Darius McNeil is Tranferring

15,619 Views | 74 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Big C
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4thGenCal said:

HKBear97! said:

SFCityBear said:


I wrote that no other Cal coach in history had been given less of a roster to start with than Wyking Jones.
And this is where I disagree. This is a completely subjective take, not "fact". Furthermore, it fails to take into account that Wyking was part of this program for two years before taking over. He was not coming in blind and supposedly was hired for continuity. Moreover, he's made terrible recruiting decisions over this time period - no size, Winston, McCullough, McNeill and now possibly some others who might be transferring. You have tried so hard to take the opposite side of those criticizing Wyking you've lost the forest for the trees. We've set school records in futility these past two years and now we're about to go into year three and at this stage, it looks like we'll again be in the bottom of the Pac-12. He was a bad hire, no getting around it.
Staff has overall recruited average to good and this incoming class will be solid. To point out 2 busts (when hired at the end of the final recruiting period and thus short handed) is harsh. Vanover has promise, Gordon sustained a serious injury (which proved to be an one year+ recovery period). Kelly is yet to be rated due to youth, conditioning and playing out of position. With 2 more recruits to be announced, the roster will be significantly better for next season. Regarding the"hire", programs starting from the horrible position when WJ took over the HC (not as an supporting role/non decision maker on recruits) take 3+ seasons. This season will be fair game to judge and assess. Knowledgable local analysts and past coaches (Monty, Jay John, Don Mclean, Ben Braun) all felt 2 years is too short to grade WJ - given what was inherited.
I can accept that but I also think the problem here is that baring one of the grad transfers REALLY playing better than on Tape you are looking at 5 to 8 wins in conference. Then you are literally RIGHT BACK AT THE SAME PLACE. NIT is now a lot harder to get into as a P5 so probably an invite to the CBI and either a decline or 700 at Haas.

Now what? Your scenario puts us RIGHT into that position. We save $1 million in buy outs MINUS the opportunity cost of what will be a horrific attendance year next year. And so now, with a three year win total in conference of around 10....and year 3 of a 5 year deal with the need to ACTUALLY extend....you will be extending - with really no indication he can land high 4-5 stars....OR find kids like Crabbe or Jorge or Cobbs that can be made into Pac-12 POY.

I agree the roster sucks....but it isn't like Justin has made great strides to become an elite PAC-12 forward.....or did I miss him making the all conference first or second team or even honorable mention while I was bashing the key board (sarcasm)
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

4thGenCal said:

HKBear97! said:

SFCityBear said:


I wrote that no other Cal coach in history had been given less of a roster to start with than Wyking Jones.
And this is where I disagree. This is a completely subjective take, not "fact". Furthermore, it fails to take into account that Wyking was part of this program for two years before taking over. He was not coming in blind and supposedly was hired for continuity. Moreover, he's made terrible recruiting decisions over this time period - no size, Winston, McCullough, McNeill and now possibly some others who might be transferring. You have tried so hard to take the opposite side of those criticizing Wyking you've lost the forest for the trees. We've set school records in futility these past two years and now we're about to go into year three and at this stage, it looks like we'll again be in the bottom of the Pac-12. He was a bad hire, no getting around it.
Staff has overall recruited average to good and this incoming class will be solid. To point out 2 busts (when hired at the end of the final recruiting period and thus short handed) is harsh. Vanover has promise, Gordon sustained a serious injury (which proved to be an one year+ recovery period). Kelly is yet to be rated due to youth, conditioning and playing out of position. With 2 more recruits to be announced, the roster will be significantly better for next season. Regarding the"hire", programs starting from the horrible position when WJ took over the HC (not as an supporting role/non decision maker on recruits) take 3+ seasons. This season will be fair game to judge and assess. Knowledgable local analysts and past coaches (Monty, Jay John, Don Mclean, Ben Braun) all felt 2 years is too short to grade WJ - given what was inherited.
I can accept that but I also think the problem here is that baring one of the grad transfers REALLY playing better than on Tape you are looking at 5 to 8 wins in conference. Then you are literally RIGHT BACK AT THE SAME PLACE. NIT is now a lot harder to get into as a P5 so probably an invite to the CBI and either a decline or 700 at Haas.

