OaktownBear, I always love reading your posts, but here's the thing:OaktownBear 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.
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.
Boy, you sure are down in the dumps. Wish I could cheer you up.OaktownBear said: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.SFCityBear said: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?OaktownBear said: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:tequila4kapp said:Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")Big C said: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... ).OaktownBear said: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.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..
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.
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.
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
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 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.
Here is how Newell's team's played:OaktownBear said: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.SFCityBear said:Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"boredom said:SFCityBear said: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?OaktownBear said: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:tequila4kapp said:Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")Big C said: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... ).OaktownBear said: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.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..
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
SFCityBear said:Here is how Newell's team's played:OaktownBear said: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.SFCityBear said:Maybe so. In any case, "Off with their heads"boredom said:SFCityBear said: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?OaktownBear said: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:tequila4kapp said:Based on the response I got from our AD an hour ago it is a done deal ("...come out and support him...")Big C said: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... ).OaktownBear said: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.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..
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
1. They limited the opponents good open shots. They prevented teams and individual players from doing what they wanted to do. Instead of waiting for an opponent to make his move, they acted first, and moved the opponent to where they wanted him to go. They played the best defense in the nation (after Russell and Wilt moved to the NBA). Cuonzo's best team played good defense. Newell's teams played great defense.
2. On offense, the first thing they did was take care of the ball. They did not run up the floor helter skelter in a mad dash to go coast to coast and dunk. The brought the ball up the floor, by dribbling or passing. They waited for defenses to get set up, because they knew they could pick them apart, rather than let some rogue defender steal the ball in transition. They did not take the ball to the rim. They took the ball to the basket. they ran a lot of the same plays that are run today, but the difference was that if the play did not result in a wide open shot, they passed the ball to get someone a better shot. Or they ran a different play, but always to get a good shot, an open shot. They played fast, to make sure they put up enough shots to win the game, but not recklessly fast, so they would lose the ball.
3 Rebounding is done more or less the same way now as then, except that more shots carom longer distances off the rim, so guards do more rebounding now than back then.
So this would not be a good model for Cal or any team to play basketball today? Think about having 5 guys named Jorge playing for Cal (different p[layers with the size to make up all five positions). All of them just as aggressive as Jorge. He would have been a starter for Newell back then. You think that would not be a model of how to play today?
why don't you do something that makes you happy instead of-making us miserable?tsubamoto2001 said:
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.
If we go 5-4 in conference next year, I'll be convinced Wilcox is the real deal. Everything on the conference schedule breaks wrong for us.calumnus said:OaktownBear said:
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?
Who was responsible for bringing out the ladder and getting the ball out of the peach basket?SFCityBear said:
Here is how Newell's team's played:
1. They limited the opponents good open shots. They prevented teams and individual players from doing what they wanted to do. Instead of waiting for an opponent to make his move, they acted first, and moved the opponent to where they wanted him to go. They played the best defense in the nation (after Russell and Wilt moved to the NBA). Cuonzo's best team played good defense. Newell's teams played great defense.
2. On offense, the first thing they did was take care of the ball. They did not run up the floor helter skelter in a mad dash to go coast to coast and dunk. The brought the ball up the floor, by dribbling or passing. They waited for defenses to get set up, because they knew they could pick them apart, rather than let some rogue defender steal the ball in transition. They did not take the ball to the rim. They took the ball to the basket. they ran a lot of the same plays that are run today, but the difference was that if the play did not result in a wide open shot, they passed the ball to get someone a better shot. Or they ran a different play, but always to get a good shot, an open shot. They played fast, to make sure they put up enough shots to win the game, but not recklessly fast, so they would lose the ball.
3 Rebounding is done more or less the same way now as then, except that more shots carom longer distances off the rim, so guards do more rebounding now than back then.
So this would not be a good model for Cal or any team to play basketball today? Think about having 5 guys named Jorge playing for Cal (different p[layers with the size to make up all five positions). All of them just as aggressive as Jorge. He would have been a starter for Newell back then. You think that would not be a model of how to play today?
