BAD records. We set a SCHOOL RECORD 16 game losing streak. We lost 23 Pac-12 games in a row (in a historically weak Pac-12). We lost to Chaminade CHAMINADE! By 24 points.

[/ol]
So after all that, you not only think Wyking deserves a third year, he actually deserves a fourth. Got it.

Funny thing is, he'll probably be back next year, we'll win what, 15 games? in front of dozens of fans and you'll be posting about "progress". But hey, wins and losses don't matter, right?

And for the record, I don't hold personal contempt for Wyking. I simply don't share your belief that he'll somehow figure it all out in the next year or two. It's much more likely he'll be yet another poor-to-mediocre former Cal coach.

---

I'd like to help you understand, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Since you are having trouble understanding what I wrote, I suggest you try and take the words at face value, dictionary definition. If you want to argue or debate someone on the Bear Insider, it is best to show enough respect for the other person that you take him at his words, and not try to tell him what he meant, or what he thinks, or what he believes. Don't attempt to force your point down his throat by lying to him or about him for all to see.

1. The quote of mine that you used is a cherry pick. I also wrote in my next sentences that Okoroh, Rooks and Rabb had improved defensively under Jones and Cuonzo, but not offensively. KO and Rooks did not become better rebounders. I did not have any expectations for Wyking Jones, the Cuonzo assistant coach. You'd have to ask Cuonzo Martin whether Jones met expectations, as Cuonzo was the man Wyking had to please, not me.

2. I never wrote that I "did not like anyone from Cuonzo's staff." I wrote that I WOULD NOT HIRE THEM. The reason I would not hire any of them as head coach was I would not want Cal teams to play like Cuonzo's teams played. Cuonzo sent the Cal basketball program into the dumpster, and didn't stick around to see the fire. I would appreciate it if you would not tell me what I think, because you obviously don't know what I think.

3. Not true. I question SOME of Wyking's talent evaluations, not all. I guess you missed that. Winston, McCullough poor. Kelly, Vanover, Bradley, McNeill pretty good. Coleman, bad. Coleman had his good moments, good games, but he never should have been selected by Wyking as "the go-to guy" to build an offense around. He was not Shareef or Jason Kidd.

4. I questioned that particular strategy for the few games that he used it. I haven't given much thought to his strategy since, and I don't remember posting anything on his strategy since. I would rather see us play man defense, based on the personnel, but it would not make much difference in the outcome of games. We don't have the horses yet to play great defense in either system.

5. I don't "inexplicably" disregard the season records. I did explain them. You are inexplicably disregarding my explanation. Let me simplify it: the two rosters. Jones was handed a roster of 5 players, which consisted of 5 previous mostly benchwarmers, one of whom was a walk-on, one not even as good as the walk-on, and hopes that he Jones could hang on to a recruiting class that was not stellar, the only big an unranked Aussie. Martin handed Wyking no one at all who was capable of playing point guard. Even Baker, who he lost to Kentucky, was not a point guard. No one. Jones had the weakest roster handed to him by a previous coach in Cal history, by miles. In the first season we lost a lot because we had little offense inside or outside, no point guards, and a coach who had never coached at any level before. An experienced coach would not likely have done much better. In year two, 4 of the five players given to Wyking by Cuonzo the year before including 3 starters for 2018, had left the team. We had no seniors, no playable juniors save an average point guard transfer, and no experienced bigs. None. We had no rim protection, no post defense or offense, and maybe only one defender on the team, who fouls and can't shoot. Vanover steadily improved, and now in the last 3 games, you see how important rim protection, post presence can be.

All the teams today play a similar system, style, and pace. Watch any game and the teams look similar. The big difference is in personnel. Some teams have more horses than other teams. This is not the Pete Newell era. You need horses to win now, and coaching is not as relevant. There is not a huge difference in coaching. Today, much of teams' improvement is built by scrimmaging, much more so than in Newell's day. To scrimmage, you need your first string and a full second string capable of competing with the first string. This year and last year, Wyking Jones did not have a team of 5 players who were good enough to push that first string to get better. His rosters have been very deficient.

6. And where did I say or think that Wyking deserves a 3rd year or a 4th year? In your dreams? You flat out lied. You have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, words and thoughts of your own, not mine. Find where I said it, and show it to me. No, you don't "got it."

7. If you don't see any progress in this year's team, then I have nothing to tell you. It is not much progress, but what there has been should be obvious. W's and L's matter, but other things matter as well. Development of character, the maturing of boys into men, teaching them invaluable life lessons, so they don't plagiarize papers or otherwise cheat, respecting team rules, and society's rules and laws, respecting their coaches, learning teamwork, communication skills, and much much more. The coach is a faculty member and his job includes teaching all these things, not just get wins to please the fans.

First you tell me what I said, then you tell me what I think, and now you tell me what I will do and say in the future. You are amazing. I won't have to post in the future, because you will do it for me. I think from now on, I will call you Swami, or better yet, Carnac the Magnicent. Boy how I miss the real Tonight Show and Johnny Carson.

8. How do you know what my beliefs are? Did I ever say that Wyking will "figure it all out in the next year or two.?" No. I did not. You go find where I said that, and show it to me. And if I didn't say it, how come you think I believe it? For the record, I have no such belief. I don't believe in much of anything mortal, maybe least of all a basketball coach trying to gain control of young kids, turn them into men and produce wins. One of the tougher jobs around.

"Never bet on anything that eats" - Amarillo Slim

---

You have written multiple posts providing rational for Wyking's record, but you are not suggesting he be given more time? Simple question - should Wyking be retained or not?