...................for the boo-birds to come back out.

I totally expected Cal to lose to WSU. It was a perfect set up for a loss. Cal players extremely high after their first win in almost forever, playing against a WSU team that was 3 bodies short and coming off a near 50-point loss. Cal HAD to be extremely overconfident in this game, no matter what mindset Coach Wy am I King Jones would try and instill in his players.

And it happened. Cal did have a letdown. But instead of blowing the game, the Bears managed to win, not playing very well, except maybe on defense with 13 steals, getting 30 points off WSU's 20 turnovers. That part was excellent, but over all not a good performance.

After the Washington game, I was wondering how long it would take for the "Fire Wyking crowd" to come back out. I knew that every game after Washington would have to be just as good at that one, or better, for them to hold their tongues. Now they are coming back, cautiously, because they don't want to be caught in an opinion that could prove one day to be incorrect. At least it looks like they are willing to give Wyking the chance to coach the Stanford game, maybe even let him coach the PAC12 Tournament, before they again demand that he be fired.

At least these fans are looking somewhat objectively at the WSU game, not just considering wins, but what kinds of wins. CalBear80 still has not uttered a peep, because the only thing he seems to care about is wins, and as long as Cal wins, no matter how (I guess), he probably will not jump back in to lead the charge to fire the coach.

It looks like the saga of W. Jones, the young Cal team, and the Cal fans will continue a little longer. I'm starting to enjoy the ride a little bit.

You missed it SFCB. Elsewhere CB80 said he will not change his stance until the coach brings his career W-L record up to .500. He's really going out on a limb with that. (its also a great way for him to buy time.)

In any case, its great to see the team playing competitive basketball. Hopefully they can finish strong so that these inspiring conversations about the coaching issue can continue.

Go Bears!

OK SFBC. Again, the problem you face as AD-for-the-day is what you do in March. Again, it would be HIGHLY unusual, in the extreme, for a coach to have less than 2 years left on his deal and be an effective recruiter. It is RIDICULOUSLY easy to negatively recruit against such a coach "You know, he has less than 2 years on his deal. Might not be there when you become a Junior. Sign with Washington, I am god in Seattle and will be here forever."

So YOUR problem as a pumper is that you have to extend Jones. Maybe for just a year but you WILL be extending him if you bring him back next year - or you are screwing over the program long term (and possibly Jones) because of the problems YOU will have given him for recruiting for the incoming class of 20-21.

So again, if you don't want to fire what you are arguing for is EXTENDING him. What has he shown that warrents that?

socaltownie said:

---

OK SFBC. Again, the problem you face as AD-for-the-day is what you do in March. Again, it would be HIGHLY unusual, in the extreme, for a coach to have less than 2 years left on his deal and be an effective recruiter. It is RIDICULOUSLY easy to negatively recruit against such a coach "You know, he has less than 2 years on his deal. Might not be there when you become a Junior. Sign with Washington, I am god in Seattle and will be here forever."

So YOUR problem as a pumper is that you have to extend Jones. Maybe for just a year but you WILL be extending him if you bring him back next year - or you are screwing over the program long term (and possibly Jones) because of the problems YOU will have given him for recruiting for the incoming class of 20-21.

So again, if you don't want to fire what you are arguing for is EXTENDING him. What has he shown that warrents that?

---

2 years left? Am I missing something here?

"The contract runs from March 24, 2017 to April 14, 2022, a standard five-year term for a college coaching contract. Jones will make $250,000 per year in base salary, along with a $750,000 talent fee." Bear Territory

socaltownie said:

---

OK SFBC. Again, the problem you face as AD-for-the-day is what you do in March. Again, it would be HIGHLY unusual, in the extreme, for a coach to have less than 2 years left on his deal and be an effective recruiter. It is RIDICULOUSLY easy to negatively recruit against such a coach "You know, he has less than 2 years on his deal. Might not be there when you become a Junior. Sign with Washington, I am god in Seattle and will be here forever."

So YOUR problem as a pumper is that you have to extend Jones. Maybe for just a year but you WILL be extending him if you bring him back next year - or you are screwing over the program long term (and possibly Jones) because of the problems YOU will have given him for recruiting for the incoming class of 20-21.