Now what? Your scenario puts us RIGHT into that position. We save $1 million in buy outs MINUS the opportunity cost of what will be a horrific attendance year next year. And so now, with a three year win total in conference of around 10....and year 3 of a 5 year deal with the need to ACTUALLY extend....you will be extending - with really no indication he can land high 4-5 stars....OR find kids like Crabbe or Jorge or Cobbs that can be made into Pac-12 POY.

I agree the roster sucks....but it isn't like Justin has made great strides to become an elite PAC-12 forward.....or did I miss him making the all conference first or second team or even honorable mention while I was bashing the key board (sarcasm)
And yes yes...I know (rolls eyes) Pete Newell struggled his first 2 years. Again, such a different era in the kind of kids you had, the style that was played and the skills that you need (and the presence of a serious pay day _IF_ the coach you sign with develops your skills) that I am not sure it is the same sport. At the very least we can agree that the RULES are far different - from the shot clock to the three point line to the legality of the dunk.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

At the very least we can agree that the RULES are far different - from the shot clock to the three point line to the legality of the dunk.
I think the dunk was legal before 1967, but very few players could do it. In 1967 I was just starting to watch college basketball - don't remember if I saw any dunks but I do remember the rule being controversial.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

socaltownie said:

At the very least we can agree that the RULES are far different - from the shot clock to the three point line to the legality of the dunk.
I think the dunk was legal before 1967, but very few players could do it. In 1967 I was just starting to watch college basketball - don't remember if I saw any dunks but I do remember the rule being controversial.
Yes. Your are right. I stand corrected. Dunk was banned from 67 to about 76.

But, as you know, Newell won in the pre-shot clock day when it was VERY possible to spend inordinate amount of time running complicated set after complicated set.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

But, as you know, Newell won in the pre-shot clock day when it was VERY possible to spend inordinate amount of time running complicated set after complicated set.
I never saw Newell's teams, but I did see Boyd Grant's Fresno State teams a few times before the shot clock was introduced. It was horrible - they didn't run sets so much as play keep-away whenever they had the lead.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

OaktownBear said:

SFCityBear said:

HKBear97! said:

SFCityBear said:

socaltownie said:

KoreAmBear said:

Maybe two more.

It's becoming comedic.

First time we hired Wyking it was to save money and retain our players and recruits. They left anyway. Second time we keep Wyking, it's to save money and maybe continue our late season "run." People are leaving anyway.

Why Knowlton, why?
........It is classic. We retain a guy and the same day their best guard on the team leaves.


I would not make too much about a player leaving the team. 10 years ago, 40% of D1 players left their teams, some of them left two teams. I don't know what the figure is now, but I doubt it has greatly decreased. Players transfer now. That is what they do.

I would not tie this to Jones being the coach, or being the returning coach. Players leave teams for lots of reasons, and unless we have evidence of Jones being the reason, it would just be speculation on our part.

I would disagree that McNeill was the best guard on the team. Best in what way? He is supposed to be the shooting guard. Bradley shot threes at 47.2%, #18 in the NCAA. McNeill, at 34.9% was not even ranked in the top 100 nationally. Bradley was a much better three-point shooter than McNeill. Bradley was a much better free throw shooter than McNeill, 79.3% to 69,6%. McNeill's overall FG% at 39.1% was the worst in the rotation except for JHD (who can't hit a barn if he is inside the building) at 38.7%. McNeill averaged 11 points per game, which is below par for a shooting guard. In the biggest game of this miserable season, Colorado in the tournament, he played 38 minutes and scored 7 points. That is not accepatbale for a shooting guard. Most of his numbers deteriorated from last season. Rebounds, assists were down. He committed less turnovers, but he wasn't handling the ball as much. He did improve his drives to the basket and finishing them. His defense looked a little better. I think McNeill suffers from being called a combo guard, which usually means a kid who can play both guard positions, but usually doesn't play either one real well. He does not seem to be able to make a play unless he has the ball in his hands, and his usual decision is to shoot or drive and shoot, and seldom to pass. He had two seasons to make this team. He did not perform adequately at point and was replaced by Austin. If Cal had a deeper team up front this season, Sueing would have not have had to play PF, and Bradley would have replaced McNeill at the shooting guard.