I'm 63 and I've seen and played a whole lot of basketball in my life. I think Newell was a great coach. I saw the results of his big man's camp frequently in the NBA. But I also think if could take him and his teams from that era and put them up against the best teams today those Cal teams would be annihilated. Just like pitchers from the 1950's would, with very rare exceptions if any, get smoked by today's hitters, just like the track records from that era look quaint now, and how the 1960 NFL champion Eagles would probably struggle against Auburn. It's not a disparagement of what those teams accomplished in their eras, but a recognition that today's athletes are just that much stronger, faster, have more experience before college, and in the case of basketball better overall shooting ability. My opinion to a degree, I guess, but every objective measurable you could find would support the conclusion I'm pretty sure.SFCityBear said: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.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.
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.
3146gabby said:
Oaktown: geez the hostility here is unnecessary. I don't recall being friends but we share a devotion/love for our university. Your reactive style is what I decry, not the logic of those who are negative about the pick. Frankly I don't know if it is a good pick and as a '68 grad I've seen all the horrible FB and BB picks.
I have no problem with critical analysis and yes criticism of JK et al.
The only assumption I made was that those most angry posts appear to me to be based on frustration - shared by all - but without being in JK's shoes and truly knowing what was weighed in the process.
My guess - you can call it an assumption - is that a significant % of this board would likely have made the same decision once apprised of all factors.
That does not guarantee it is a good choice. Hindsight and all.....
OaktownBear said:3146gabby said:
Oaktown: geez the hostility here is unnecessary. I don't recall being friends but we share a devotion/love for our university. Your reactive style is what I decry, not the logic of those who are negative about the pick. Frankly I don't know if it is a good pick and as a '68 grad I've seen all the horrible FB and BB picks.
I have no problem with critical analysis and yes criticism of JK et al.
The only assumption I made was that those most angry posts appear to me to be based on frustration - shared by all - but without being in JK's shoes and truly knowing what was weighed in the process.
My guess - you can call it an assumption - is that a significant % of this board would likely have made the same decision once apprised of all factors.
That does not guarantee it is a good choice. Hindsight and all.....
Here's my guess and what I ask you to consider. My guess is that this board has 98% of the relevant information. My guess is that the remaining 2% is Knowlton's talking to Decuire and Fox and his extremely subjective determination of how good they are at scmoozing...cough...how ready they are for the job. Given that Monty knows Decuire for years and given that Monty knows a million times more than Knowlton about basketball coaching, I dispute that judgment
My guess is there is far fewer factors we don't know than you think there are. My guess is that over 90% here would not have made this decision.
I'm going to ask again. Given the failures of the Cal AD's past decisions that went against public opinion in the past, why should I believe there is more here.
I would also ask you to consider that some of the posters here that have been critical have been here for years. Level headed and optimistic. Maybe it is not a knee jerk emotional reaction that is impacting intellectual analysis. Maybe it is an intellectual analysis that engenders an emotional response. Maybe it is frustration at a group of people that skip right to "well, let's see how this works out" without analysis.
3146gabby said:
Oaktown: followup 2:
my assumption was not about analytical reaction to the hire and decision by JK, but the over the top anger, hostility of the posts. My assumption in fact was not assumptive at all; simply reading the words/thoughts which in the more over-the-top posts were pretty clear. No mistaking the anger, charges of stupidity, etc . etc.
In fact I share many concerns of those who are angry, but delivery often obscures content, substantive analysis. That was my only point.
And so I respect your analysis, your important questions and historic analysis, but not your style.
Maybe with a world in turmoil, fake news, attacks everywhere I simply hope for this board to have respectful disagreements.... my assumption anyway....
in the end what is clear is that we all love Berkeley, want success and alas have little/no control over the decisions made.
oski003 said:OaktownBear said:3146gabby said:
Oaktown: geez the hostility here is unnecessary. I don't recall being friends but we share a devotion/love for our university. Your reactive style is what I decry, not the logic of those who are negative about the pick. Frankly I don't know if it is a good pick and as a '68 grad I've seen all the horrible FB and BB picks.
I have no problem with critical analysis and yes criticism of JK et al.
The only assumption I made was that those most angry posts appear to me to be based on frustration - shared by all - but without being in JK's shoes and truly knowing what was weighed in the process.
My guess - you can call it an assumption - is that a significant % of this board would likely have made the same decision once apprised of all factors.
That does not guarantee it is a good choice. Hindsight and all.....