So again, if you don't want to fire what you are arguing for is EXTENDING him. What has he shown that warrents that?

---

Again, it would be HIGHLY unusual, in the extreme, for a coach to have less than 2 years left on his deal

WJ is at the end of his second year of a 5 year deal. So yes, it would be highly unusual...
The end of next year would be the "extension" discussion, not this year....

Good effort though.

Sorry for the confusion because I wasn't clear. 2 years left for the kids he is recruiting NEXT year (aka they are juniors in HS this year and in the heat of the recruiting cycle). So absent extension, he is talking to them before the early signing period and, if entering in Fall of 2020 that Jones would have only 2 years. That is why most coaches, except for the unicorns like Roy Williams, have at least 3 if not 4+ years on their contracts, because you want to be recruiting juniors who can anticipate that the coach is going to be there during their entire time.

socaltownie said:

---

Sorry for the confusion because I wasn't clear. 2 years left for the kids he is recruiting NEXT year (aka they are juniors in HS this year and in the heat of the recruiting cycle). So absent extension, he is talking to them before the early signing period and, if entering in Fall of 2020 that Jones would have only 2 years. That is why most coaches, except for the unicorns like Roy Williams, have at least 3 if not 4+ years on their contracts, because you want to be recruiting juniors who can anticipate that the coach is going to be there during their entire time.

---

Disagree. Almost ANY coach's job could be in jeopardy three years down the road. If WJ were to be retained for next year, he would be fine with "only" three years left on his contract. If a recruit is going to spurn us, it's not going to be for that. After that, maybe one-year rolling extensions.

prospeCt said:

---

Great clip!!!


Night of the Iguana??????



So the Williams who hired WJ was Tennessee or his "ghost"???
As far as I know TW had little if any sports background.This explains (almost)
everything.

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Sorry for the confusion because I wasn't clear. 2 years left for the kids he is recruiting NEXT year (aka they are juniors in HS this year and in the heat of the recruiting cycle). So absent extension, he is talking to them before the early signing period and, if entering in Fall of 2020 that Jones would have only 2 years. That is why most coaches, except for the unicorns like Roy Williams, have at least 3 if not 4+ years on their contracts, because you want to be recruiting juniors who can anticipate that the coach is going to be there during their entire time.

---

Disagree. Almost ANY coach's job could be in jeopardy three years down the road. If WJ were to be retained for next year, he would be fine with "only" three years left on his contract. If a recruit is going to spurn us, it's not going to be for that. After that, maybe one-year rolling extensions.

---

That may be how it works in YOUR mind but not in the world of current P5 coaches.

SFCityBear said:

---

...................for the boo-birds to come back out.

I totally expected Cal to lose to WSU. It was a perfect set up for a loss. Cal players extremely high after their first win in almost forever, playing against a WSU team that was 3 bodies short and coming off a near 50-point loss. Cal HAD to be extremely overconfident in this game, no matter what mindset Coach Wy am I King Jones would try and instill in his players.

And it happened. Cal did have a letdown. But instead of blowing the game, the Bears managed to win, not playing very well, except maybe on defense with 13 steals, getting 30 points off WSU's 20 turnovers. That part was excellent, but over all not a good performance.

After the Washington game, I was wondering how long it would take for the "Fire Wyking crowd" to come back out. I knew that every game after Washington would have to be just as good at that one, or better, for them to hold their tongues. Now they are coming back, cautiously, because they don't want to be caught in an opinion that could prove one day to be incorrect. At least it looks like they are willing to give Wyking the chance to coach the Stanford game, maybe even let him coach the PAC12 Tournament, before they again demand that he be fired.

At least these fans are looking somewhat objectively at the WSU game, not just considering wins, but what kinds of wins. CalBear80 still has not uttered a peep, because the only thing he seems to care about is wins, and as long as Cal wins, no matter how (I guess), he probably will not jump back in to lead the charge to fire the coach.

It looks like the saga of W. Jones, the young Cal team, and the Cal fans will continue a little longer. I'm starting to enjoy the ride a little bit.

---

I have enjoyed the last two games. Doesn't mean that I think Jones has demonstrated he's the guy for Cal. UW was a good 31 minutes of basketball, it was very encouraging.