I wish McNeill well wherever he lands, no matter why he left. His leaving could hurt the team, because he would have been a junior next season, a returning starter, and Cal has so few experienced players and will have to depend on freshmen and maybe transfers again. In that sense, I am sorry to see him go. He gave Cal some good games, especially in the first half of his fresman year.
Classic. Can't wait to see what you say if/when the other rumored transfers announce their intentions. Let me guess, not Jones' fault either, right?
Classic yourself. Never said it wasn't Jones' fault. It could be. It could be anything. The relationship between coach and player is a two way street. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. So, you are the Swami, the all-knowing (or know it all). You go right ahead. You tell us why McNeill left, and prove it, this time. What rumored transfers? Name your players - names, please. And sources. Or do you just make this crap up, trying to get some attention?
Not buying it. You didn't know any more or have any more proof when Martin was here and you criticized him constantly. You defend and defend and defend and then you try not to take responsibility for it by saying "I am not saying anything (for 10 pages). I'm just saying I don't know."

There were a handful of posters that became knows as the great Holmoe apologists. You will go down as one of the great Jones apologists no matter how much you try to weasel out of it.
"...the great Holmoe apologists."

And I wear it as a "badge of honor"....


As you should. You made your case at the time clearly and directly without insulting others. You didn't obfuscate or shy away from your opinion. And you came to realize you were wrong and took your grief for it. We can't always be right but we can stand by our convictions with honesty and hold ourselves accountable.

Edit - touche Yogi. Thanks for the assist
Genocide Joe 58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

71Bear said:


"...the great Holmoe apologists."

And I wear it as a "badge of honor"....


As you should. You made your case at the time clearly and directly without insulting others. You didn't obfuscate or shy away from your opinion. And you came to realize you were wrong and took your grief for it. We can't always be write, but we can stand by our convictions with honesty and hold ourselves accountable.
Indeed
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

OaktownBear said:

Not buying it. You didn't know any more or have any more proof when Martin was here and you criticized him constantly. You defend and defend and defend and then you try not to take responsibility for it by saying "I am not saying anything (for 10 pages). I'm just saying I don't know."

There were a handful of posters that became knows as the great Holmoe apologists. You will go down as one of the great Jones apologists no matter how much you try to weasel out of it.


I could care less whether you buy it. I'm not writing here to please you. I write about Cal basketball what I think, and I write it for general consumption or rejection. With you and me, it is personal. Always has been. I wish it wasn't. There are a number of fine Cal fans here on the BI who probably hate my guts. It's a free country.

As to Martin, I did not criticize HIM constantly. I criticized HIS offensive philosophy over and over. I did have proof of what his offensive philosophy was, because he explained it to the press, and I listened to it, and saw with my eyes that he had implemented it. It was not until after Martin had thrown in the towel vs Bakersfield, and left Cal, that I criticized him on personal level for being an opportunist. Do I have proof of that? No, but I think it was a good guess. I criticized Martin again lately, when the contempt and hatred for Wyking Jones on this board became hard to take. I wrote that no other Cal coach in history had been given less of a roster to start with than Wyking Jones. And yes I have proof of that, from the old Cal website and from the rosters of years past, posted on sports-reference.com. It was a failed attempt to bring some perspective to the discussion of whether a coach should be retained or fired. If we think that the roster a new coach starts with has nothing to do with his success in his first two years, then we know nothing about college basketball.

I can endure your insults, and your accusations (without proof, I'd add). Exposing my thoughts to Cal fans here has given me a thicker skin than when I first posted here. It is a characteristic of many people to try and pigeonhole others into categories, and make it easier to deal with them. Once they decide you are this or that kind of person, then they can ascribe qualities to you that others in that category have exhibited. In politics, for example, if you say someone is a Republican, then he must also be a supporter of the President, when many Republicans don't support the President at all, and some even try to undermine him. The same is true on the Left side of the political spectrum.

