To all the WJ naysayers: Did you just read the research done by the great SFCB?????This year, if Cal had been coached by Newell, Auerbach, Williams, Boeheim, Wooden, clair Bee, izzo and Jesus of Nazareth, they would have won 4 pac 12 games instead of 3. Big deal!!!!He gets one more year---then, you can set yourself on fire, go naked, trash all the businesses on telegraph ave, divorce your wife and threaten to abandon your kids if WJ is not replaced. ( and, chances are, I'll be with you) I almost didn't send this post. We need SFCB to put things in perspective. and, even if you are the greatest french chef in the world, you still can't make chicken salad out of chicken s***. All credit cards are accepted.

No excuses. Bring back Conzo after he gets fired.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

No excuses. Bring back Conzo after he gets fired.

---

Unlocatable. He ran off with this gal:

. . . and Dean Smith, Hank Iba, Jim Phelan, Rollie Massimino, Bo Ryan, Marv Harshman, Stew Morrill, and the often maligned Tubby Smith.

(BTW -- JC of Naz coached hockey.)

Coach Parcells was old, but he was also cranky and got too old to lose.

boredom said:

---

oh poor Wyking. He has no responsibility for the roster when he took over as head coach. It's not like he was on staff before that. And he has no responsibility for the guys who transferred out after he became coach. It's not like he had any responsibility for keeping them if he wanted them. Let's not count those as inherited players. And the recruits who bailed, not his fault either. And certainly not his fault that the team is hot garbage and gets blown out by the likes of Chaminade on his watch. It's too much to ask with only 1 McD's AA on the roster to beat Chaminade. It's not like he did things like insisting we would be a full court press team and then came out giving up layup after layup (and somehow unable to handle a press when it was thrown at us) looking like we've never practiced it before.

No, Wyking is the victim of all this. The roster happened to him. The transfers happened to him. The lack of filling holes on the roster happened to him. The team being dead last in possibly the worst year in PAC history and perhaps the worst in major conference history happened to him. But if we give him another year we can have another year of excuses for things happening to him and him needing to have another year in the blind hope that maybe a conference title will happen to him.

SFC, you seem really hung up on old school (or just old) coaches so here's a quote from one (Bill Parcells): you are what your record says you are. Wyking is awful.

---

You are making a lot of assumptions here, and unless you have inside information how all these things happened, your post is mostly, if not all, speculation. Nothing wrong with speculating, but my post was mostly about facts. I gave you the barest of facts, the simplest of facts. A player is returning starter or he isn't. A player is a junior or he is of some other class. A player is a big or a point guard or a wing. You can have no argument with my facts. Only with what you in your dreams think I am concluding about Wyking Jones. I did make a value judgment about what players are great players, what players are good players, separating them from the rest of the players. If you have facts that dispute the facts in my post, I'd like to hear them.

I would like to say a word about the transfers Wyking Jones is responsible for losing. Charlie Moore left because his father had a stroke, and he wanted to be closer to his family. Somehow you feel Charlie Moore was not telling the truth, and that he left because Wyking Jones was not able to convince him or did not want him to stay.. Kam Rooks public statement was that his father had died suddenly and he wanted to transfer so he could be closer his family. You don't believe he was telling the truth, and that he left Cal because Wyking Jones was not able to convince him or did not want him to stay. Unless you have inside info, you are being very disrespectful to both players, and to Jones.

Let us say that Wyking had held on to Moore, Rooks and Baker. That could have made each team slightly better, I'd agree. Having an average point guard like Moore, would have helped the first Jones team, which had no point guard. Baker was reputed to be a scorer, so maybe that forces Coleman to the bench. Rooks provides a backup to Okoroh. It is a little better team, still with no post game from either. Perimeter defense still very suspect. I'd guess they win maybe 10-12 games. In year two, Jones again loses all his bigs to graduation, and you still lose Coleman, Jones still has to build an entire team around Moore and Davis.. With Moore at point guard, maybe Austin does not come to Cal. In any case, you still have weak perimeter defense, but a little better point guard. Again, my guess is the Bears win 10-12 games at most.

Stuff happens in basketball that we don't like. Players transfer. Players get hurt. Do you blame Cuonzo for the injuries to Bird and Wallace, which killed our chances in 2016? Did you blame Montgomery for the stress fractures of Kreklow and Cobbs, or Crabbe and Solomon both getting poked in an eye, or the tragic health problems of Rossi? Did you blame him for Solomon's plagiarizing a paper and drawing a suspension, or for losing Amoke for stealing a laptop? Dd you blame Braun for Powe's injury?

Many first year coaches lose players to transfer, and many lose players the previous coach had recruited. In very modern times, say the last 20 years or so, it is public knowledge what players have been recruited and committed, but prior to that, it was not public knowledge all the players a head coach missed out on.