But yesterday, I not only thought Cal would probably win, I put money on Cal getting 1 1/2 points. Yes, there was a danger of Cal coming out overconfident, and yes, Cal didn't play particularly well. But WSU had health questions, and they were coming off a 48 point loss. There are some losses teams are likely to rebound well from, and some that are going to shake confidence. That is one that is going to shake confidence. And WSU has a coach I probably have less faith in than Jones, even if he has far more experience than Jones and has had some success here and there.

And perhaps more importantly, while in some respects, there may have been danger of Cal being overconfident, it is hard to feel overconfident against a team that smacked you by 23 earlier in the season, and when you are 1-15 in conference. The UW win meant that Cal could play without the pressure of feeling like they almost certainly needed the game to avoid a winless conference season. Getting a win versus UW took a lot of pressure off. I think that pressure showed at the end of the Stanford and UCLA games, but although the Bears did not play their best (and played like they have too much of the season), they did not play like they felt the pressure of a need to win.

As you point out, Cal didn't play all that well against the worst of Cal's 11 conference opponents, even when that opponent wasn't playing at full strength and had its best player hobbled. It Franks is at full health, good chance we don't win. Not exactly a testament that the coach should be retained. We both agree, it is about how we play, not wins or losses. And we played well for 31 minutes versus UW. Just like we played well against SDSU way back on December 8. When we have shown that we're capable of playing that way, and we play that way so infrequently, what does that say about the HC?

Are you a glass half full person or a glass half empty person? You can look at UW either way, this coach is capable of getting the team to play well for 31 minutes, or this coach has a team capable of playing that way for 31 minutes, and if the coach were any good, he'd have them playing that way a lot more and they'd be close to .500 in an astoundingly weak Pac-12 instead. of 2-15. Which way you look at it is going to be influenced by the lens through which you already view Jones.

The only people in the "fire Wyking" crowd (which is almost all of the crowd) likely to change their minds based on this weekend are probably the ones not thinking things through very well in the first place.

Not that things can't change, but not based on these two games. I'm rooting for the Bears to beat Stanford, win 4 games in the Pac-12 tourney, pull off a 14-3 seed upset in the NCAA tourney, then win a 14 versus 11 matchup to advance to the Sweet 16, and then, chances are that the way the Bears will have played over the course of 9 games will have changed my mind, and the mind of the AD. I'm also hoping to win the lottery if I buy a ticket. We'll see what happens.

The two wins are great, but the team has been improving for some time. Even when they lost recently in double digits, they played much better than at the start of the season. Any analysis of the job by WJ needs to look at the progress through the losses as well as the wins.

People keep talking about franks being injured

I watched him closely after the first mention and he sure moved fast when he wanted to, sprinting, cutting, jumping

At this time of the year, every D1 starter is playing hurt.

Why is everyone trying to give WSU excuses?

Personally I think Franks was faking/exaggerating his 'injury' when he wasn't sprinting to get a clean 3 point shot so he would have an excuse for being swept in the bay

I've seen that plenty of times

HoopDreams said:

---

People keep talking about franks being injured

I watched him closely after the first mention and he sure moved fast when he wanted to, sprinting, cutting, jumping

At this time of the year, every D1 starter is playing hurt.

Why is everyone trying to give WSU excuses?

Personally I think Franks was faking/exaggerating his 'injury' when he wasn't sprinting to get a clean 3 point shot so he would have an excuse for being swept in the bay

I've seen that plenty of times

---

Agreed.

I sat courtside across from the WSU bench. Franks seemed fine. A little tired and banged up like everyone who plays major minutes is this time of year, but nothing out of the ordinary, in my opinion.

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

OK SFBC. Again, the problem you face as AD-for-the-day is what you do in March. Again, it would be HIGHLY unusual, in the extreme, for a coach to have less than 2 years left on his deal and be an effective recruiter. It is RIDICULOUSLY easy to negatively recruit against such a coach "You know, he has less than 2 years on his deal. Might not be there when you become a Junior. Sign with Washington, I am god in Seattle and will be here forever."