I will try and state it again. I wanted to counter calbear80 and all the Jones critics and haters who had made up their minds to crucify Jones in the media without a fair trial. If you only can understand this by accusing me of being a Jones apologist, then have at it. I never ever defended Jones' style of play, his record, his recruiting. In fact, if you and everyone had read my posts, I said at the beginning Jones would not be the best hire. I wanted someone with some HC experience in college. I criticized his decision to use a full court press with his deficient roster. I criticized his decision to name Coleman as the "go-to guy on offense". I criticised his offensive sets. I criticized his decision to switch defenses when his players hadn't mastered one style. I criticized his use of zone at all, because his players needed to learn fundamental individual man defense first, so they should be playing man D. I could be wrong about all these statements, but I stand by them, and they were all critical of Wyking Jones. Where do you see any "apology" for Jones in any of those statements I made on the BI?

What happened was calbear80 began to lead the charge to get Jones fired, with no evidence other than wins and losses. More and more of you joined the chorus and it became a high-tech electronic media lynching of a coach, without any kind of a fair trial. You are a lawyer. You know how the system works. What I did was write a series of posts to counter calbear80's constant calls to lynch without a trial, DEFENDING WYKING JONES RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING WITH HIS BOSS, Jim Knowlton, the AD, behind closed doors Let Jones plead his case, with all his own facts, for another year. You and the rest of the mob could not allow that. You people can look at me as an apologist. Call me whatever you want. But you need to take a hard look at yourselves and ask why you joined a mob to fire this coach, simply because he was not winning enough games for you. Instant gratification in your choice of entertainment is that important to you?

Finally, I apologize again for the long posts. I don't think in Tweets or one line e-mails very often, as I like to go a little deeper into things. If you don't like reading what I write, you do have a choice to read me or not, unlike you all who didn't (and still don't) want to give AD Knowlton the choice to make his own decision to hire or fire Wyking Jones. The mob is probably already beginning to form in some minds to fire the AD.



1. I have never personally insulted Wyking Jones. I've argued against it. I've criticized Calbear80. You just paint everyone who feels it is time to move on from Jones with a broad brush.

2. I did not criticize the job Wyking Jones did in the first horrendous year. I argued that he shouldn't have been hired, but if Cal was going to hire such an inexperienced coach, they had to know there would be growing pains. I argued to give him an off-season to process what he did as a coach, think about what he did well and poorly and learn from it. That it was possible that he could get a lot better.

3. I did not criticize his performance for 80% of a terrible second season. I argued to give him the whole season. In doing so I praised YOUR arguments for giving him the whole season.

4. Many posters here have made sound arguments for moving on that went well beyond wins and losses. They brought statistics to bear. They discussed his schemes. They've made subjective observations about quality of play. Many such arguments have been by people after remaining relatively patient for a year or more. They may be wrong. They may be right. You may agree or disagree. But their arguments are reasonably held and reasonably made. But you keep repeating that they are a mob with no patience who only cares about wins and offer nothing else. That is a misrepresentation of their arguments. Frankly it's a flat out lie. I don't know if you've become so fixated with Calbear80 that everyone looks like him to you, but your characterization of others is extremely disrespectful. When you treat others with respect, I treat you with respect. When you don't, I don't. That is our history

5. As I said, I praised your arguments for giving him the whole season. Well, He got the whole season. Now is the time to judge. You want to give him another year-fine. You don't want to judge-fine. Others may intelligently disagree without being part of a mob. I think the bottom line is you think Calbear80 has acted like a jerk and you don't want him to be right about this. So you refuse to acknowledge any reasonable arguments that he might have been right. There are always jerks who want to fire the coach and who will throw insults at the guy. Unfortunately those guys get the benefit of being right when the coach is actually substandard. I don't like that any more than you do, but that is no excuse for treating everyone as if they committed Calbear80's sins.

