SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.You s

---

You seem to be getting more sour lately. I thought what you wanted was Wyking fired. You got that. Now you want Knowlton fired. Is the Chancellor next? The Governor?

As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads." I'm all for it. This may be the first time I've agreed with you on anything. Let's do it!

---

I think you know that wanting Jones fired was predicated on the fact that they don't follow it up with a completely moronic hire.

I take it back SFCity. Please bring Jones and the $3M back. Cal's net revenue for basketball will now go down because they will not make that up in ticket sales. In fact, take the $3M and buy out Knowlton.

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.You s

---

You seem to be getting more sour lately. I thought what you wanted was Wyking fired. You got that. Now you want Knowlton fired. Is the Chancellor next? The Governor?

As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads." I'm all for it. This may be the first time I've agreed with you on anything. Let's do it!

---

You're viewing this too transactionally. What many want is for Cal to compete for at least conference championships. At least to act like that's the goal and expectation. Wyking was not the guy to do that for basketball so he needed to go. Throughout the past few weeks Knowlton has shown himself to be an impediment to that so he needs to go too.

---

Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"

I don't agree that Cal fans (or most basketball fans) care about conference championships. Many scoff at Cal's 2010 PAC10 title, saying the conference was having a down year, and criticized that coach and team for not getting farther in the NCAA. What most fans care about is "making a run in the dance." They care about getting invited to the NCAA, getting a high seed with the bid, and making a run. They could care less about the true conference championship, because in some years that does not even get them a bid. The winner of the PAC12 tournament gets the bid.

Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles.

---

Either standard - conference champions or consistent NCAA invites and some runs to at least the 2nd week - is one that is not close to met by Jones or Fox. Knowlton seemed to want to keep Jones and then hired Fox. He's clearly aiming much lower than the either standard. So yes, off with their heads.

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.You s

---

You seem to be getting more sour lately. I thought what you wanted was Wyking fired. You got that. Now you want Knowlton fired. Is the Chancellor next? The Governor?

As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads." I'm all for it. This may be the first time I've agreed with you on anything. Let's do it!

---

You're viewing this too transactionally. What many want is for Cal to compete for at least conference championships. At least to act like that's the goal and expectation. Wyking was not the guy to do that for basketball so he needed to go. Throughout the past few weeks Knowlton has shown himself to be an impediment to that so he needs to go too.

---

Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"

I don't agree that Cal fans (or most basketball fans) care about conference championships. Many scoff at Cal's 2010 PAC10 title, saying the conference was having a down year, and criticized that coach and team for not getting farther in the NCAA. What most fans care about is "making a run in the dance." They care about getting invited to the NCAA, getting a high seed with the bid, and making a run. They could care less about the true conference championship, because in some years that does not even get them a bid. The winner of the PAC12 tournament gets the bid.

Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles.

---

To be clear, SF, I don't think anyone belittles Pete Newell's teams. We are all very proud of those teams. We don't agree with any notion that HOW THEY PLAYED is a model for how we should play now because the game has changed drastically. Everyone would be thrilled with the modern equivalent of those teams because they not only won but did it in away that made the school proud. I don't think there could be a better example of how Cal should do things.

SFCB - I saw somewhere today that Fox considered Pete Newell to be one of his mentors (along with Tex Winter and someone else). Would be interesting to learn more about his background with Newell.

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.You s

---

You seem to be getting more sour lately. I thought what you wanted was Wyking fired. You got that. Now you want Knowlton fired. Is the Chancellor next? The Governor?

As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads." I'm all for it. This may be the first time I've agreed with you on anything. Let's do it!

---

You're viewing this too transactionally. What many want is for Cal to compete for at least conference championships. At least to act like that's the goal and expectation. Wyking was not the guy to do that for basketball so he needed to go. Throughout the past few weeks Knowlton has shown himself to be an impediment to that so he needs to go too.

---

Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"

I don't agree that Cal fans (or most basketball fans) care about conference championships. Many scoff at Cal's 2010 PAC10 title, saying the conference was having a down year, and criticized that coach and team for not getting farther in the NCAA. What most fans care about is "making a run in the dance." They care about getting invited to the NCAA, getting a high seed with the bid, and making a run. They could care less about the true conference championship, because in some years that does not even get them a bid. The winner of the PAC12 tournament gets the bid.

Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles.

---

many of us weren't alive for that 4 year run and as a cal fan I cherish 2010, ran onto the court, almost cried. Was so happy for that team. So you don't speak for me.

cal83dls79 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.You s

---

You seem to be getting more sour lately. I thought what you wanted was Wyking fired. You got that. Now you want Knowlton fired. Is the Chancellor next? The Governor?

As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads." I'm all for it. This may be the first time I've agreed with you on anything. Let's do it!

---

You're viewing this too transactionally. What many want is for Cal to compete for at least conference championships. At least to act like that's the goal and expectation. Wyking was not the guy to do that for basketball so he needed to go. Throughout the past few weeks Knowlton has shown himself to be an impediment to that so he needs to go too.

---

Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"

I don't agree that Cal fans (or most basketball fans) care about conference championships. Many scoff at Cal's 2010 PAC10 title, saying the conference was having a down year, and criticized that coach and team for not getting farther in the NCAA. What most fans care about is "making a run in the dance." They care about getting invited to the NCAA, getting a high seed with the bid, and making a run. They could care less about the true conference championship, because in some years that does not even get them a bid. The winner of the PAC12 tournament gets the bid.

Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles.

---

many of us weren't alive for that 4 year run and as a cal fan I cherish 2010, ran onto the court, almost cried. Was so happy for that team. So you don't speak for me.