So YOUR problem as a pumper is that you have to extend Jones. Maybe for just a year but you WILL be extending him if you bring him back next year - or you are screwing over the program long term (and possibly Jones) because of the problems YOU will have given him for recruiting for the incoming class of 20-21.

So again, if you don't want to fire what you are arguing for is EXTENDING him. What has he shown that warrents that?

---

Some of you describe the way Cal plays under this coach, but almost none of you had considered the hand Wyking was dealt by Cuonzo. Two average senior big men plus Coleman, who could wreck a team all by himself. The entire front line graduates before year two, and now you start all over again with a badly deficient roster with no height, and only one viable upperclassman, Austin. Could you have had a coach who would likely have a better looking team out there, one with more of an offensive plan? Maybe. Would a better coach have brought you more wins? I say not likely.

---

You do realize Wyking was part of the staff for two years before he was hired, right? You also realize he was in charge of the front court during that time, no? Yet none of that is on him, just Cuonzo.

HKBear97! said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

OK SFBC. Again, the problem you face as AD-for-the-day is what you do in March. Again, it would be HIGHLY unusual, in the extreme, for a coach to have less than 2 years left on his deal and be an effective recruiter. It is RIDICULOUSLY easy to negatively recruit against such a coach "You know, he has less than 2 years on his deal. Might not be there when you become a Junior. Sign with Washington, I am god in Seattle and will be here forever."

So YOUR problem as a pumper is that you have to extend Jones. Maybe for just a year but you WILL be extending him if you bring him back next year - or you are screwing over the program long term (and possibly Jones) because of the problems YOU will have given him for recruiting for the incoming class of 20-21.

So again, if you don't want to fire what you are arguing for is EXTENDING him. What has he shown that warrents that?

---

Some of you describe the way Cal plays under this coach, but almost none of you had considered the hand Wyking was dealt by Cuonzo. Two average senior big men plus Coleman, who could wreck a team all by himself. The entire front line graduates before year two, and now you start all over again with a badly deficient roster with no height, and only one viable upperclassman, Austin. Could you have had a coach who would likely have a better looking team out there, one with more of an offensive plan? Maybe. Would a better coach have brought you more wins? I say not likely.

---

You do realize Wyking was part of the staff for two years before he was hired, right? You also realize he was in charge of the front court during that time, no? Yet none of that is on him, just Cuonzo.

---

I have heard no evidence that Wyking was "in charge of the front court." What does that mean? You are saying he was the only one on the staff, including Cuonzo, recruiting, teaching skills, and coaching the two front court positions? Unless you were going to staff meetings where Cuonzo was handing out responsibilities to assistant coaches, or are privy to those decisions, you don't know who was solely responsible for recruiting front court players, if anyone was. What are you trying to say with this? The buck always stops with the head man. It has to. Wyking is held to blame for everything wrong with the current team. The roster, how they look on the floor, the team's play. If they don't play together, it is Jones's fault. If they don't make good decisions on the floor, it is Jones' fault. If they can't stop the other team, it is Jones fault. If they lose a game, it is Jones' fault. NO ONE is saying any of these things, especially the deficiencies of height and experience of the current roster, are the fault of any of the current assistants on Jones' staff. Jones is held responsible for all the commits he and his assistants sign during his time as head coach. Cuonzo has to be held responsible in the same way. And the head coach has the final decision on ALL recruits, not the assistant "in charge of the front court" or the back court or what ever. Unless you know of specific front court recruits which Wyking had total responsibility to sign and failed to do so as an assistant under Cuonzo, then you are just making up stuff to try and discredit Jones. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I doubt you have any evidence to back up your charge.