I made no excuses for Wyking Jones. I am giving you facts which you refuse to acknowledge. I don't disagree with the basic complaints which you make about Jones' coaching (minus the exaggeration and hyperbole). I have said I have no opinion on whether Jones should stay or go. It is a decision that must. be made by considering all the factors, not just the whether the coaching during a game looks good or bad to you, or whether the team wins a lot of games or not, a bunch of freshman and sophs competing against teams which are loaded with juniors and seniors, not a team with only one frosh big (lately), competing against teams with multiple bigs of all ages.

What old school coaches am I hung up on? If you think Cuonzo is an old school coach,l then you must be a very young fellow. You should be embracing my looking at rosters, because most modern fans and coaches believe rosters are more important than anything. Recruit rankings are the Holy Grail. It is the old style coaches who wanted stars, but they were good enough to coach up average players into champions. With today's rules that cater to the highly skilled players, and far less teamwork, coaching and winning in the old way is near impossible.

What I am hung up on is how fans pay no attention to history, and if you don't pay attention to the mistakes that we made in the past, we are doomed to repeat those mistakes. To fire or retain a coach, a coach who has not committed any transgressions or violations of rules or conduct, all the factors must be considered, not just wins and losses. I could care less if he is retained or fired. I have no say in the decision, and no opinion on it, except that if the AD does not consider the deficient roster in his decision, he is no better than his two predecessors, who apparently did not consider much at all, which is one reason why we are in this mess.

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

oh poor Wyking. He has no responsibility for the roster when he took over as head coach. It's not like he was on staff before that. And he has no responsibility for the guys who transferred out after he became coach. It's not like he had any responsibility for keeping them if he wanted them. Let's not count those as inherited players. And the recruits who bailed, not his fault either. And certainly not his fault that the team is hot garbage and gets blown out by the likes of Chaminade on his watch. It's too much to ask with only 1 McD's AA on the roster to beat Chaminade. It's not like he did things like insisting we would be a full court press team and then came out giving up layup after layup (and somehow unable to handle a press when it was thrown at us) looking like we've never practiced it before.

No, Wyking is the victim of all this. The roster happened to him. The transfers happened to him. The lack of filling holes on the roster happened to him. The team being dead last in possibly the worst year in PAC history and perhaps the worst in major conference history happened to him. But if we give him another year we can have another year of excuses for things happening to him and him needing to have another year in the blind hope that maybe a conference title will happen to him.

SFC, you seem really hung up on old school (or just old) coaches so here's a quote from one (Bill Parcells): you are what your record says you are. Wyking is awful.

---

You are making a lot of assumptions here, and unless you have inside information how all these things happened, your post is mostly, if not all, speculation. Nothing wrong with speculating, but my post was mostly about facts. I gave you the barest of facts, the simplest of facts. A player is returning starter or he isn't. A player is a junior or he is of some other class. A player is a big or a point guard or a wing. You can have no argument with my facts. Only with what you in your dreams think I am concluding about Wyking Jones. I did make a value judgment about what players are great players, what players are good players, separating them from the rest of the players. If you have facts that dispute the facts in my post, I'd like to hear them.

I would like to say a word about the transfers Wyking Jones is responsible for losing. Charlie Moore left because his father had a stroke, and he wanted to be closer to his family. Somehow you feel Charlie Moore was not telling the truth, and that he left because Wyking Jones was not able to convince him or did not want him to stay.. Kam Rooks public statement was that his father had died suddenly and he wanted to transfer so he could be closer his family. You don't believe he was telling the truth, and that he left Cal because Wyking Jones was not able to convince him or did not want him to stay. Unless you have inside info, you are being very disrespectful to both players, and to Jones.

Let us say that Wyking had held on to Moore, Rooks and Baker. That could have made each team slightly better, I'd agree. Having an average point guard like Moore, would have helped the first Jones team, which had no point guard. Baker was reputed to be a scorer, so maybe that forces Coleman to the bench. Rooks provides a backup to Okoroh. It is a little better team, still with no post game from either. Perimeter defense still very suspect. I'd guess they win maybe 10-12 games. In year two, Jones again loses all his bigs to graduation, and you still lose Coleman, Jones still has to build an entire team around Moore and Davis.. With Moore at point guard, maybe Austin does not come to Cal. In any case, you still have weak perimeter defense, but a little better point guard. Again, my guess is the Bears win 10-12 games at most.

Stuff happens in basketball that we don't like. Players transfer. Players get hurt. Do you blame Cuonzo for the injuries to Bird and Wallace, which killed our chances in 2016? Did you blame Montgomery for the stress fractures of Kreklow and Cobbs, or Crabbe and Solomon both getting poked in an eye, or the tragic health problems of Rossi? Did you blame him for Solomon's plagiarizing a paper and drawing a suspension, or for losing Amoke for stealing a laptop? Dd you blame Braun for Powe's injury?

Many first year coaches lose players to transfer, and many lose players the previous coach had recruited. In very modern times, say the last 20 years or so, it is public knowledge what players have been recruited and committed, but prior to that, it was not public knowledge all the players a head coach missed out on.