---

Well, bless you. I was basing that statement on a number of negative statements I had read in this basketball forum regarding that season. Unfortunately we have a number of fans who post here who seem to find fault in anything a Cal team does. Losses are bad, and they don't like our wins all that much either. Some of it may be real feelings based on reality of sorts, but some of it is just cynicism or negativity.

What better game could there be when Cal wins a conference title for the first time in 50 years? Only maybe one thing, winning the NCAA title for the first time in 60 some years. Anyway, the round robin title is hard to win, playing half your games in a hostile arena. Let us start with winning that again, and build on it.

Thank you for your support and loyalty to Cal.

SFCityBear said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.You s

---

You seem to be getting more sour lately. I thought what you wanted was Wyking fired. You got that. Now you want Knowlton fired. Is the Chancellor next? The Governor?

As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads." I'm all for it. This may be the first time I've agreed with you on anything. Let's do it!

---

You're viewing this too transactionally. What many want is for Cal to compete for at least conference championships. At least to act like that's the goal and expectation. Wyking was not the guy to do that for basketball so he needed to go. Throughout the past few weeks Knowlton has shown himself to be an impediment to that so he needs to go too.

---

Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"

I don't agree that Cal fans (or most basketball fans) care about conference championships. Many scoff at Cal's 2010 PAC10 title, saying the conference was having a down year, and criticized that coach and team for not getting farther in the NCAA. What most fans care about is "making a run in the dance." They care about getting invited to the NCAA, getting a high seed with the bid, and making a run. They could care less about the true conference championship, because in some years that does not even get them a bid. The winner of the PAC12 tournament gets the bid.

Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles.

---

many of us weren't alive for that 4 year run and as a cal fan I cherish 2010, ran onto the court, almost cried. Was so happy for that team. So you don't speak for me.

---

Well, bless you. I was basing that statement on a number of negative statements I had read in this basketball forum regarding that season. Unfortunately we have a number of fans who post here who seem to find fault in anything a Cal team does. Losses are bad, and they don't like our wins all that much either. Some of it may be real feelings based on reality of sorts, but some of it is just cynicism or negativity.

What better game could there be when Cal wins a conference title for the first time in 50 years? Only maybe one thing, winning the NCAA title for the first time in 60 some years. Anyway, the round robin title is hard to win, playing half your games in a hostile arena. Let us start with winning that again, and build on it.

Thank you for your support and loyalty to Cal.

---

cheers sfcity, need some guys see glass is half full. Roll on.

Older Cal fans might ease tension and worry by
doing what Coach Newell did . . . chew on a towel.

Go Bears!

I prefer just biting my pillow, dare you to source that

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.

---

Well said, Oak. I reached this same conclusion during the Barbour years. She was a disaster. Unfortunately, the new guy is headed down the same path. I think it is pretty obvious that he took a job that was far beyond his capabilities. The days of at least having some hope that things will turn around are gone. Oh well.

---

Come on 71, hang in there. Wilcox is slowly but surely building up the football program with good support from Knowlton and Christ. Bet you a Top Dog we get at least 7 wins next year even in the allegedly challenging schedule year. I assure you Wilcox doesn't think the odd year schedule is an overwhelming obstacle.

And this basketball coach is an experienced pro and good person. Bet another Too Dog that we double or triple the number of victories.

The glass is half full and there is in fact more hope for Cal Football and Basketball then we've had in years.

NVBear78 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.

---

Well said, Oak. I reached this same conclusion during the Barbour years. She was a disaster. Unfortunately, the new guy is headed down the same path. I think it is pretty obvious that he took a job that was far beyond his capabilities. The days of at least having some hope that things will turn around are gone. Oh well.

---

Come on 71, hang in there. Wilcox is slowly but surely building up the football program with good support from Knowlton and Christ. Bet you a Top Dog we get at least 7 wins next year even in the allegedly challenging schedule year. I assure you Wilcox doesn't think the odd year schedule is an overwhelming obstacle.

And this basketball coach is an experienced pro and good person. Bet another Too Dog that we double or triple the number of victories.

The glass is half full and there is in fact more hope for Cal Football and Basketball then we've had in years.

---

You know what is funny and sad. That you are basically saying that going 7-6 in football and 16-16 in basketball represents hope and 60% of me thinks you are serious and 40% thinks you are being sarcastic, but I cannot come to a conclusion and I'm not sure which would be sadder.

OaktownBear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.

---

Well said, Oak. I reached this same conclusion during the Barbour years. She was a disaster. Unfortunately, the new guy is headed down the same path. I think it is pretty obvious that he took a job that was far beyond his capabilities. The days of at least having some hope that things will turn around are gone. Oh well.

---

Come on 71, hang in there. Wilcox is slowly but surely building up the football program with good support from Knowlton and Christ. Bet you a Top Dog we get at least 7 wins next year even in the allegedly challenging schedule year. I assure you Wilcox doesn't think the odd year schedule is an overwhelming obstacle.

And this basketball coach is an experienced pro and good person. Bet another Too Dog that we double or triple the number of victories.

The glass is half full and there is in fact more hope for Cal Football and Basketball then we've had in years.

---

You know what is funny and sad. That you are basically saying that going 7-6 in football and 16-16 in basketball represents hope and 60% of me thinks you are serious and 40% thinks you are being sarcastic, but I cannot come to a conclusion and I'm not sure which would be sadder.

---

Especially when our OOC schedule is:
UC Davis
North Texas
Ole Miss (1 conference win in 2018)

And have OSU and WSU at home.

