southseasbear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Has any Cal fan ever been happy with a coaching hire? That is just not what we do. At least here on the BI. In 1954, as a little kid at the family dinner table, I remember my Cal Alum father talking about newspapers expressing doubt about the hiring of Pete Newell, after his not very good record at Michigan State.

---

I was giddy for Monty and satisfied with Tedford given that I knew nothing about him other than that he was Oregon's OC. I was pretty happy about Cuonzo, but it turned out the Tennessee fans were right.

---

Agreed. And I was happy when Braun was hired as it seemed like a good move: a highly successful mid-major coach who ran a clean program and whose teams had beaten some major teams with higher ranked players. And it was a good choice for a few years until it became evident he had plateaued.

---

I had zero idea who he was or what his background was. I was pretty pleased after Year 1 though.

Yogi Bear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Has any Cal fan ever been happy with a coaching hire? That is just not what we do. At least here on the BI. In 1954, as a little kid at the family dinner table, I remember my Cal Alum father talking about newspapers expressing doubt about the hiring of Pete Newell, after his not very good record at Michigan State.

---

I was giddy for Monty and satisfied with Tedford given that I knew nothing about him other than that he was Oregon's OC. I was pretty happy about Cuonzo, but it turned out the Tennessee fans were right.

---

Agreed. And I was happy when Braun was hired as it seemed like a good move: a highly successful mid-major coach who ran a clean program and whose teams had beaten some major teams with higher ranked players. And it was a good choice for a few years until it became evident he had plateaued.

---

I had zero idea who he was or what his background was. I was pretty pleased after Year 1 though.

---

Braun's record at Eastern Michigan wasn't awesome, but we were under a cloud of sanctions and we were way past the seasonal window for coaching hires. Our other options were pretty bad.

Braun did a really good job that first year and the roster he put together for year 2 given what he inherited was miraculous

Baloney don't agree. Knowlton wants a successful program.

OaktownBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Has any Cal fan ever been happy with a coaching hire? That is just not what we do. At least here on the BI. In 1954, as a little kid at the family dinner table, I remember my Cal Alum father talking about newspapers expressing doubt about the hiring of Pete Newell, after his not very good record at Michigan State.

---

I was giddy for Monty and satisfied with Tedford given that I knew nothing about him other than that he was Oregon's OC. I was pretty happy about Cuonzo, but it turned out the Tennessee fans were right.

---

Agreed. And I was happy when Braun was hired as it seemed like a good move: a highly successful mid-major coach who ran a clean program and whose teams had beaten some major teams with higher ranked players. And it was a good choice for a few years until it became evident he had plateaued.

---

I had zero idea who he was or what his background was. I was pretty pleased after Year 1 though.

---

Braun's record at Eastern Michigan wasn't awesome, but we were under a cloud of sanctions and we were way past the seasonal window for coaching hires. Our other options were pretty bad.

Braun did a really good job that first year and the roster he put together for year 2 given what he inherited was miraculous

---

That is true. I think everybody Braun inherited graduated after year one, and he was left with Marks and McQueen, and even worse leave for year two than Wyking Jones had.

calbear70 said:

---

Why all the negativity over the Fox hiring? Fox did a good job at Nevada. He is light years ahead of Wyking. Give the guy a chance!

---

You can be light years ahead of Wyking and still not be great. I don't think anyone doubts he will outperform Wykiing.

BeachedBear said:

---

My bigger issue is how we've handled revenue coaches AFTER the hire.

• Tedford and Braun. Got stale, should have been replaced or revitalized sooner.
• Letting Snyder & Mooch go (although doubt anything could have been done about Mooch.
• Holmoe, Gilbertson, Dykes, Campanelli, Kuchen were kept around too long, when it was obvious they had hit their ceiling or were not a good fit.
• Monty & Martin - no succession/transition plan or was botched, if there was one.

Bozeman (obvious) and Jones (obvious) were actually the only ones handled properly.

---

Good point. I'd add that letting Snyder go was an epic failure. I don't know about Dick Edwards, was he fired or did he resign?

Considering that Cal MBB has been "bye-bye" for three years now, I'm a little surprised that it's this move that set you off.

This looks like a "meh" hire, but that's still a big upgrade from Jones.

Uthaithani said:

---

Considering that Cal MBB has been "bye-bye" for three years now, I'm a little surprised that it's this move that set you off.