I made no excuses for Wyking Jones. I am giving you facts which you refuse to acknowledge. I don't disagree with the basic complaints which you make about Jones' coaching (minus the exaggeration and hyperbole). I have said I have no opinion on whether Jones should stay or go. It is a decision that must. be made by considering all the factors, not just the whether the coaching during a game looks good or bad to you, or whether the team wins a lot of games or not, a bunch of freshman and sophs competing against teams which are loaded with juniors and seniors, not a team with only one frosh big (lately), competing against teams with multiple bigs of all ages.

What old school coaches am I hung up on? If you think Cuonzo is an old school coach,l then you must be a very young fellow. You should be embracing my looking at rosters, because most modern fans and coaches believe rosters are more important than anything. Recruit rankings are the Holy Grail. It is the old style coaches who wanted stars, but they were good enough to coach up average players into champions. With today's rules that cater to the highly skilled players, and far less teamwork, coaching and winning in the old way is near impossible.

What I am hung up on is how fans pay no attention to history, and if you don't pay attention to the mistakes that we made in the past, we are doomed to repeat those mistakes. To fire or retain a coach, a coach who has not committed any transgressions or violations of rules or conduct, all the factors must be considered, not just wins and losses. I could care less if he is retained or fired. I have no say in the decision, and no opinion on it, except that if the AD does not consider the deficient roster in his decision, he is no better than his two predecessors, who apparently did not consider much at all, which is one reason why we are in this mess.

---

4thGenCal said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

oh poor Wyking. He has no responsibility for the roster when he took over as head coach. It's not like he was on staff before that. And he has no responsibility for the guys who transferred out after he became coach. It's not like he had any responsibility for keeping them if he wanted them. Let's not count those as inherited players. And the recruits who bailed, not his fault either. And certainly not his fault that the team is hot garbage and gets blown out by the likes of Chaminade on his watch. It's too much to ask with only 1 McD's AA on the roster to beat Chaminade. It's not like he did things like insisting we would be a full court press team and then came out giving up layup after layup (and somehow unable to handle a press when it was thrown at us) looking like we've never practiced it before.

No, Wyking is the victim of all this. The roster happened to him. The transfers happened to him. The lack of filling holes on the roster happened to him. The team being dead last in possibly the worst year in PAC history and perhaps the worst in major conference history happened to him. But if we give him another year we can have another year of excuses for things happening to him and him needing to have another year in the blind hope that maybe a conference title will happen to him.

SFC, you seem really hung up on old school (or just old) coaches so here's a quote from one (Bill Parcells): you are what your record says you are. Wyking is awful.

---

You are making a lot of assumptions here, and unless you have inside information how all these things happened, your post is mostly, if not all, speculation. Nothing wrong with speculating, but my post was mostly about facts. I gave you the barest of facts, the simplest of facts. A player is returning starter or he isn't. A player is a junior or he is of some other class. A player is a big or a point guard or a wing. You can have no argument with my facts. Only with what you in your dreams think I am concluding about Wyking Jones. I did make a value judgment about what players are great players, what players are good players, separating them from the rest of the players. If you have facts that dispute the facts in my post, I'd like to hear them.

I would like to say a word about the transfers Wyking Jones is responsible for losing. Charlie Moore left because his father had a stroke, and he wanted to be closer to his family. Somehow you feel Charlie Moore was not telling the truth, and that he left because Wyking Jones was not able to convince him or did not want him to stay.. Kam Rooks public statement was that his father had died suddenly and he wanted to transfer so he could be closer his family. You don't believe he was telling the truth, and that he left Cal because Wyking Jones was not able to convince him or did not want him to stay. Unless you have inside info, you are being very disrespectful to both players, and to Jones.

Let us say that Wyking had held on to Moore, Rooks and Baker. That could have made each team slightly better, I'd agree. Having an average point guard like Moore, would have helped the first Jones team, which had no point guard. Baker was reputed to be a scorer, so maybe that forces Coleman to the bench. Rooks provides a backup to Okoroh. It is a little better team, still with no post game from either. Perimeter defense still very suspect. I'd guess they win maybe 10-12 games. In year two, Jones again loses all his bigs to graduation, and you still lose Coleman, Jones still has to build an entire team around Moore and Davis.. With Moore at point guard, maybe Austin does not come to Cal. In any case, you still have weak perimeter defense, but a little better point guard. Again, my guess is the Bears win 10-12 games at most.

Stuff happens in basketball that we don't like. Players transfer. Players get hurt. Do you blame Cuonzo for the injuries to Bird and Wallace, which killed our chances in 2016? Did you blame Montgomery for the stress fractures of Kreklow and Cobbs, or Crabbe and Solomon both getting poked in an eye, or the tragic health problems of Rossi? Did you blame him for Solomon's plagiarizing a paper and drawing a suspension, or for losing Amoke for stealing a laptop? Dd you blame Braun for Powe's injury?

Many first year coaches lose players to transfer, and many lose players the previous coach had recruited. In very modern times, say the last 20 years or so, it is public knowledge what players have been recruited and committed, but prior to that, it was not public knowledge all the players a head coach missed out on.