SFCityBear said:

---

I have heard no evidence that Wyking was "in charge of the front court." What does that mean? You are saying he was the only one on the staff, including Cuonzo, recruiting, teaching skills, and coaching the two front court positions? Unless you were going to staff meetings where Cuonzo was handing out responsibilities to assistant coaches, or are privy to those decisions, you don't know who was solely responsible for recruiting front court players, if anyone was. What are you trying to say with this? The buck always stops with the head man. It has to. Wyking is held to blame for everything wrong with the current team. The roster, how they look on the floor, the team's play. If they don't play together, it is Jones's fault. If they don't make good decisions on the floor, it is Jones' fault. If they can't stop the other team, it is Jones fault. If they lose a game, it is Jones' fault. NO ONE is saying any of these things, especially the deficiencies of height and experience of the current roster, are the fault of any of the current assistants on Jones' staff. Jones is held responsible for all the commits he and his assistants sign during his time as head coach. Cuonzo has to be held responsible in the same way. And the head coach has the final decision on ALL recruits, not the assistant "in charge of the front court" or the back court or what ever. Unless you know of specific front court recruits which Wyking had total responsibility to sign and failed to do so as an assistant under Cuonzo, then you are just making up stuff to try and discredit Jones. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I doubt you have any evidence to back up your charge.

---

His 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." http://www.espn.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/108528/college-hoops-most-interesting-people-californias-wyking-jones

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." https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2017/03/29/california-introduces-new-basketball-coach-wyking-jones/99799658/ 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 Cuonzo Martin -- was to retain a recruiting class consisting of three four-stars, one delayed enrollee and one international commit"

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.

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?

HKBear97! said:

---

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?

---

Probably the ghost of Pete Newell to visit him as the Ghost of Basketball Past.

If Wyking Jones prevented him from attending games.

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?

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.

Fine, I will focus on something other than the Ws and Ls. The stunt with the 2 transfers (thank GOD they transferred) to City College was amateur hour and would NEVER have been done by a guy with adequate experience and training.

I don't hate Wyking. I have REPEATEDLY said that it isn't fair he is having to learn on the job and that his coaching pedigree is such that he didn't have good mentors.

And it if isn't clear to you that there are hundreds of real coaches that could have gotten more out of this team you are not watching enough BB in other places. For example, Turner YEARLY takes kids with limited talent and gets them playing well for the AntEaters - a school that no one is going to so they can get to the NBA, which has probably higher academic standards for their athletes than for ours and who has shown - especially this year - that he can teach - a big part of being a college coach.

And yes, I have never heard Turner yet "No Threes" over and over and over again.

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

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?

---

Probably the ghost of Pete Newell to visit him as the Ghost of Basketball Past.

---

I did speak with Newell last night. He told me not to pay any attention to you. He said his first season at Cal was the worst he ever endured, and the worst season in Cal history, considering he had a former All-American, Bob McKeen, and a future All-American, Larry Friend, in the starting lineup. 9-16 overall, 1-11 in the conference.

Newell said back then, there were hundreds of Yogis around calling for his head, including in the local press, all calling for him to be fired. Were you around back then, Yogi Bear, calling for Newell to be fired? Newell said he was glad the AD didn't listen and fire him, because it gave him a chance to bring Cal some great teams and some glory.

I told him of the roster Wyking Jones inherited, three average players at best, a walk on, a water boy or girl, some chalk and a blackboard. I asked him what would he do if he were Jones. He said he would look for very tall kids and make players out of them. He said he would probably hold tryouts in Harmon for the studentbody. I told him how few students go to games, and how most coaches can't find enough skilled players for a 15 man roster. He said that was sad. He said to get Wyking's address, and he would send him one of his books. He said he would send one to Yogi Bear too, if I thought he would he would read it.

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

---

OK. I am pretty much done with the "Pete Newell was all that".

You know what Pete Newell DID NOT DO? He did NOT build a program. There were PLENTY of schools that took success in the tournament and a national championship and turned it into LASTING success. Sure, a different era and that damm Mario Savio and his police car podium. But what makes for a truly HALL OF FAME coach is not winning a national championship (see Jimmy V. Steve F.) but build a program so that the next guy can take over and not miss a beat.

So could we PLEASE pull back relishing in our ONE NCAA win....and lets also remember that the NIT at the time was a more prestigious get before the big money bought the rights.

#flamesuiton

---

You raise an interesting point about Newell; however, you are incorrect about the NCAA/NIT. The NIT had been the premier tournament in the 30's through early 50's, but had been supplanted by the mid-50's by the NCAA.

socaltownie said:

---

For example, Turner YEARLY takes kids with limited talent and gets them playing well for the AntEaters - a school that no one is going to so they can get to the NBA, which has probably higher academic standards for their athletes than for ours

---

you lost me there

socaltownie said:

---

Sure, a different era and that damm Mario Savio and his police car podium.