When Cal won those games I was happy for Wyking Jones that he had something positive to take with him out the door. That is where it should have ended. I really hope for the best for the guy. Just not here.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOUMFSG2 said:

For a team that struggled with inexperience, I'm not sure that losing a player with 58 starts, over 2,000 minutes played and 700 points scored in his two seasons is insignificant. I've liked McNeill's potential since he's arrived at Cal. He has not developed much consistency in his two years here, I would agree with that, but I do think he will be missed.
I'd agree with all of this. I wrote that McNeill was not the team's best guard. I just happen to think Bradley was a little better. I think McNeill is better suited for SG, but even saying that, it had to be a difficult transition for him to a new position this season. He did improve his drives a lot, but he struggled some with catch and shoot opportunities. His loss will be significant as one of only three upperclassmen next year, and now there are only two We will struggle again with inexperience, but not quite as much we did as this season. Plus, McNeill was major part of Cal's improvement as a team to finally get some wins at the end of a long tough season. Cal does not win those 3 games or hang tough with Colorado without the team defense in those games and the games preceding. McNeill played major minutes in those games. We don't win them with JHD playing 35 minutes every game. I will miss McNeill as well.

I consider his feelings and how he might have felt as Jones' only personal recruit in his freshman year, along with transfer Paris Austin. McNeill was asked to be the point guard, and then the next season they take that away from him to play Austin at point, and they ask him to play a new posiition, SG, but they recruit a very good guard, Matt Bradley, who might compete with McNeill for minutes. Then in 2019 they sign Charles Smith IV, another shooting guard, who would be challenging McNeill as well. I can fully understand if all this played a role in him leaving Cal. This has been a rough start for him, but he did get a lot of experience, so I hope he can find another place to play, and improve his skills even further.
SFCityBear
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

socaltownie said:

4thGenCal said:

HKBear97! said:

SFCityBear said:


I wrote that no other Cal coach in history had been given less of a roster to start with than Wyking Jones.
And this is where I disagree. This is a completely subjective take, not "fact". Furthermore, it fails to take into account that Wyking was part of this program for two years before taking over. He was not coming in blind and supposedly was hired for continuity. Moreover, he's made terrible recruiting decisions over this time period - no size, Winston, McCullough, McNeill and now possibly some others who might be transferring. You have tried so hard to take the opposite side of those criticizing Wyking you've lost the forest for the trees. We've set school records in futility these past two years and now we're about to go into year three and at this stage, it looks like we'll again be in the bottom of the Pac-12. He was a bad hire, no getting around it.
Staff has overall recruited average to good and this incoming class will be solid. To point out 2 busts (when hired at the end of the final recruiting period and thus short handed) is harsh. Vanover has promise, Gordon sustained a serious injury (which proved to be an one year+ recovery period). Kelly is yet to be rated due to youth, conditioning and playing out of position. With 2 more recruits to be announced, the roster will be significantly better for next season. Regarding the"hire", programs starting from the horrible position when WJ took over the HC (not as an supporting role/non decision maker on recruits) take 3+ seasons. This season will be fair game to judge and assess. Knowledgable local analysts and past coaches (Monty, Jay John, Don Mclean, Ben Braun) all felt 2 years is too short to grade WJ - given what was inherited.
I can accept that but I also think the problem here is that baring one of the grad transfers REALLY playing better than on Tape you are looking at 5 to 8 wins in conference. Then you are literally RIGHT BACK AT THE SAME PLACE. NIT is now a lot harder to get into as a P5 so probably an invite to the CBI and either a decline or 700 at Haas.

Now what? Your scenario puts us RIGHT into that position. We save $1 million in buy outs MINUS the opportunity cost of what will be a horrific attendance year next year. And so now, with a three year win total in conference of around 10....and year 3 of a 5 year deal with the need to ACTUALLY extend....you will be extending - with really no indication he can land high 4-5 stars....OR find kids like Crabbe or Jorge or Cobbs that can be made into Pac-12 POY.