That means going 1-6 against the rest and winning our embarrassing bowl game this time for our 7th win?

Football rebuilds take time. In particular they take time on the offensive line because you have to recruit a bunch of kids that can not play (physically) and then try to get them ramped up over 4 years. Sonny's "System" exacerbated that problem.

Given how Jones/Martin crushed the program I would be VERY happy with 500 basketball if kept most of the "Ls" close. I honestly think he can do better than that - hinging on what happens with the FBI and if UofA and UofO get seriously blow out of the water.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

SFCB - I saw somewhere today that Fox considered Pete Newell to be one of his mentors (along with Tex Winter and someone else). Would be interesting to learn more about his background with Newell.

---

Greg Newell's (Pete's son) post on FB did not mention any Fox connection to Pete Newell. Rather, his comment was some emojis showing he was perplexed and unenthusiastic.

socaltownie said:

---

Football rebuilds take time. In particular they take time on the offensive line because you have to recruit a bunch of kids that can not play (physically) and then try to get them ramped up over 4 years. Sonny's "System" exacerbated that problem.

Given how Jones/Martin crushed the program I would be VERY happy with 500 basketball if kept most of the "Ls" close. I honestly think he can do better than that - hinging on what happens with the FBI and if UofA and UofO get seriously blow out of the water.

---

If Cal hired a coach who can only succeed in the Pac-12 if the NCAA burns the best Pac-12 teams down to the ground, then Cal didn't make a good hire.

We should expect more from a coach who is probably going to get $2 million/year.

randythebear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

SFCB - I saw somewhere today that Fox considered Pete Newell to be one of his mentors (along with Tex Winter and someone else). Would be interesting to learn more about his background with Newell.

---

Greg Newell's (Pete's son) post on FB did not mention any Fox connection to Pete Newell. Rather, his comment was some emojis showing he was perplexed and unenthusiastic.

---

Found it. From his USA Basketball bio. See below. He also commented in his official statement yesterday that he had worked with Newell early in his coaching career but didn't specify where or in what capacity.

"He said the voices in his head and the fellow coaches he considers mentors include legends Tex Winter, Pete Newell, current USA Basketball national team head coach Gregg Popovich and Brad Stevens among others. He said he already has learned a lot from Van Gundy and Thompson and hopes he is giving both of those veteran coaches ideas to consider as well. "

"Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles."

I have never, ever heard a Cal fan belittle Pete Newell or his teams. I'm by no means young and those teams existed when I was in kindergarten. It's silly to keep bringing them up as an example of anything other than historical fact.

I have heard Cal fans belittle the idea that you can simply recreate those teams and have that same success. Very little about the game is the same today. Fundamentals, yes, but the shot clock, the speed of the game, the verticality of the game, the size and strength of the players, the recruiting pipelines, the potential payoffs if you go pro, the money spent on the programs, all those things are in a different universe today. So consider the possibility that while Newell was an excellent coach and an excellent teacher, if he were coaching today he'd play an entirely different game.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

randythebear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

SFCB - I saw somewhere today that Fox considered Pete Newell to be one of his mentors (along with Tex Winter and someone else). Would be interesting to learn more about his background with Newell.

---

Greg Newell's (Pete's son) post on FB did not mention any Fox connection to Pete Newell. Rather, his comment was some emojis showing he was perplexed and unenthusiastic.

---

Found it. From his USA Basketball bio. See below. He also commented in his official statement yesterday that he had worked with Newell early in his coaching career but didn't specify where or in what capacity.

"He said the voices in his head and the fellow coaches he considers mentors include legends Tex Winter, Pete Newell, current USA Basketball national team head coach Gregg Popovich and Brad Stevens among others. He said he already has learned a lot from Van Gundy and Thompson and hopes he is giving both of those veteran coaches ideas to consider as well. "

---

Newell, Pops and Stevens all were/are proponents of a lot of ball movement on offense, which I would love to see. It is what it is at this point, so I hope he learned from those guys and can implement something resembling their work.

bluesaxe said:

---

"Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles."

I have never, ever heard a Cal fan belittle Pete Newell or his teams. I'm by no means young and those teams existed when I was in kindergarten. It's silly to keep bringing them up as an example of anything other than historical fact.

I have heard Cal fans belittle the idea that you can simply recreate those teams and have that same success. Very little about the game is the same today. Fundamentals, yes, but the shot clock, the speed of the game, the verticality of the game, the size and strength of the players, the recruiting pipelines, the potential payoffs if you go pro, the money spent on the programs, all those things are in a different universe today. So consider the possibility that while Newell was an excellent coach and an excellent teacher, if he were coaching today he'd play an entirely different game.

---

Thank you for this post. You make good some points, and it gives me the chance to clarify what I wrote. First I did not write that any Cal fan had belittled Pete Newell, as you said. (Although there were many Cal fans grumbling about Newell's coaching in 1955, when his first Cal team went 9-16 and 1-11 in conference.) Newell's Cal teams are belittled here on the Bear Insider sometimes. Maybe you are not sensitive to it, or haven't read it. They belittle the basketball of that era, and the players of that era. You want names? There are several who come to mind (all in my ignore list). There's a guy who may live in Concord, and another who apparently does not like the Unit 2 dorms. I'll leave it there.

If you are not young, then I must be really old, because I actually first saw Newell's teams play when I was playing basketball in junior high school. I had a little appreciation for the game, more so than a kindergardener. I wish you and everyone had seen those Cal teams play. I bring up those teams to recreate the feeling for today's fans that I got from watching the best teams Cal ever had play a game. They were like watching a Swiss watch, or like watching a surgeon operate successfully. There was just a precision to it, and to attend games where the opponent usually looked nervous and a bit scared, or would once they found that nothing they tried worked against Cal.