#flamesuiton

---

No flame intended - I'm just starting to wonder if political preferences are correlated with opinions on Wyking Jones.

UCI (and UCSD next year) and UCR play D1 but there isn't any illusions that this is a money maker or should be. They give out scholarships (usually partial) but these kids generally are simply regular students. Not a huge amount of "academic support". there are VERY few slots open for special admission - essentially these kids go through the regular A-G requirements and UC admissions process.

Now there is NO argument that UCI and UCR are not as selective for REGULAR undergrads. UCSD is getting close to Cal but still has ground to make up (outside of certain majors and pathways).

I love our guys. Their success in the classroom is indicative that the UC admission system is, at best, a blunt force tool. But it is important to understand the context of "D1" sports at the lessor campuses and the fact that the kids are, truly, student athletes much like most of the Olympic sports at cal.

stu said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Sure, a different era and that damm Mario Savio and his police car podium.

#flamesuiton

---

No flame intended - I'm just starting to wonder if political preferences are correlated with opinions on Wyking Jones.

---

I think Mario was GREAT. I am under no illusions that the 60s set Cal back in athletics. It also was nearly 60 years ago. The bump should have been recovered from.

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

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?

---

Probably the ghost of Pete Newell to visit him as the Ghost of Basketball Past.

---

I did speak with Newell last night. He told me not to pay any attention to you. He said his first season at Cal was the worst he ever endured, and the worst season in Cal history, considering he had a former All-American, Bob McKeen, and a future All-American, Larry Friend, in the starting lineup. 9-16 overall, 1-11 in the conference.

Newell said back then, there were hundreds of Yogis around calling for his head, including in the local press, all calling for him to be fired. Were you around back then, Yogi Bear, calling for Newell to be fired? Newell said he was glad the AD didn't listen and fire him, because it gave him a chance to bring Cal some great teams and some glory.

I told him of the roster Wyking Jones inherited, three average players at best, a walk on, a water boy or girl, some chalk and a blackboard. I asked him what would he do if he were Jones. He said he would look for very tall kids and make players out of them. He said he would probably hold tryouts in Harmon for the studentbody. I told him how few students go to games, and how most coaches can't find enough skilled players for a 15 man roster. He said that was sad. He said to get Wyking's address, and he would send him one of his books. He said he would send one to Yogi Bear too, if I thought he would he would read it.

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

---

OK. I am pretty much done with the "Pete Newell was all that".

You know what Pete Newell DID NOT DO? He did NOT build a program. There were PLENTY of schools that took success in the tournament and a national championship and turned it into LASTING success. Sure, a different era and that damm Mario Savio and his police car podium. But what makes for a truly HALL OF FAME coach is not winning a national championship (see Jimmy V. Steve F.) but build a program so that the next guy can take over and not miss a beat.

So could we PLEASE pull back relishing in our ONE NCAA win....and lets also remember that the NIT at the time was a more prestigious get before the big money bought the rights.

#flamesuiton

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

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?

---

Probably the ghost of Pete Newell to visit him as the Ghost of Basketball Past.

---

I did speak with Newell last night. He told me not to pay any attention to you. He said his first season at Cal was the worst he ever endured, and the worst season in Cal history, considering he had a former All-American, Bob McKeen, and a future All-American, Larry Friend, in the starting lineup. 9-16 overall, 1-11 in the conference.

Newell said back then, there were hundreds of Yogis around calling for his head, including in the local press, all calling for him to be fired. Were you around back then, Yogi Bear, calling for Newell to be fired? Newell said he was glad the AD didn't listen and fire him, because it gave him a chance to bring Cal some great teams and some glory.

I told him of the roster Wyking Jones inherited, three average players at best, a walk on, a water boy or girl, some chalk and a blackboard. I asked him what would he do if he were Jones. He said he would look for very tall kids and make players out of them. He said he would probably hold tryouts in Harmon for the studentbody. I told him how few students go to games, and how most coaches can't find enough skilled players for a 15 man roster. He said that was sad. He said to get Wyking's address, and he would send him one of his books. He said he would send one to Yogi Bear too, if I thought he would he would read it.