Here's my guess and what I ask you to consider. My guess is that this board has 98% of the relevant information. My guess is that the remaining 2% is Knowlton's talking to Decuire and Fox and his extremely subjective determination of how good they are at scmoozing...cough...how ready they are for the job. Given that Monty knows Decuire for years and given that Monty knows a million times more than Knowlton about basketball coaching, I dispute that judgment
My guess is there is far fewer factors we don't know than you think there are. My guess is that over 90% here would not have made this decision.
I'm going to ask again. Given the failures of the Cal AD's past decisions that went against public opinion in the past, why should I believe there is more here.
I would also ask you to consider that some of the posters here that have been critical have been here for years. Level headed and optimistic. Maybe it is not a knee jerk emotional reaction that is impacting intellectual analysis. Maybe it is an intellectual analysis that engenders an emotional response. Maybe it is frustration at a group of people that skip right to "well, let's see how this works out" without analysis.
Since we have 98% of the information, can you enlighten me on what we were willing to pay our new head coach? Also, what are the terms of Fox's contract?
OaktownBear said:oski003 said:OaktownBear said:3146gabby said:
Oaktown: geez the hostility here is unnecessary. I don't recall being friends but we share a devotion/love for our university. Your reactive style is what I decry, not the logic of those who are negative about the pick. Frankly I don't know if it is a good pick and as a '68 grad I've seen all the horrible FB and BB picks.
I have no problem with critical analysis and yes criticism of JK et al.
The only assumption I made was that those most angry posts appear to me to be based on frustration - shared by all - but without being in JK's shoes and truly knowing what was weighed in the process.
My guess - you can call it an assumption - is that a significant % of this board would likely have made the same decision once apprised of all factors.
That does not guarantee it is a good choice. Hindsight and all.....
Here's my guess and what I ask you to consider. My guess is that this board has 98% of the relevant information. My guess is that the remaining 2% is Knowlton's talking to Decuire and Fox and his extremely subjective determination of how good they are at scmoozing...cough...how ready they are for the job. Given that Monty knows Decuire for years and given that Monty knows a million times more than Knowlton about basketball coaching, I dispute that judgment
My guess is there is far fewer factors we don't know than you think there are. My guess is that over 90% here would not have made this decision.
I'm going to ask again. Given the failures of the Cal AD's past decisions that went against public opinion in the past, why should I believe there is more here.
I would also ask you to consider that some of the posters here that have been critical have been here for years. Level headed and optimistic. Maybe it is not a knee jerk emotional reaction that is impacting intellectual analysis. Maybe it is an intellectual analysis that engenders an emotional response. Maybe it is frustration at a group of people that skip right to "well, let's see how this works out" without analysis.
Since we have 98% of the information, can you enlighten me on what we were willing to pay our new head coach? Also, what are the terms of Fox's contract?
Again, Decuire makes $175K a year. You are going to claim he wouldn't accept a package we could offer? The fantasy that you guys come up to protect men you don't know is striking
The amount we were willing to pay depended on the candidate. Jason Kidd would've commanded two million or probably more and we would've paid it, had we liked everything else. If a Tony Bennett were to somehow want to come here, we could scrounge up three million, not that that would be enough. DeCuire or Turner, probably 1.5-1.7. I'm guessing Fox will get a bit more than that, based on his P5 experience. I'll guess 1.8.oski003 said:OaktownBear said:3146gabby said:
Oaktown: geez the hostility here is unnecessary. I don't recall being friends but we share a devotion/love for our university. Your reactive style is what I decry, not the logic of those who are negative about the pick. Frankly I don't know if it is a good pick and as a '68 grad I've seen all the horrible FB and BB picks.
I have no problem with critical analysis and yes criticism of JK et al.
The only assumption I made was that those most angry posts appear to me to be based on frustration - shared by all - but without being in JK's shoes and truly knowing what was weighed in the process.
My guess - you can call it an assumption - is that a significant % of this board would likely have made the same decision once apprised of all factors.
That does not guarantee it is a good choice. Hindsight and all.....
Here's my guess and what I ask you to consider. My guess is that this board has 98% of the relevant information. My guess is that the remaining 2% is Knowlton's talking to Decuire and Fox and his extremely subjective determination of how good they are at scmoozing...cough...how ready they are for the job. Given that Monty knows Decuire for years and given that Monty knows a million times more than Knowlton about basketball coaching, I dispute that judgment
My guess is there is far fewer factors we don't know than you think there are. My guess is that over 90% here would not have made this decision.