I made no excuses for Wyking Jones. I am giving you facts which you refuse to acknowledge. I don't disagree with the basic complaints which you make about Jones' coaching (minus the exaggeration and hyperbole). I have said I have no opinion on whether Jones should stay or go. It is a decision that must. be made by considering all the factors, not just the whether the coaching during a game looks good or bad to you, or whether the team wins a lot of games or not, a bunch of freshman and sophs competing against teams which are loaded with juniors and seniors, not a team with only one frosh big (lately), competing against teams with multiple bigs of all ages.

What old school coaches am I hung up on? If you think Cuonzo is an old school coach,l then you must be a very young fellow. You should be embracing my looking at rosters, because most modern fans and coaches believe rosters are more important than anything. Recruit rankings are the Holy Grail. It is the old style coaches who wanted stars, but they were good enough to coach up average players into champions. With today's rules that cater to the highly skilled players, and far less teamwork, coaching and winning in the old way is near impossible.

What I am hung up on is how fans pay no attention to history, and if you don't pay attention to the mistakes that we made in the past, we are doomed to repeat those mistakes. To fire or retain a coach, a coach who has not committed any transgressions or violations of rules or conduct, all the factors must be considered, not just wins and losses. I could care less if he is retained or fired. I have no say in the decision, and no opinion on it, except that if the AD does not consider the deficient roster in his decision, he is no better than his two predecessors, who apparently did not consider much at all, which is one reason why we are in this mess.

---

---

I appreciate the fact based post. To the other post, Moore, Rooks were torn, they liked the coaches, and team - family issues dictated their decision. Its a three year process to recruit, develop depth and skills and gain maturity. For those who are claiming otherwise are ignoring the facts.

It is the coaching (or lack thereof).

5-33 (13% winning percentage) is all you need to know.

Please stop making excuses for this coach for losing year after year.

* The day this guy was hired he had:

. Three 7 footer senior Centers with combined 9 years of Power 5 Conference starting experience (something that every MBB team hopes they had).

. One 6'-11" five star PF (would be senior this year, although, most likely he wouldn't stick around no matter who the coach was).

. A star Freshman PG who was all Freshman Pac-12 (who would be a junior this year).

. A four star SG signed recruit (who would be a Sophomore this year).

. A fearless scorer who would be a Junior this year (although, he needed good coaching to play under control and within the team concept).

. A Senior PG (who was pushed off the team by this coach).

. And a bunch more.

* Whose fault is it that most of the good players ran off when they saw this guy was the coach or were pushed out by this coach?

* Whose fault is it that he couldn't replace them with quality players?

* Whose fault is it that he offered two of the highly coveted four year scholarships to two players only to decide less that 10 months later that they were no good and pushed them off the team?

Please stop making excuses for this coach.

Results (5-33, 13% winning percentage) talk, excuses walk.

Go Bears!

Coach underutilized his deep bench today.

helltopay1 said:

---

Did you just read the research done by the great SFCB?????

---

Who is the "great" SFCB? I know no such person.

calbear80 said:

---

It is the coaching (or lack thereof).

5-33 (13% winning percentage) is all you need to know.

Please stop making excuses for this coach for losing year after year.

* The day this guy was hired he had:

. Three 7 footer senior Centers with combined 9 years of Power 5 Conference starting experience (something that every MBB team hopes they had).

. One 6'-11" five star PF (would be senior this year, although, most likely he wouldn't stick around no matter who the coach was).

. A star Freshman PG who was all Freshman Pac-12 (who would be a junior this year).

. A four star SG signed recruit (who would be a Sophomore this year).

. A fearless scorer who would be a Junior this year (although, he needed good coaching to play under control and within the team concept).

. A Senior PG (who was pushed off the team by this coach).

. And a bunch more.

* Whose fault is it that most of the good players ran off when they saw this guy was the coach or were pushed out by this coach?

* Whose fault is it that he couldn't replace them with quality players?

* Whose fault is it that he offered two of the highly coveted four year scholarships to two players only to decide less that 10 months later that they were no good and pushed them off the team?

Please stop making excuses for this coach.

Results (5-33, 13% winning percentage) talk, excuses walk.

Go Bears!

---

We need you more than ever. Stupidity is at its peak right now.

I don't know what Knowlton will do but I'd like to see him release a decisive, supportive statement saying that WJ will be our coach next season. He's built a strong foundation under extraordinarily challenging circumstances and the players work hard for him and have shown tremendous growth.

Yogi Bear said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Did you just read the research done by the great SFCB?????

---

Who is the "great" SFCB? I know no such person.

---

I agree with you, Yogi. There is nothing great at all about looking up a bunch of basketball stats and posting them along with an opinion of what they might mean or indicate.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a great person to waste much of his time insulting others personally in a public forum, along with bashing their opinions you happen to disagree with. You are no fun. No fun at all. I don't think you would be fun, even if Cal was winning. I truly wish you had one-tenth of the sense of humor of your namesake, the Yogi Bear of TV cartoon fame.