I've never heard it said that anyone could recreate those teams and have the same success. As to the speed of the game and the shot clock, have you noticed that almost every team today plays the same speed? They all play fast. As soon as they get a rebound or a loose ball, the race is on to get to the other end of the floor as fast as possible and put up a shot before the defense can get set. And much of the time they never get there, because they are playing so fast they get out of control and lose the ball. Many fans today are under the mistaken belief that Newell played a deliberate game to slow the pace of the game down. That is totally untrue. Newell coached his team prevent the other team from getting a good shot, which slowed the other team down. Newell's teams usually played a pattern offense, but always got an open shot well within any shot clock. As I pointed out in a recent post, his '59 team put up more shots in a game on average than most modern Cal teams, including our PAC10 champs of 2010, or any of Cuonzo's teams who tried to play the fast pace of today's game. One reason Newell's teams put up more shots, is they made fewer turnovers. They did not keep stats in those days, except that one of my classmates kept turnover stats in 1960, and Cal averaged 6 TO's per game that season.

The game is different today, as you said. You failed to mention that the big difference is in the rule changes favoring the offensive player, allowing traveling, palming the ball, and charging, eliminating hand-checking, and of course making the perimeter shot worth 3 points. Newell was a highly respected coach in his day, and I think he would have lobbied against most of these rule changes, because his forte was defense. He did lobby the NCAA to install a shot clock, which they finally did, and it was a good change.

Teams of old had advantages over today. Newell had 17 scholarships to give out every year. He usually had about 40-45 players on scholarship. He stockpiled players, brought them along slowly. There was no Title IX. There were fewer schools recruiting, and the recruits of that era had good fundamentals and skills for that era. I'm not sure Newell would be a successful recruiter like a Coach K or Bill Self, but I'm sure he could coach teams that could win with less material than most of his opponents, like he had done before at Cal. He could not beat everybody. He was able to slow down Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Elgin Baylor, but he could not beat their teams. He did keep John Wooden from winning a national title, who did not win one until Pete retired coaching.

Finally, Newell was always creative, always finding ways to beat you or neutralize what you were doing. If he were coaching today, with today's rules and players, I would say that he would coach differently from the other coaches today. On defense, he would find ways to reduce penetration and still guard the perimeter, if it is possible. On offense, he would find ways to get his players wide open shots in their favorite spots. I don't know what his teams would look like, but they would look different from all the other teams he played, just like they looked different from all the other teams they played in the 1950s. Many or most teams in the Midwest and east were run and gun. Newell made them play in the half court. I think if Newell were coaching today, the entire game would be played a little differently, because coaches would have to figure out how to counteract what Newell was doing, and would not be able to play their own game the way they wanted to do. He was just ahead of his time, and if he were coaching today, he would still be a step ahead, IMHO.

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.You s

---

You seem to be getting more sour lately. I thought what you wanted was Wyking fired. You got that. Now you want Knowlton fired. Is the Chancellor next? The Governor?

As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads." I'm all for it. This may be the first time I've agreed with you on anything. Let's do it!

---

You're viewing this too transactionally. What many want is for Cal to compete for at least conference championships. At least to act like that's the goal and expectation. Wyking was not the guy to do that for basketball so he needed to go. Throughout the past few weeks Knowlton has shown himself to be an impediment to that so he needs to go too.

---

Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"

I don't agree that Cal fans (or most basketball fans) care about conference championships. Many scoff at Cal's 2010 PAC10 title, saying the conference was having a down year, and criticized that coach and team for not getting farther in the NCAA. What most fans care about is "making a run in the dance." They care about getting invited to the NCAA, getting a high seed with the bid, and making a run. They could care less about the true conference championship, because in some years that does not even get them a bid. The winner of the PAC12 tournament gets the bid.

Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles.

---

Either standard - conference champions or consistent NCAA invites and some runs to at least the 2nd week - is one that is not close to met by Jones or Fox. Knowlton seemed to want to keep Jones and then hired Fox. He's clearly aiming much lower than the either standard. So yes, off with their heads.

---

Do you think there is a head coach on the planet whose resume would satisfy Cal fans, one who doesn't already have a better job at better pay? Or to make it simpler, is there a coach on the planet whose resume would satisfy Cal fans?

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rather than just general moaning that the guy was medicare and in the end declining at Georgia, what is the story what his his reputation at:

1) recruiting, especially given the academic restrictions Cal presents (the thing is you can't win without some level of talent, even though you can mediocre with talent due to a variety of factors.

2) ability to develop players (has he put anyone in the NBA?)

3) outreach with fans, donors, etc.

4) fit issue: ability to deal with insane bureaucracies or other Cal issues

5) x's and 0's?

We fans went from Kidd, to safe picks like DeCuire or Turner (guys that didn't hugely excite, but looked quaffed for the Cal job) to Fox. Timing or other issues may have impacted Kidd, maybe we were tuned down by the two safe picks for either money or other reasons (in DeCure case he might have waned commitments on a practice facility).. I get that, the Cal job is not exactly Duke right now. But what does Fox brig to the table? I just really don't know anything about the guy..

---

I think it is great to ask more questions. On the flip side, don't over think with the details when the top line is - his record sucks. This hire, if true, is inexcusable.