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

---

OK. I am pretty much done with the "Pete Newell was all that".

You know what Pete Newell DID NOT DO? He did NOT build a program. There were PLENTY of schools that took success in the tournament and a national championship and turned it into LASTING success. Sure, a different era and that damm Mario Savio and his police car podium. But what makes for a truly HALL OF FAME coach is not winning a national championship (see Jimmy V. Steve F.) but build a program so that the next guy can take over and not miss a beat.

So could we PLEASE pull back relishing in our ONE NCAA win....and lets also remember that the NIT at the time was a more prestigious get before the big money bought the rights.

#flamesuiton

---

---

I don't know why this has to be a generational contest, where some have respect for the past, and others dismiss it as being irrelevant. It was Yogi who ridiculed me, and by implication, Newell, and now you are diving in with more of it.

In spite of the size, strength, and athleticism of modern players, there are basic fundamental things too many have not learned to do, and those things are not generational, and translate well from generation to generation. Protecting the ball, bouncing it without losing it, mastering all the passes, the footwork, and the way of playing without the ball, and playing unselfishly, defending so well your man has no path to the hoop except to go around you. Newell taught this stuff.

I find it very odd that so many current Cal fans are only concerned with wins and losses, when most of the current generation has been taught that participation is as or even more important than winning. What is important now is getting into the NCAA tournament, which is just a subjective decision by some men in a room to give your school an invitation. More important than that is how high a seed these men decide to give you. That is not winning anything, it is not winning an important game, conference title or winning games in the NCAA. The wins are the important accomplishments, not the participation trophies. I come from an era where winning meant accomplishment. Newell's accomplishments at Cal are this: In just six years, Newell's Cal teams went to 4 Elite 8s, two Final Fours, won one NCAA title, and was NCAA runnerup the following year. Newell's Cal teams won 4 straight Conference Championships. So, no, Newell did not have just one NCAA win at Cal.

If you are going to argue basketball history, you need a better grasp of it. There are too many of us on this board who remember it pretty well.

First, Newell did win a national championship and hand off a program that lasted for some time, but he did it at USF. Newell took over a program that in the two previous years was 8-11 and 9-12. He took that team and 3 years later, he won the NIT Championship in 1949. In 1950, he lost in the first round to CCNY, a team which would go on to win not only the NIT, but also the NCAA that year. Newell left for Michigan State, but he left the program in good shape, handing it off to his former backcourt mate at Loyola, Pete Woolpert. Woolpert would struggle a little in the beginning, but in the next 3 years he would add KC Jones, Jerry Mullen, Bill Russell, Hal Perry, and Mike Farmer and win the NCAA title in 1955 and 1956. He landed more elite players like Fred LaCour, Gene Brown, and Art Day. He lost in the Final Four in 1957, and lost in the Elite 8 in 1958. Pete Peletta would lead the Dons to a Sweet 16 in 1963, an Elite 8 in 1964, and 1965, with players like Ollie Johnson, Joe Ellis, Ed Thomas, and Dave Lee. That is about a 15 year period of some very good basketball teams.

Unfortunately for Newell, his tenure as head coach ended when he had severe stomach ailments that forced him to retire. Maybe he was not quite ready to hand the program off to Rene Herrerias. In any case, Herrerias the disciplinarian was not the man for the times, and he did not produce good teams, and eventually a player revolt tied to general unrest among black athletes on campus at the time did him in. Maybe you blame Newell for not building a lasting program, but I would not.

And the NIT was the more prestigious championship in the 1940s and when Newell won it in 1949, because it was an invitational which invited the all the very best teams. The NCAA consisted mostly of conference champions, not all the best teams. Many teams, like Kentucky and CCNY played in both tournaments in the same year. By the time USF won their NCAA titles in '55 and '56, and Cal won in 1959, the NCAA had become the more prestigious tournament. It may have been money that caused the change, but the NCAA had to expand its field to include all the best teams at last. Now I think it has gone too far by including too many teams who don't have a prayer of winning, only a chance to ruin the season of a good team by way of an upset.

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