SFCityBear said:

---

Cal's current roster deficiencies may have begun under Braun. He left Montgomery with a team of juniors (not all Braun's fault, as Theo and Kamp had to sit out years with injuries), but those juniors would all graduate after they won the PAC10 title, leaving Montgomery to have to fill a lot of holes fast. He finally got a handle on it, and left Cuonzo a few good players when he retired. Cuonzo seemed to want to make a quick name for himself at Cal, and went for one-and-dones and transfers, thereby leaving a weak roster for Jones. I did some research on how weak the roster was that Cuonzo gave to Jones. Here is a summary comparing his inherited roster to that of 10 other first-time Cal coaches beginning with Newell, listing the coach with the best inherited roster, the average inherited roster of all the coaches, and the roster inherited by Wyking Jones.

Great players inherited: Braun 5, Average 2.9, Jones 0 Lowest in Cal history.
Other good players: Newell 8, Average 4.4, Jones 2 Tied for lowest in Cal history.
Total great/good players: Padgett 10, Average 7.3, Jones 2 Lowest in Cal history
Previous Starters: Braun 6, Average 3.3, Jones 2 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Sophs: Padgett 6, Average 2.5, Jones 1 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Juniors: Campanelli 6, Average 3.2, Jones 1 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Seniors: Braun 6, Average 2.2, Jones 3 4th best in Cal history
Point Guards: Bozeman 3, Average 1.9, Jones 0 Lowest in Cal history.
Bigs: Braun 5: Average 2.9, Jones 2 Lowest in Cal history
Wings: 4 coaches tied with 3, Average 2.1, Jones 0 Lowest in Cal history
Off Guards: 9 coaches tied with 2, Average 1.9, Jones 1 Tied for lowest in Cal history

Records for the coaches in their first year:

Newell 9-16, Herrerias 13-9, Padgett 12-13, Edwards 11-15, Kuchen 6-21, Campanelli 17-10, Bozeman 22-8, Braun 23-9 (+Sweet 16), Montgomery 22-11, Martin 18-15, Jones 8-24

In his second year, Jones had lost 4 out of the 5 players he inherited from Cuonzo. Three graduated and one left. Looking at the inherited roster still left for second year of Wyking Jones:

Great players inherited: 0 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Other good players: Jones 0 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Total great/good players: Jones 0 Lowest in Cal history
Previous starters: Jones 0 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Sophs: Jones 0 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Juniors: Jones 1 Tied for 3rd lowest in Cal history
Seniors: Jones 0 Lowest in Cal history
PGs: Jones 0 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Bigs: Jones 0 Tied for lowest in Cal history
Wings: Jones 0 Tied for lowest in Cal history
SGs: Jones 0 Tied for lowest in Cal history

Second year records of the coaches:

Newell 17-8, Herrerias 8-17, Padgett 11-15, Edwards: 9-17, Kuchen 13-14, Campanelli 20-15, Bozeman 13-14, Braun 12-15, Montgomery 24-11, Martin 23-11,
Jones 8-22

One of the best and worst things that can happen to a coach is to inherit a lot of seniors. Braun inherited 6 seniors, went to the sweet 16, but in the next season, they all had graduated or left, and he had only two players returning, Marks and Kenyon Jones, and Braun went 12-15. Braun chose to bring in a bunch of veteran transfers like Gill, Kilgore, Carlisle, and Elson, and he sort of saved his second season from being really bad. The following season was 22-11, but then the team fell to 18-15 as all the veterans had graduated and Braun went entirely with recruits from that and the past season.

Rene inherited 5 seniors from Newell, who became starters for Rene, and the next season they had graduated and he had only 3 decent players left from a winning team, and he went 8-17. Jones lost 3 seniors and a junior, and had only Davis left from Cuonzo's roster. In his first season Jones needed to remake most of the roster and build a team around KO and Lee, in itself a very tall order, but once they were gone, he needed to remake the entire roster for his second season, and the results show it. It is quite a juggling act to try and fill all the positions with a starter and backup, and spread the talent out through all four classes, especially with players getting injured or leaving the program early.

---

A more meaningful analysis would be finding a coach in the past 34 years (NCAA tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985) who started out 8-24 and 8-23 and actually went on to success at the same school (i.e. more than one NCAA tournament appearance). If that's a legitimate possibility, I would say give Wyking more time.

Yogi Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I agree with you, Yogi. There is nothing great at all about looking up a bunch of basketball stats and posting them along with an opinion of what they might mean or indicate.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a great person to waste much of his time insulting others personally in a public forum, along with bashing their opinions you happen to disagree with. You are no fun. No fun at all. I don't think you would be fun, even if Cal was winning. I truly wish you had one-tenth of the sense of humor of your namesake, the Yogi Bear of TV cartoon fame.

---

I'm fine with you and I having different opinions. Not as fine with you hiding behind your wall of text and pretending that you aren't bashing other people's opinions every bit as much as I am. Even despite your utter inability to be succinct, I could easily live and let live with you doing you if you were honest about your intentions.

I'm actually incredibly fun. You just have to be able to laugh at Cal being Cal to get it.