I agree the roster sucks....but it isn't like Justin has made great strides to become an elite PAC-12 forward.....or did I miss him making the all conference first or second team or even honorable mention while I was bashing the key board (sarcasm)
And yes yes...I know (rolls eyes) Pete Newell struggled his first 2 years. Again, such a different era in the kind of kids you had, the style that was played and the skills that you need (and the presence of a serious pay day _IF_ the coach you sign with develops your skills) that I am not sure it is the same sport. At the very least we can agree that the RULES are far different - from the shot clock to the three point line to the legality of the dunk.
Small correction, SoCal: Pete Newell struggled at Cal in his first year only, 1955. In his second year, the Bears went 17-8 and tied for 3rd in the PCC.
SFCityBear
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

stu said:

socaltownie said:

At the very least we can agree that the RULES are far different - from the shot clock to the three point line to the legality of the dunk.
I think the dunk was legal before 1967, but very few players could do it. In 1967 I was just starting to watch college basketball - don't remember if I saw any dunks but I do remember the rule being controversial.
Yes. Your are right. I stand corrected. Dunk was banned from 67 to about 76.

But, as you know, Newell won in the pre-shot clock day when it was VERY possible to spend inordinate amount of time running complicated set after complicated set.
I can't tell if you are implying that Newell's teams played that way, but if you are, then you are misinformed. Newell's teams usually ran only one set during a possession. They did not have to run set after set, because their plays were so effective that they nearly always got off a good shot in their possessions. It was most other teams who ran play after play during a possession (especially against Cal's strong defense). Cal always seemed to get an open shot. Shooting percentages were lower in those days, so scores were not high, which is deceptive. the 1959 team shot only 40.6%, but averaged 64 points a game, not much less than some modern Cal teams.

Newell actually lobbied coaches and the NCAA to use a shot clock. He said he would have an edge, because his teams were so well drilled that they could get an open shot well before the shot clocK ran out. Cal's 1959 team actually put up more field goal attempts in a game than most modern Cal teams:

!959: 61 Field Goal Attempts per game (pre-shot clock)

Post Shot clock:

2019: 56 FGA per game

2017: 56 FGA per game

2016: 57 FGA per game

2010: 58 FGA per game.

A note to Stu: Never heard of Boyd Grant's Fresno State teams, but Newell's Cal games were not boring, unless you get bored watching precision. It was exciting wondering which player was going to end up with the wide open shot. The were fast paced, with few turnovers. They held opponents in 1959 to 50 points and 35% shooting. That drove opponent fans nuts. Cal fans loved it. Anyway, if you are putting up more good shots than your opponent and shooting them at a better percentage, you win. It was good enough for us.
SFCityBear
calbear80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is McNeill going to stay or still transferring?

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

socaltownie said:

stu said:

socaltownie said:

At the very least we can agree that the RULES are far different - from the shot clock to the three point line to the legality of the dunk.
I think the dunk was legal before 1967, but very few players could do it. In 1967 I was just starting to watch college basketball - don't remember if I saw any dunks but I do remember the rule being controversial.
Yes. Your are right. I stand corrected. Dunk was banned from 67 to about 76.

But, as you know, Newell won in the pre-shot clock day when it was VERY possible to spend inordinate amount of time running complicated set after complicated set.
I can't tell if you are implying that Newell's teams played that way, but if you are, then you are misinformed. Newell's teams usually ran only one set during a possession. They did not have to run set after set, because their plays were so effective that they nearly always got off a good shot in their possessions. It was most other teams who ran play after play during a possession (especially against Cal's strong defense). Cal always seemed to get an open shot. Shooting percentages were lower in those days, so scores were not high, which is deceptive. the 1959 team shot only 40.6%, but averaged 64 points a game, not much less than some modern Cal teams.

Newell actually lobbied coaches and the NCAA to use a shot clock. He said he would have an edge, because his teams were so well drilled that they could get an open shot well before the shot clocK ran out. Cal's 1959 team actually put up more field goal attempts in a game than most modern Cal teams:

!959: 61 Field Goal Attempts per game (pre-shot clock)

Post Shot clock:

2019: 56 FGA per game

2017: 56 FGA per game

2016: 57 FGA per game

2010: 58 FGA per game.