1. He coached for Nevada and Georgia. Do you think he had anything close to our academic restrictions there? I'd also point out that he lost out on a local, very intelligent HS All American one and done extremely high draft pick in his backyard to a second tier basketball program 3000 miles away.
2. At Nevada he coached Ramon Sessions, Luke Babbit and Javale McGee. At Georgia he coached Kentavious Caldwell-Pope who might have been drafted out of high school if that was allowed.
3. Call me unsympathetic, but since Holmoe I've been pretty sick and tired of donors ability to be buffaloed by a feel good pitch and a guy who is much better at kissing their asses than they are at accomplishing anything.
4. He's a very nice man. Like Holmoe. No indication he has dealt with bureaucracies like Cal.
5. Don't know. See record.

Sports media is laughing at Cal right now. Look around.

Personally, I was excited about Decuire. I struggle believing that he turned us down with his salary and with Monty making the pitch for him (which I don't think would happen if Decuire didn't want the job). If he wanted the job and didn't get it, heads should roll. And I have to agree with ducky that it is an extremely bad look if Cal chose Fox over Decuire. If Decuire turned us down, I'm sorry, there has to be better than this. I'd rather go with the CCSF coach than this.

But, WIAF, I'm glad you are asking questions. We need donors asking questions NOW and QUICKLY. If they do ask questions, based on the answers they will get, they should be pulling their donations within the hour. This is desperation time.

---

I'll admit to not knowing jack squat about Mark Fox until the last twelve hours (I'm sure I was familiar with the name when he was at Nevada, but... ).

Sounds like he is everything that was good in the "perception of Tom Holmoe" ('cause some of that was a facade), but, instead of being an incompetent coach, he is a mediocre coach. Not too exciting, at all.

The tweet from Wilner about this choice being search-firm driven also raises red flags about the ability of Knowlton to perform one of the most important functions of his job. HIS job.

I'm far from certain this will really come to pass (see Cal Basketball coach "news" from only one week ago), but, if it does, we'll get a quick sense for where we're at when we find out who he hires on his staff, if other players transfer and if we're able to hold the recruiting class.

---

Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")

---

Regarding "come out and support him", I'm sorry. No. To be clear, Fox seems to be a good guy. I hope for him he succeeds where he hasn't before. I hope for Cal he does. I have nothing against him personally. My lack of support going forward is not for Fox. It is for Cal. I went through this with the Raiders. If you are going to treat your fans like garbage, I have no loyalty. I will support you when you win. I will not when you lose. Period. I don't have time in my life for this. My support is thus:

I'll check the box score.
I'll probably still come to bearinsider more because I like the discussion than the subject
If I happen to be near a television when a game is going on and I have no chores, or anything better to do, and there is nothing else on, and I don't feel like watching something on Netflix or watching Friends or Seinfeld reruns, I might turn on the game and if Cal isn't getting blasted yet I might watch. Second they are down ten with no reason to believe they are coming back - Seinfeld is going on.

Win. Win big. Then I'll do more. See you in a 100 years.

I see no reason why I should put more effort into my fandom than Cal's administration puts into having a winning program. If the AD wants to completely half ass this deal by putting zero effort in and hiring a candidate put forward by a search firm that is universally mocked, he can put his support request up his...

Knowlton has done very little to deserve support so far other than shake hands and convince monied alums he is "deliberative". The handling of basketball this year has been a fiasco and has demonstrated he is another administrator who pushes paper. He has done nothing innovative. Nothing outside the box. Made zero intelligent changes (or changes period). Cal needs someone with some ideas. He needs to be fired. I know he won't be. Probably for at least 5 or 10 years knowing Cal. I don't care if it is futile. I'm saying it.You s

---

You seem to be getting more sour lately. I thought what you wanted was Wyking fired. You got that. Now you want Knowlton fired. Is the Chancellor next? The Governor?

As the Queen of Hearts said in Alice in Wonderland, "Off with their heads." I'm all for it. This may be the first time I've agreed with you on anything. Let's do it!

---

You're viewing this too transactionally. What many want is for Cal to compete for at least conference championships. At least to act like that's the goal and expectation. Wyking was not the guy to do that for basketball so he needed to go. Throughout the past few weeks Knowlton has shown himself to be an impediment to that so he needs to go too.

---

Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"

I don't agree that Cal fans (or most basketball fans) care about conference championships. Many scoff at Cal's 2010 PAC10 title, saying the conference was having a down year, and criticized that coach and team for not getting farther in the NCAA. What most fans care about is "making a run in the dance." They care about getting invited to the NCAA, getting a high seed with the bid, and making a run. They could care less about the true conference championship, because in some years that does not even get them a bid. The winner of the PAC12 tournament gets the bid.

Many modern Cal fans belittle the teams of Pete Newell and their 4 straight conference championships, because the players were an inch or two taller today and not as athletic. Fans may remember those Cal teams having great success in the NCCA as well, but they have all but forgotten the 4 straight conference titles.

---

Either standard - conference champions or consistent NCAA invites and some runs to at least the 2nd week - is one that is not close to met by Jones or Fox. Knowlton seemed to want to keep Jones and then hired Fox. He's clearly aiming much lower than the either standard. So yes, off with their heads.

---

Do you think there is a head coach on the planet whose resume would satisfy Cal fans, one who doesn't already have a better job at better pay? Or to make it simpler, is there a coach on the planet whose resume would satisfy Cal fans?

---

No one would satisfy everyone. The Wilcox hire was largely met with positive reactions. It's been pretty clear that Decuire would be met with positive reactions. Tedford was met with positive reactions. Monty was met with positive reactions. Cuonzo was met with positive reactions. Braun was largely met with positive reactions in part because of the difficult situation in which that search took place. Don't remember much complaint about Campanelli. Mooch was met positively. The only hires met with largely negative reactions were this one, Wyking and Holmoe.