---

The key word is "bashing" as opposed to simply disagreeing. As a neutral poster on this board this season, I honestly have to say that the majority of the "bashing" has come from the Wyking detractors, and SFCB has taken a great deal of it. Just kinda think sometimes the discussion might be a little over the top, but OTOH we are just talking about basketball here. Hope we all can find a happy medium with some good natured ribbing without the viciousness. (Sorry, didn't mean to come off as a Forum Cop.)

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

oh poor Wyking. He has no responsibility for the roster when he took over as head coach. It's not like he was on staff before that. And he has no responsibility for the guys who transferred out after he became coach. It's not like he had any responsibility for keeping them if he wanted them. Let's not count those as inherited players. And the recruits who bailed, not his fault either. And certainly not his fault that the team is hot garbage and gets blown out by the likes of Chaminade on his watch. It's too much to ask with only 1 McD's AA on the roster to beat Chaminade. It's not like he did things like insisting we would be a full court press team and then came out giving up layup after layup (and somehow unable to handle a press when it was thrown at us) looking like we've never practiced it before.

No, Wyking is the victim of all this. The roster happened to him. The transfers happened to him. The lack of filling holes on the roster happened to him. The team being dead last in possibly the worst year in PAC history and perhaps the worst in major conference history happened to him. But if we give him another year we can have another year of excuses for things happening to him and him needing to have another year in the blind hope that maybe a conference title will happen to him.

SFC, you seem really hung up on old school (or just old) coaches so here's a quote from one (Bill Parcells): you are what your record says you are. Wyking is awful.

---

You are making a lot of assumptions here, and unless you have inside information how all these things happened, your post is mostly, if not all, speculation. Nothing wrong with speculating, but my post was mostly about facts. I gave you the barest of facts, the simplest of facts. A player is returning starter or he isn't. A player is a junior or he is of some other class. A player is a big or a point guard or a wing. You can have no argument with my facts. Only with what you in your dreams think I am concluding about Wyking Jones. I did make a value judgment about what players are great players, what players are good players, separating them from the rest of the players. If you have facts that dispute the facts in my post, I'd like to hear them.

I would like to say a word about the transfers Wyking Jones is responsible for losing. Charlie Moore left because his father had a stroke, and he wanted to be closer to his family. Somehow you feel Charlie Moore was not telling the truth, and that he left because Wyking Jones was not able to convince him or did not want him to stay.. Kam Rooks public statement was that his father had died suddenly and he wanted to transfer so he could be closer his family. You don't believe he was telling the truth, and that he left Cal because Wyking Jones was not able to convince him or did not want him to stay. Unless you have inside info, you are being very disrespectful to both players, and to Jones.

Let us say that Wyking had held on to Moore, Rooks and Baker. That could have made each team slightly better, I'd agree. Having an average point guard like Moore, would have helped the first Jones team, which had no point guard. Baker was reputed to be a scorer, so maybe that forces Coleman to the bench. Rooks provides a backup to Okoroh. It is a little better team, still with no post game from either. Perimeter defense still very suspect. I'd guess they win maybe 10-12 games. In year two, Jones again loses all his bigs to graduation, and you still lose Coleman, Jones still has to build an entire team around Moore and Davis.. With Moore at point guard, maybe Austin does not come to Cal. In any case, you still have weak perimeter defense, but a little better point guard. Again, my guess is the Bears win 10-12 games at most.

Stuff happens in basketball that we don't like. Players transfer. Players get hurt. Do you blame Cuonzo for the injuries to Bird and Wallace, which killed our chances in 2016? Did you blame Montgomery for the stress fractures of Kreklow and Cobbs, or Crabbe and Solomon both getting poked in an eye, or the tragic health problems of Rossi? Did you blame him for Solomon's plagiarizing a paper and drawing a suspension, or for losing Amoke for stealing a laptop? Dd you blame Braun for Powe's injury?

Many first year coaches lose players to transfer, and many lose players the previous coach had recruited. In very modern times, say the last 20 years or so, it is public knowledge what players have been recruited and committed, but prior to that, it was not public knowledge all the players a head coach missed out on.

I made no excuses for Wyking Jones. I am giving you facts which you refuse to acknowledge. I don't disagree with the basic complaints which you make about Jones' coaching (minus the exaggeration and hyperbole). I have said I have no opinion on whether Jones should stay or go. It is a decision that must. be made by considering all the factors, not just the whether the coaching during a game looks good or bad to you, or whether the team wins a lot of games or not, a bunch of freshman and sophs competing against teams which are loaded with juniors and seniors, not a team with only one frosh big (lately), competing against teams with multiple bigs of all ages.

What old school coaches am I hung up on? If you think Cuonzo is an old school coach,l then you must be a very young fellow. You should be embracing my looking at rosters, because most modern fans and coaches believe rosters are more important than anything. Recruit rankings are the Holy Grail. It is the old style coaches who wanted stars, but they were good enough to coach up average players into champions. With today's rules that cater to the highly skilled players, and far less teamwork, coaching and winning in the old way is near impossible.