I'm going to ask again. Given the failures of the Cal AD's past decisions that went against public opinion in the past, why should I believe there is more here.
I would also ask you to consider that some of the posters here that have been critical have been here for years. Level headed and optimistic. Maybe it is not a knee jerk emotional reaction that is impacting intellectual analysis. Maybe it is an intellectual analysis that engenders an emotional response. Maybe it is frustration at a group of people that skip right to "well, let's see how this works out" without analysis.
Since we have 98% of the information, can you enlighten me on what we were willing to pay our new head coach? Also, what are the terms of Fox's contract?
I've made my feelings known here, I thought hiring Travis wouldn't be a home run hire, but would be a double in the gap, and hiring Fox was a sacrifice fly while behind 7 runs in the 8th inning. Fox's record of mediocrity in P6 is not inspiring.OaktownBear said:SFCityBear said: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?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.
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.
BTW - some of those issues (grad transfer jumps out) is going to be a challenge for ANY cal coach. It is a structural disadvantage the program has.cal83dls79 said:
Well apparently this is what he DIDN'T bring to the table, but all in all an OK review
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dawgnation.com/mens-basketball/what-went-wrong-mark-fox-georgia/amp
granted, I'm positive on this guy. Argument for argument sakesocaltownie said:BTW - some of those issues (grad transfer jumps out) is going to be a challenge for ANY cal coach. It is a structural disadvantage the program has.cal83dls79 said:
Well apparently this is what he DIDN'T bring to the table, but all in all an OK review
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dawgnation.com/mens-basketball/what-went-wrong-mark-fox-georgia/amp
Yogi Bear said:If we go 5-4 in conference next year, I'll be convinced Wilcox is the real deal. Everything on the conference schedule breaks wrong for us.calumnus said:OaktownBear said:
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?
TonyTiger said:
Wow, De Ja Vue, all over again. This is so much like the Wilcox hire; a so-so hire that appears to have some upside then he starts hiring great coaches. Right now we have two coaches that were highly respected for being head coaches at one time in their career leading a team without a head coach last year. Like Wilcox, fox may not be a show stopper of a hire but he simply may know exactly what he wants and how to get it.
IMO, the worst hires are the ones who have had zero experience that would warrant getting an HC job in the Pac-10/12. That would be Kapp, Holmoe, and Jones. They are close to equal footing in terms of being bad hires.annarborbear said:
How can this be the worst hire since Holmoe when the guy hasn't even coached a game for us yet? It is Wyking that was the worst hire since Holmoe. This guy is respected enough that he just finished helping to coach a USA team. I realize that some people are now totally invested in a negative scenario on Fox and that we will be hearing that on here for the next six months. But I would like to actually see what he can do with the team after the previous total dumpster fire under Wyking before drawing any conclusions.
I have to disagree with you on a point of history here, 8285. It is amazing that any school would have 1 hire as bad as Kapp and Jones, let alone 2. More amazing is that they could also have one that was worse. Holmoe was drastically worse.Cal8285 said:I've made my feelings known here, I thought hiring Travis wouldn't be a home run hire, but would be a double in the gap, and hiring Fox was a sacrifice fly while behind 7 runs in the 8th inning. Fox's record of mediocrity in P6 is not inspiring.OaktownBear said:SFCityBear said: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?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.
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.
That said, the wisdom of a decision is not necessarily judged by the outcome. What did you know at the time is relevant. If you and I bet even money, I bet a fair coin will come up head three times in a row, you bet it won't, my decision wasn't stupid just because lost, your decision wasn't smart just because you won.
So we always need to careful. Did the decision turn out to be stupid, or did it just not turn out well even if it was the right call based on what was known at the time?
The odds of things working out with the 5 you mention weren't all the same. Kapp and Jones were the biggest gambles. Be careful about any coach who has done acting BEFORE he has ever been a head coach, apparently they might sucker an AD into hiring them. Hiring a guy from behind a desk in Hollywood who hasn't been a coach to be HC of a Pac-10 team? Um, no. Hiring a guy who has never been a top assistant anywhere much less a head coach anywhere to be MBB HC at a P6 school? Um, no. Holmoe was probably next most ridiculous of the ones you name, and Dykes next most ridiculous. But in the case of Kapp and Jones, the AD didn't need to know any more than what we knew to understand that it was a crazy gamble that it would work. Crazy. If it worked, it wouldn't have made the original decision any less stupid. Dykes, and maybe even Holmoe, if they had worked, maybe the AD knew something we didn't.