The "Cal fans are just unthinking, reactionary, negative fans line is total BS." Cal fans are about the easiest to appease as anyone out there. That is just an excuse for a desire to take a happy-happy approach to every decision and not think critically enough to analyze a coach's record.

Yep. I doubt there was a single person on BI who was on record being against hiring Monty

I think that was the one and only time I can think of where the obvious answer was staring cal right in the face and the AD didn't f it up

Hiring decuire wasn't that dissimilar considering the other realistic candidates on the board. I think some may have had some reasonable concerns about decuire but I bet at least 95% would have been on board.

It may be a terrible hire, but the more extreme reactions represent the kind of non critical thinking plaguing our times; evident in the outrage are the assumptions:

1. JK has no more info than the rest of us; in short no experience, expertise, etc.

2. Whether consciously or unconsciously his motives are questionable.

3. Therefore he does not know what he is doing.

4. That JK as AD @ Cal does not have a complex, nuanced and layered set of parameters.

Reading the analysis by BI, at the very least, the reaction of others in college BB gives me some hope, hope that is rooted in a recognition that Mark Few or his kind are not coming here.

You who are fed up, give JK some credit for having half a brain, some experience, some devotion to Berkeley and weighed a # of complex issues in making this hire.

Finally don't forget every other option had baggage - there was no absolute among JKidd, et al.

ducky23 said:

---

Yep. I doubt there was a single person on BI who was on record being against hiring Monty

I think that was the one and only time I can think of where the obvious answer was staring cal right in the face and the AD didn't f it up

Hiring decuire wasn't that dissimilar considering the other realistic candidates on the board. I think some may have had some reasonable concerns about decuire but I bet at least 95% would have been on board.

---

True. And as soon as he went 14-17 in his first year, they would be screaming about how stupid Knowlton was for hiring someone so obviously unprepared.

3146gabby said:

---

It may be a terrible hire, but the more extreme reactions represent the kind of non critical thinking plaguing our times; evident in the outrage are the assumptions:

1. JK has no more info than the rest of us; in short no experience, expertise, etc.

2. Whether consciously or unconsciously his motives are questionable.

3. Therefore he does not know what he is doing.

4. That JK as AD @ Cal does not have a complex, nuanced and layered set of parameters.

Reading the analysis by BI, at the very least, the reaction of others in college BB gives me some hope, hope that is rooted in a recognition that Mark Few or his kind are not coming here.

You who are fed up, give JK some credit for having half a brain, some experience, some devotion to Berkeley and weighed a # of complex issues in making this hire.

Finally don't forget every other option had baggage - there was no absolute among JKidd, et al.

---

Valid points, but I'd say the people accepting this have shown little critical thinking, just trust and loyalty. For instance, why be in such a rush to hire someone who would be on the board a month from now? It's like taking a shot you can have any time in the shot clock but you take it 5 seconds in. Why hire a fired coach who's taken a year off of D1 coaching over a guy who knows Cal and just won his conference again (and who likely would be cheaper)? I don't know how you can say these aren't valid questions that have basis. I don't think it's unreasonable to think this was not a great decision even without all the info because the questions are so obviously glaring.

KAB: I don't post very often and appreciate your analysis, proffered in a reasoned way.

If we could all be privy to all the machinations, discussions, considerations I think most of us, esp. those who tend to go ballistic, would likely see things differently or at least see nuance rather than only black/white.

We all tend to think we could do a better job than the lawyer, accountant, teacher (president) than the actual folks doing the job. Perhaps in some cases, but generally in any complex job, it is not as simple as the outrage voiced by those among us who did not have either the experience or access.

That Fox is (or is not) a lousy hire does not change the above perspective.

3146gabby said:

---

KAB: I don't post very often and appreciate your analysis, proffered in a reasoned way.

If we could all be privy to all the machinations, discussions, considerations I think most of us, esp. those who tend to go ballistic, would likely see things differently or at least see nuance rather than only black/white.

We all tend to think we could do a better job than the lawyer, accountant, teacher (president) than the actual folks doing the job. Perhaps in some cases, but generally in any complex job, it is not as simple as the outrage voiced by those among us who did not have either the experience or access.

That Fox is (or is not) a lousy hire does not change the above perspective.

---

Very well said.

3146gabby said:

---

KAB: I don't post very often and appreciate your analysis, proffered in a reasoned way.

If we could all be privy to all the machinations, discussions, considerations I think most of us, esp. those who tend to go ballistic, would likely see things differently or at least see nuance rather than only black/white.

We all tend to think we could do a better job than the lawyer, accountant, teacher (president) than the actual folks doing the job. Perhaps in some cases, but generally in any complex job, it is not as simple as the outrage voiced by those among us who did not have either the experience or access.

That Fox is (or is not) a lousy hire does not change the above perspective.

---

Fox was a lousy hire and the evidence we have is it was done in a bad way, but I really do hope it turns out well.

Sports is great because it's a meritocracy


Fox will show us the trajectory soon and his results will be there for all to see in 8 months.

In the meantime breathe in through your nose and out through some pursed lips.

It always helps me relax.