A note to Stu: Never heard of Boyd Grant's Fresno State teams, but Newell's Cal games were not boring, unless you get bored watching precision. It was exciting wondering which player was going to end up with the wide open shot. The were fast paced, with few turnovers. They held opponents in 1959 to 50 points and 35% shooting. That drove opponent fans nuts. Cal fans loved it. Anyway, if you are putting up more good shots than your opponent and shooting them at a better percentage, you win. It was good enough for us.
Can attest to the comment on Newell defenses driving other teams crazy. I watched Cal take Jerry West out of a game at the L A Sports Arena the winter after the Cal natty. IIRC, Tandy Gillis was the main protaganist, but the team defense was awsome. sadly, at that time I was a recent transplant from West Virginia and an avid WVU rooter. Two years later I would be at Cal, but Newell was long gone.
DoubleGoldenBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Darius was front row during the team meeting with Coach Fox today, any chance this means he may be staying? Photo here:

?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=428eefc6916ed8fd4cabfbbe95d203bf&oe=5D4638C6
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I want him to stay bad. He is a good player on the way to becoming a great PAC 12 player. He plays with too much humility. Stay Darius and CONQUER! I get the feeling that Coach Fox will really appreciate him but I never got the drift that Wyking did.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DoubleGoldenBear said:

Darius was front row during the team meeting with Coach Fox today, any chance this means he may be staying? Photo here:

?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=428eefc6916ed8fd4cabfbbe95d203bf&oe=5D4638C6


Bringing McNeil back would be an immediate feather in the cap for Fox.
Give to Cal Legends!

https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hope McNeil is reconsidering

That would be huge
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

I want him to stay bad.
I didn't know he started off bad.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fat_slice said:

DoubleGoldenBear said:

Darius was front row during the team meeting with Coach Fox today, any chance this means he may be staying? Photo here:

?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=428eefc6916ed8fd4cabfbbe95d203bf&oe=5D4638C6


Bringing McNeil back would be an immediate feather in the cap for Fox.


Yeah this is basically his first recruiting test
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

bearister said:

I want him to stay bad.
I didn't know he started off bad.


Me: Surely you jest. You: My name is not Shirley.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

fat_slice said:

DoubleGoldenBear said:

Darius was front row during the team meeting with Coach Fox today, any chance this means he may be staying? Photo here:

?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=428eefc6916ed8fd4cabfbbe95d203bf&oe=5D4638C6


Bringing McNeil back would be an immediate feather in the cap for Fox.


Yeah this is basically his first recruiting test


Agreed. Go Coach Fox!
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At this point, what is the over/under on the number of players on scholarship for 2019-2020?so far, none of the grad transfers are coming in. Recruits??Too early to tell? We are going to find out very soon if this hire was well thought out.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal basketball needs a control team to test the validity of this hire?

Is there a placebo effect?

Do dead cats REALLY bounce?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bobodeluxe said:

Cal basketball needs a control team to test the validity of this hire?

Is there a placebo effect?

Do dead cats REALLY bounce?


People do. My buddy was fishing under the Golden Gate once and a jumper that missed his boat bounced 25 to 30 feet, so he said.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

At this point, what is the over/under on the number of players on scholarship for 2019-2020?so far, none of the grad transfers are coming in. Recruits??Too early to tell? We are going to find out very soon if this hire was well thought out.
It's tough for a completely new staff to recruit right after they arrive. To me this is year zero, I'd consider it a big success if we just hold onto the LOIs we have. And I think getting any good players for year one (recruits arriving fall 2020) would be a big plus. Either it takes time to build relationships or the coaches need to identify talent not noticed by others.
Blueandgold1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boyd Grant's Fresno State teams ran what they called tempo offense and they beat Cal with Gene Ransom 60-55 the year before I started at Cal. They also won the NIT in 1982. Boyd Grant was a very good basketball coach as he got the most out of his players abilities.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

helltopay1 said:

At this point, what is the over/under on the number of players on scholarship for 2019-2020?so far, none of the grad transfers are coming in. Recruits??Too early to tell? We are going to find out very soon if this hire was well thought out.
It's tough for a completely new staff to recruit right after they arrive. To me this is year zero, I'd consider it a big success if we just hold onto the LOIs we have. And I think getting any good players for year one (recruits arriving fall 2020) would be a big plus. Either it takes time to build relationships of the coaches need to identify talent not noticed by others.
Between Fox and the guys he hires on his staff, we should be able to jump right in and go after any of these grad-transfers, many of whom haven't made up their minds yet. Sure, there's going to be some sort of break in continuity, but if Fox has been so removed from the scene that he can't get right up to speed, we never should've hired him. I mean, what-the-fox?!? (Hey, did I just make up a good one?)
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Between Fox and the guys he hires on his staff, we should be able to jump right in and go after any of these grad-transfers, many of whom haven't made up their minds yet.
I agree with you on grad tranfers - I suppose they're not cultivated for years.