But I'd argue that hiring Gilby was no less stupid at the time he was hired than Snyder when he was hired. Snyder's only HC experience was 6 years at Utah St. in the old PCAA, going 38-37-2. Pretty darned mediocre in a less than stellar conference. Then off to 4 years as a position coach in the NFL. And it wasn't like Snyder was showing great improvement at Utah St. After his first year, the last year of Utah St. being an independent, he got a couple of first place PCAA finishes. Then two 2nd place finishes. And in his final year, down to a 4th place finish. Yep, the kind of guy I expect to take a Pac-10 team without a great tradition of success to the heights of success. Being the Rams RB coach for 4 years might help with some X's and O's, but making him a better college HC, making him be ready for the Pac-10? Hardly. Yet if Bockrath had honored Maggard's handshake deal with Snyder, Snyder probably takes us to the Rose Bowl.
Gilby had 3 good years at Idaho, although they were DI-AA at the time, but still, 28-9 overall, tied for second in conference in his first year followed by two 1st place finishes, and the DI-AA semis in his final year. His trajectory was upward as a lower level HC, unlike Snyder. And Gilby's 3 years after his HC experience were in the Pac-10, not the NFL, with his last year being OC of the co-national champions. On paper, this looks better to me at the time of hiring than Snyder did at the time of hiring, even if he was the worst coach in Cal football history (others may argue, but Gilby was worse than Holmoe or Dykes). The main argument for Mooch over Gilby was continuity, and we all know what a great argument continuity is (see Tom Holmoe, Wyking Jones).
Did Snyder turn out better than we expected because Maggard knew something we didn't? Maybe, maybe not (although I'm confident that Bockrath's decision not to honor Maggard's handshake deal with Snyder was ego and stupidity, and not knowing something we didn't). Did Gilby turn out horrible because we all saw something the AD didn't? I doubt it.
And how about Travis versus Martin? Did Sandy know something we didn't know? Pretty much all of us liked the Martin hire better than we would have liked the Travis hire the day it happened, and the amateur AD Dirks overruled the professional AD Sandy. Maybe the professional should have been trusted.
This isn't a Jones or a Kapp or even a Holmoe hire. I probably like it less than I did Dykes at the time due to record of mediocrity. I definitely like it less than I did the Gilby hire at the time. But I probably like it better than I did the Snyder hire at the time. So I am not willing to declare it a disaster until it turns out to be a disaster, even if I am, uh, less than optimistic about it. There is at least a chance the professional knows more than me, even if I am not optimistic that is the case.
I am, however, confident that we'll be better off than we were with Jones. Set the bar as low as you can, it isn't hard to clear.
He didn't say worst. He said least inspired. You can't argue worst. You could argue least inspired depending how you define that. I woudn't agree with that. I would also classify Jones as least inspired. I guess I could see classifying Jones as inspired if it represented Cal taking a stand against the rising cost of coaching salaries and saying we aren't going to play that game anymore. In a way. Sorta.annarborbear said:
How can this be the worst hire since Holmoe when the guy hasn't even coached a game for us yet? It is Wyking that was the worst hire since Holmoe. This guy is respected enough that he just finished helping to coach a USA team. I realize that some people are now totally invested in a negative scenario on Fox and that we will be hearing that on here for the next six months. But I would like to actually see what he can do with the team after the previous total dumpster fire under Wyking before drawing any conclusions.
Dykes was worst not only for those reasons but also for demoralizing the fan base, not just because he was a bad fit with a lousy attitude, but because of his constant whoring for other jobs. Check out the nosedive in football attendance since Dykes was hired at Cal. It might take a few winning seasons in a row to repair that damage.OaktownBear said:
Personally, I think Dykes was worse in coaching ability and was just a horrible, horrible fit and I don't think Fox has anything close to the same fit issues).
But Gilby was liking having a second Oski on the field!ducky23 said:
The funny thing about gilby (and let's be clear here, he was an awful coach) but if Barr doesn't get hurt, that team had a great chance of going to the rose bowl.