KoreAmBear said:

---

3146gabby said:

---

It may be a terrible hire, but the more extreme reactions represent the kind of non critical thinking plaguing our times; evident in the outrage are the assumptions:

1. JK has no more info than the rest of us; in short no experience, expertise, etc.

2. Whether consciously or unconsciously his motives are questionable.

3. Therefore he does not know what he is doing.

4. That JK as AD @ Cal does not have a complex, nuanced and layered set of parameters.

Reading the analysis by BI, at the very least, the reaction of others in college BB gives me some hope, hope that is rooted in a recognition that Mark Few or his kind are not coming here.

You who are fed up, give JK some credit for having half a brain, some experience, some devotion to Berkeley and weighed a # of complex issues in making this hire.

Finally don't forget every other option had baggage - there was no absolute among JKidd, et al.

---

Valid points, but I'd say the people accepting this have shown little critical thinking, just trust and loyalty. For instance, why be in such a rush to hire someone who would be on the board a month from now? It's like taking a shot you can have any time in the shot clock but you take it 5 seconds in. Why hire a fired coach who's taken a year off of D1 coaching over a guy who knows Cal and just won his conference again (and who likely would be cheaper)? I don't know how you can say these aren't valid questions that have basis. I don't think it's unreasonable to think this was not a great decision even without all the info because the questions are so obviously glaring.

---

In the modern climate, where a lot of discourse is political and sharply divided, the same rhetoric finds its way into other spheres of activity. In that political discourse, I've heard both sides accuse the other of not using critical thinking, and now I'm hearing it in connection with this discussion of firing one coach and hiring another. In both cases, both sides claim, and maybe rightly so, to know some facts. But neither side is privy to all the facts. Knowlton may have had this search for a coach in mind from the minute he heard of the job opening for an AD, knowing full well he needed to prepare himself, should the situation arise. Or he may have acted quickly, without a long and careful process. We know nothing about the process he went through, and likely we will never learn the full story: what names were under consideration, and who did he consult with, if anyone? How much of the decision was his to make?

It is easy to paint one coach in a bad light (getting fired and being out of work for a year), and paint another in a good light, such as a guy who knows Cal, and just won his conference. For example, Fox had an outstanding first head coaching effort at Nevada, 4 conference championships in 5 years, 3 top 25 teams (one ranked #10, and 3 NCAA invites. Here are some guys who knew Cal as assistant coaches and failed as Cal head coach: Herrerias, Padgett, Bozeman, and Jones. Here are some guys who won the Big Sky Conference: Wayne Tinkle. Twice. He went on to have a losing record at Oregon State. MIke Montgomery won the Big Sky once. At Stanford, it took him 3 years to get an NCAA invite. He had 2 invites in 8 years. He did not win an NCAA tourney game until his 9th year, and it took him 12 years to win a PAC10 Championship and reach a Final Four.

I am not pushing for Fox, nor am I not in favor of DeCuire, and I'm not saying you are wrong to hold the opposite view. We can all have our suspicions, or theories about what took place in what seemed like a quick hire. But how can we do any critical thinking about this hire without knowing what Jim Knowlton knew when he made the decision? LIke with most new coaches, the proof will be in the pudding, and we can be far better informed when we watch his teams than we were in his hiring process. We need patience for this, and the last several years have shown we don't have a lot of it.

socaltownie said:

---

Fair question.

From early reports the highest upside is

high integrity guy,
understands the importance of donors without being an "awe shucks back slapper
Graduates his kids
Doesn't cheat on recruiting.

But I think the biggest problem is that Reno is not the "west coast". His recruits at Georgia were almost all local kids. I believe 3 NBA drafted kids in 9 years (aka not great recruiting).

It was an ultra safe pick. We proably will improve. But I don't see us being able to get into the top third of the league and competing with the top 3-4.

Cal being Cal.

---

"You mean....mean.....you mean like the Cal football team?!!!!"

3146gabby said:

---

It may be a terrible hire, but the more extreme reactions represent the kind of non critical thinking plaguing our times; evident in the outrage are the assumptions:

1. JK has no more info than the rest of us; in short no experience, expertise, etc.

2. Whether consciously or unconsciously his motives are questionable.

3. Therefore he does not know what he is doing.

4. That JK as AD @ Cal does not have a complex, nuanced and layered set of parameters.

Reading the analysis by BI, at the very least, the reaction of others in college BB gives me some hope, hope that is rooted in a recognition that Mark Few or his kind are not coming here.

You who are fed up, give JK some credit for having half a brain, some experience, some devotion to Berkeley and weighed a # of complex issues in making this hire.

Finally don't forget every other option had baggage - there was no absolute among JKidd, et al.

---

I'm sorry I find this response laughably embarrassing. You accuse others of noncritical thinking for making assumptions when you are the one making assumptions without evidence and you are calling the unwillingness to take your assumptions on faith an assumption. You might as well have posted that we are being noncritcal because we assume the tooth fairy isn't real. I have hard evidence that Fox is a mediocre coach. You have zero evidence that there is any more to the story, anything that the Cal AD "knows" that counters what happened on the court for Georgia in plain sight for 9 years. What you are doing is called faith. What I've learned over the years is put your faith in your god if that is your thing, but don't put it in the Cal AD.

I've heard your arguments before. I heard them when we hired Jones. When we hired Dykes. Holmoe. Gilbertson. Kapp. Yes, the AD had expertise. They knew stuff we didn't know. Only they didn't. Cal's AD is not playing Chess to our checkers. They are playing Chutes and Ladders. Let me clue you in. There is nothing more. There is no secret. There hasn't been for 60 years. There isn't now.