Quote:

I mean, what-the-fox?!? (Hey, did I just make up a good one?)
You did make up a good one but I hope you seldom need to use it.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

stu said:

helltopay1 said:

At this point, what is the over/under on the number of players on scholarship for 2019-2020?so far, none of the grad transfers are coming in. Recruits??Too early to tell? We are going to find out very soon if this hire was well thought out.
It's tough for a completely new staff to recruit right after they arrive. To me this is year zero, I'd consider it a big success if we just hold onto the LOIs we have. And I think getting any good players for year one (recruits arriving fall 2020) would be a big plus. Either it takes time to build relationships of the coaches need to identify talent not noticed by others.
Between Fox and the guys he hires on his staff, we should be able to jump right in and go after any of these grad-transfers, many of whom haven't made up their minds yet. Sure, there's going to be some sort of break in continuity, but if Fox has been so removed from the scene that he can't get right up to speed, we never should've hired him. I mean, what-the-fox?!? (Hey, did I just make up a good one?)
Nobody gets much if anything in their first season. I don't remember Campanelli getting anyone. Braun had no schollies to give, and got no transfers. Monty got Jorge, Seely, and lost one mediocre commit to Oregon. Cuonzo got Okoroh, Chauca, and grad xfer Tarwater. That was one project, one bust, and except for one shot to win a game, a second bust. Wyking lost one 4-star commit, who has yet to do anything at Kentucky, but kept the rest of the incoming recruits, signed McNeill and transfer Austin. And Jones lost two players who left for family reasons, except for one guy who keeps saying that both players lied, and really left because Jones was hired as head coach. I'll be pleased if he holds on to the three incoming. He should be able to get one more, or convince Darius to stay, or get a transfer. Hopefully a big or another PG.
SFCityBear
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's hard coming in late, to get top prep guys, because you usually need to start recruiting them WAY earlier. I suspect the grad-transfer market might be a little different, as the players are making their decisions late. The new staff will need to have lots of contacts, which is why I'm hoping they retain Grace.
rkt88edmo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Darius - this is your team to lead!
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

It's hard coming in late, to get top prep guys, because you usually need to start recruiting them WAY earlier. I suspect the grad-transfer market might be a little different, as the players are making their decisions late. The new staff will need to have lots of contacts, which is why I'm hoping they retain Grace.
Grad transfers can come from all over the country. Cuonzo got both Tarwater and Mullins from the Ivy League. I assume Fox will have a network and a lot of his own contacts. He's been around for a while.
SFCityBear
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Re Grad Transfers:

Unlike 300+ other schools our grad transfer are not getting special admits. It is a REAL disadvantage. One I wouldn't trade but definately Cal is swinging with one arm tied behind back as that market has exploded.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

Re Grad Transfers:

Unlike 300+ other schools our grad transfer are not getting special admits. It is a REAL disadvantage. One I wouldn't trade but definately Cal is swinging with one arm tied behind back as that market has exploded.
Based on what you say, undergrad transfers might be easier to pick up. 40% of all players transfer at least once, some twice, and it is easier for students to gain admission to Cal as an undergrad transfer than it is to gain admission directly out of high school.
SFCityBear
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

socaltownie said:

Re Grad Transfers:

Unlike 300+ other schools our grad transfer are not getting special admits. It is a REAL disadvantage. One I wouldn't trade but definately Cal is swinging with one arm tied behind back as that market has exploded.
Based on what you say, undergrad transfers might be easier to pick up. 40% of all players transfer at least once, some twice, and it is easier for students to gain admission to Cal as an undergrad transfer than it is to gain admission directly out of high school.
For the general population, probably. For basketball players, I'm guessing its the same. If they are seven feet and can drain threes, it gets easier
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.