What I am hung up on is how fans pay no attention to history, and if you don't pay attention to the mistakes that we made in the past, we are doomed to repeat those mistakes. To fire or retain a coach, a coach who has not committed any transgressions or violations of rules or conduct, all the factors must be considered, not just wins and losses. I could care less if he is retained or fired. I have no say in the decision, and no opinion on it, except that if the AD does not consider the deficient roster in his decision, he is no better than his two predecessors, who apparently did not consider much at all, which is one reason why we are in this mess.

---

I don't believe I'm speculating or making a bunch of assumptions. I'm being sarcastic to make a point but I don't know which part is speculative/assumptions? The assertions I made are that the team's on court performance has been awful which I would hope is a fact that everyone can agree on; that he has been on staff immediately prior to being named head coach, and that there were transfers and decommits that happened. What in that do you think is speculation or wild assumptions?

Regarding the transfers, I don't have much inclination to argue about why they transferred (though I will say I think the Moore explanation is bs - KU is a 9 hour drive from Chicago and he could've transferred to several schools that are much closer to Chicago if his primary goal was to be close to family). I'm just saying they happened. The coach is responsible for the roster. It doesn't matter why the players transfer or decommit or choose not to commit to us or etc. His responsibility is putting a championship product on the floor. I've seen no indication that he can do so.

Regarding the examples of players getting hurt or doing stupid things off the court - any one thing, no, I don't blame on the coach. I hold the coach responsible for the outcomes on the court. How he gets there (high school recruiting, player development, transfers, in game strategy, etc) is up to him within some reasonable bounds (ie don't embarrass the school). I support accountability.

Think of it in your own work history. You've made clear that you were some kind of engineer. Let's say you were in a leadership position under the main team manager for a while. Performance was up and down but on the whole in line with historic norms. And then the manager left and you were put in charge. Would it be ok for the first several projects to all be huge failures just because Sally got sick that one time and Jim kept screwing up and Bob took a better offer elsewhere? You didn't find a senior person to replace Bob and you didn't train up Jim and etc but not your fault. Yeah, sure, the bridges keep collapsing but it's not my fault. Would your performance be looked at in context? Probably. Would consistent abject failure at levels not seen for a long long time in organizational history be excused? I would hope not.

What you keep missing while continuing to post these "just presenting facts, not taking any sides" novellas is that everyone knows what the roster looked like. There's nothing new there. Continuing to post it comes off as making excuses. He had some responsibility for the roster from when he was an assistant and 100% responsibility from the minute he accepted the head coach job.

You say you keep posting these things because we need to learn from history and the mistakes made to not repeat them. What are the mistakes that we shouldn't be repeating in this case?

The old coaches was a frustration comment I shouldn't have made. I was referring to the guys from the 50s and 60s who have little relevance to what's happening now.

calbear80 said:

---

It is the coaching (or lack thereof).

5-33 (13% winning percentage) is all you need to know.

Please stop making excuses for this coach for losing year after year.

* The day this guy was hired he had:

. Three 7 footer senior Centers with combined 9 years of Power 5 Conference starting experience (something that every MBB team hopes they had).

. One 6'-11" five star PF (would be senior this year, although, most likely he wouldn't stick around no matter who the coach was).

. A star Freshman PG who was all Freshman Pac-12 (who would be a junior this year).

. A four star SG signed recruit (who would be a Sophomore this year).

. A fearless scorer who would be a Junior this year (although, he needed good coaching to play under control and within the team concept).

. A Senior PG (who was pushed off the team by this coach).

. And a bunch more.

* Whose fault is it that most of the good players ran off when they saw this guy was the coach or were pushed out by this coach?

* Whose fault is it that he couldn't replace them with quality players?

* Whose fault is it that he offered two of the highly coveted four year scholarships to two players only to decide less that 10 months later that they were no good and pushed them off the team?

Please stop making excuses for this coach.

Results (5-33, 13% winning percentage) talk, excuses walk.

Go Bears!

---

Calbear80,

You are playing fast and loose with some of these facts, again trying to distort the coach's record, by exaggerating and making some untrue statements. Look, we all get your point, the overall won-loss record is awful. It is a good point. I agree with your point. Where we disagree is that it is one aspect of a coach's record, and all things should be considered, if the AD decides to make a decision on firing him, but in the emotional world of the basketball fan, those things will not be considered. I am just hoping the AD will give consideration to all relevant information. You have a good argument for firing, and I suggest you stick to it, because when you wander away from that repetitive mantra, you haven't been careful about your facts. Not that any of that matters to you and your followers.

I don't feel I am making excuses, just presenting facts which you choose to ignore. If Jones gets fired after a fair hearing of all the facts, so be it. If he gets retained, so be it. If he gets fired over just one fact, losing for two years with very little to start with in both years, which I assume is not a violation of his contract or any other rule, and the AD weighs no other facts, then I would be very disappointed in the AD.

"Year after year' in my dictionary means something that happens every year for many successive years. Jones has had two years. Kuchen had 9.