Name one time in the last 60 years where Cal's AD went against any common wisdom that was publicly known where things turned out well. Every time Cal fans have largely reacted that the decision was stupid, it turned out stupid. There is no more. And people like you lap it up, say there must be more. Let's assume this guy knows what he is doing. Give him five years or so. It will play out then. And by the time you realize there is no more, the person has taken his salary and moved on. And you have moved on to give the next guy the benefit of the doubt. No consequences ever.

That is why Cal does nothing my friend. So keep calling the people who have kept their eyes open noncritically thinking.

As an aside, read 71Bear - he used to be so optimistic he supported Holmoe. Read Koreambear. He was actually voted "most optimistic cyberbear by the community. They aren't predisposed to negativity. They've just heard all the BS a million times before.

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

3146gabby said:

---

It may be a terrible hire, but the more extreme reactions represent the kind of non critical thinking plaguing our times; evident in the outrage are the assumptions:

1. JK has no more info than the rest of us; in short no experience, expertise, etc.

2. Whether consciously or unconsciously his motives are questionable.

3. Therefore he does not know what he is doing.

4. That JK as AD @ Cal does not have a complex, nuanced and layered set of parameters.

Reading the analysis by BI, at the very least, the reaction of others in college BB gives me some hope, hope that is rooted in a recognition that Mark Few or his kind are not coming here.

You who are fed up, give JK some credit for having half a brain, some experience, some devotion to Berkeley and weighed a # of complex issues in making this hire.

Finally don't forget every other option had baggage - there was no absolute among JKidd, et al.

---

Valid points, but I'd say the people accepting this have shown little critical thinking, just trust and loyalty. For instance, why be in such a rush to hire someone who would be on the board a month from now? It's like taking a shot you can have any time in the shot clock but you take it 5 seconds in. Why hire a fired coach who's taken a year off of D1 coaching over a guy who knows Cal and just won his conference again (and who likely would be cheaper)? I don't know how you can say these aren't valid questions that have basis. I don't think it's unreasonable to think this was not a great decision even without all the info because the questions are so obviously glaring.

---

In the modern climate, where a lot of discourse is political and sharply divided, the same rhetoric finds its way into other spheres of activity. In that political discourse, I've heard both sides accuse the other of not using critical thinking, and now I'm hearing it in connection with this discussion of firing one coach and hiring another. In both cases, both sides claim, and maybe rightly so, to know some facts. But neither side is privy to all the facts. Knowlton may have had this search for a coach in mind from the minute he heard of the job opening for an AD, knowing full well he needed to prepare himself, should the situation arise. Or he may have acted quickly, without a long and careful process. We know nothing about the process he went through, and likely we will never learn the full story: what names were under consideration, and who did he consult with, if anyone? How much of the decision was his to make?

It is easy to paint one coach in a bad light (getting fired and being out of work for a year), and paint another in a good light, such as a guy who knows Cal, and just won his conference. For example, Fox had an outstanding first head coaching effort at Nevada, 4 conference championships in 5 years, 3 top 25 teams (one ranked #10, and 3 NCAA invites. Here are some guys who knew Cal as assistant coaches and failed as Cal head coach: Herrerias, Padgett, Bozeman, and Jones. Here are some guys who won the Big Sky Conference: Wayne Tinkle. Twice. He went on to have a losing record at Oregon State. MIke Montgomery won the Big Sky once. At Stanford, it took him 3 years to get an NCAA invite. He had 2 invites in 8 years. He did not win an NCAA tourney game until his 9th year, and it took him 12 years to win a PAC10 Championship and reach a Final Four.

I am not pushing for Fox, nor am I not in favor of DeCuire, and I'm not saying you are wrong to hold the opposite view. We can all have our suspicions, or theories about what took place in what seemed like a quick hire. But how can we do any critical thinking about this hire without knowing what Jim Knowlton knew when he made the decision? LIke with most new coaches, the proof will be in the pudding, and we can be far better informed when we watch his teams than we were in his hiring process. We need patience for this, and the last several years have shown we don't have a lot of it.

---

Your argument essentially means we can never question an AD's decision because he might know something we don't.

As I said in my previous post, name one time in the last 60 years where It turned out that the AD decision that appeared stupid wasn't stupid. Jones, Dykes, Holmoe, Gilbertson, Kapp. That is five decisions that seemed stupid that turned out in fact stupid. We didn't know what the AD knew then either. Turned out, not much.

60 years of lather, rinse, repeat is too much patience.

Fox brings mediocrity. Literally. Just below a .500 SEC record at 77-79. Mediocre Mark is my moniker for him.

Hopefully he can make me eat crow. I'll eat the crow with smile.

For anyone interested in Fox's philosophy, here's a coaching clinic video he did from a couple of years ago. Nothing hugely revelatory but some useful tidbits. There's some standard coachspeak stuff here but also a decent glimpse into how he likes to play:

-Primary M2M (similar to pack line) with a sprinkle of different zones. And a third "catch up" defense that takes more risk in games where they're down. Clearly a defense first coach.

-Conservative defense approach. Ok to take risk in back court but wants a conservative approach in the scoring third which de-emphasizes turnovers. Focus on minimizing fouls and prioritizes winning FT battle.

-Emphasis on guarding scoring areas and not guarding in non-scoring areas. Unafraid to not guard a player who isn't a scorer and play a 1-man zone.

-De-emphasis on offensive rebounding and strong emphasis on not ever giving up transition opportunities (Tony Bennett has a similar focus). Strong focus on transition defense and where he begins when teaching defense. Easiest to fix.

-Staff ranks and publishes to the team his top scorers and wants the box score to show that the top scorers get the most shots.

-Practices planned to hit fundamentals first. Then defense. Then offense. Then special situations.