You say Jones began with three senior centers. Okoroh, Rooks, and ?????? If you mean Marcus Lee, first, he is not a "7-footer." I have been chastised on this board for saying 6-11 Ivan Rabb was a 7-footer. Technically, and by definition, Lee is not a 7-footer. Lee is a forward, not a center. He was listed as a forward on the Kentucky roster for 3 years, and he was a forward at Cal.

You say they had 9 years of P5 experience starting experience. Not true. First off, they were all part-time starters, and only KO started a majority of games for just one season, his junior year. He started 3 games as a frosh, 17 as a soph. 7 Cal players had more minutes per game. As a junior, he started 24 games. He was in the Cal rotation just one season. 44 games total, averaging 21 minutes a game.

Rooks did not start a game as a freshman. He started 10 games as a soph, and 10 as a junior, averaging 13 minutes a game. He was in the rotation for two years.

Lee started 4 games as a freshman, no games at all as a soph, and 26 games as a junior, and that year 5 players had more minutes than Lee. He averaged 14 minutes a game at Kentucky, and was in the rotation for only one year, 2016.

To summarize, Jones began with 3 senior big men, two 7-foot centers and one forward.
They had seven seasons, not nine, of starting experience. Okoroh as a frosh started 3 games, Lee 4 games. Throw out those frosh seasons and the 3 bigs had 5 seasons of experience starting games and 4 seasons of actually starting games as part of the rotation.
I agree with your point, I just don't agree with all the exaggeration you use to make it.

The 6-11 power forward you refer to is obviously Ivan Rabb. Wyking Jones did not begin his Cal head coaching career with Rabb on his roster. That is just a lie. Probably not intentional, but you are playing loose with the facts to make Jones look worse than he is. For the record, Rabb declared for the NBA Draft on March 21, 2017, and three days later, on March 24, 2017, Cal hired Wyking Jones as head coach. I'm not going to let you hang Rabb's leaving Cal on Wyking Jones.

To hang your star PG, Charlie Moore, leaving Cal as somehow Jones's fault, is being highly disrespectful of the young man who had to make a tough decision, and in his words he did it to be close to his family after his father's stroke. Say anything to get the coach fired. How low can we sink?

Your 4-star recruit, Jemarl Baker, had to sit out his first year at Kentucky with a knee injury. This season he is averaging about 5 minutes per game and 1.9 points, shooting 33%, and 27% on threes. He is the 8th or 9th man on a team with a 7-man rotation. He would not have helped Cal last season, and probably not helped this season. Maybe he'd have been a help in future years. Same for 3-star Trevin Knell. He signed with BYU and right away left for a two year Mormon mission in Uruguay. He would not have helped in either last season or this, unless you think it is Jones' fault that he could not talk him out of going on the Mormon mission. Maybe he, like Baker, might have helped in future years.

As for Coleman,do you honestly think Cal would have been better with Coleman this year? You think he forces Bradley to the bench? I don't think so. Coleman helped to wreck Wyking's first season, breaking rules, and playing selfishly, stupidly. I can hardly wait to see how he does playing elsewhere to prove you right.

As for Chauca, he couldn't shoot, pass, defend. What else is there? Plus he had become disruptive. I'd say good riddance, but good luck to him.

Who are all these "good players" who left as soon as they heard the coach was leaving? That is another lie, something you can't prove, just to get the coach fired. As to good players, Jones started with 4: KO, Rooks, Moore, and Lee. Moore and Rooks left for family reasons, according to them. Baker and Knell who left, were once good players on paper, in high school, supposedly, but no one knows if they will be any good in college.

I agree giving Winston and McCullogh scholarships was a mistake, a poor judge of talent. Jones inherited a small roster, not enough players to hold a scrimmage, and he had to bring in a lot of new players fast. He started recruiting when nearly all the good ones were taken, and he had to make do with what he could get at that late date. The mistake he made was giving them scholarships. He later made another mistake in the way he pushed them off the team. He's made mistakes. All rookie coaches make them. If you can't allow a few mistakes, you are a hard man.

I won't try to state the facts, which you say are excuses if you would please stop lying, distorting facts, and exaggerating, all to try and convince us to be miserable until the coach is fired. It is character assassination, pure and simple. Couldn't you just stick to your original argument, the won-loss record? That is a fact, and it is not good, I agree.

Facts matter.

Bottom line, hiring Martin was a mistake. We got one fun season out of him, which ended with injuries. He was never going to stay to build a program, and he's doing nothing at Missouri. Should have elevated Travis. If he'll return now, we should get him, if only to eliminate any Babe Ruth karma.

Alkiadt said:

---

Facts matter.

---

Define "facts". What players would have stayed, left, improved, been recruited, etc. if another coach besides Wyking was hired is conjecture, not facts. If we hired someone else would Rabb and Moore have stayed? Would Baker have been an impact player with different coaching, scenery, systems and teammates? Would another coach have brought in other options besides McCullough and Winston? Who knows? That's conjecture, not facts.