This looks like a "meh" hire, but that's still a big upgrade from Jones.

---

This !

OaktownBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Agreed. And I was happy when Braun was hired as it seemed like a good move: a highly successful mid-major coach who ran a clean program and whose teams had beaten some major teams with higher ranked players. And it was a good choice for a few years until it became evident he had plateaued.

---

I had zero idea who he was or what his background was. I was pretty pleased after Year 1 though.

---

Braun's record at Eastern Michigan wasn't awesome, but we were under a cloud of sanctions and we were way past the seasonal window for coaching hires. Our other options were pretty bad.

Braun did a really good job that first year and the roster he put together for year 2 given what he inherited was miraculous

---

What I came to notice about Braun was that his offense frequently depended on players making contested shots. When they shot well, Cal frequently won. But overall, his offense didn't result in players getting open shots. It required an Ed Gray or Gino Carlisle for the offense to function. Maybe part of the reason Ben plateaued was that defenses got more sophisticated and his offense scheme (what little there was) never changed?

The Stand and Stare Offense was not unbeatable after all.

stu said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

My bigger issue is how we've handled revenue coaches AFTER the hire.

• Tedford and Braun. Got stale, should have been replaced or revitalized sooner.
• Letting Snyder & Mooch go (although doubt anything could have been done about Mooch.
• Holmoe, Gilbertson, Dykes, Campanelli, Kuchen were kept around too long, when it was obvious they had hit their ceiling or were not a good fit.
• Monty & Martin - no succession/transition plan or was botched, if there was one.

Bozeman (obvious) and Jones (obvious) were actually the only ones handled properly.

---

Good point. I'd add that letting Snyder go was an epic failure. I don't know about Dick Edwards, was he fired or did he resign?

---

If I recall he "resigned" and took a job with Eastern Montana.

I was pissed last week but now that it's a done deal, I'm willing to give Principal Belding a chance.

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear70 said:

---

Why all the negativity over the Fox hiring? Fox did a good job at Nevada. He is light years ahead of Wyking. Give the guy a chance!

---

You can be light years ahead of Wyking and still not be great. I don't think anyone doubts he will outperform Wykiing.

---

Problem is Wyking in Year 3 would have outperformed Wyking in Year 1 and 2. Unless Fox produces a winning record minimum there is no reason to think the $3 million was well spent.

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear70 said:

---

Why all the negativity over the Fox hiring? Fox did a good job at Nevada. He is light years ahead of Wyking. Give the guy a chance!

---

You can be light years ahead of Wyking and still not be great. I don't think anyone doubts he will outperform Wykiing.

---

Problem is Wyking in Year 3 would have outperformed Wyking in Year 1 and 2. Unless Fox produces a winning record minimum there is no reason to think the $3 million was well spent.

---

Maybe. Your confidence in Jones is not held by me. Oh we might have gotten to 12 or 13 wins but that is all. And that assumes there would not have been mass transfers that all the Jones apologists would have excused. Then you would have been precisely in the same place.

At BEST it is Year one of Fox's salary poorly spent. We were spending the million either way.

PtownBear1 said:

---

I was pissed last week but now that it's a done deal, I'm willing to give Principal Belding a chance.

---

Nailed it!!

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear70 said:

---

Why all the negativity over the Fox hiring? Fox did a good job at Nevada. He is light years ahead of Wyking. Give the guy a chance!

---

You can be light years ahead of Wyking and still not be great. I don't think anyone doubts he will outperform Wykiing.

---

Problem is Wyking in Year 3 would have outperformed Wyking in Year 1 and 2. Unless Fox produces a winning record minimum there is no reason to think the $3 million was well spent.

---

I don't doubt that Fox in Year 1 outperforms Wyking in a theoretical Year 3 or even up to Year 50. It's just that the ceiling isn't going to be high enough.

HearstMining said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Agreed. And I was happy when Braun was hired as it seemed like a good move: a highly successful mid-major coach who ran a clean program and whose teams had beaten some major teams with higher ranked players. And it was a good choice for a few years until it became evident he had plateaued.

---

I had zero idea who he was or what his background was. I was pretty pleased after Year 1 though.

---

Braun's record at Eastern Michigan wasn't awesome, but we were under a cloud of sanctions and we were way past the seasonal window for coaching hires. Our other options were pretty bad.

Braun did a really good job that first year and the roster he put together for year 2 given what he inherited was miraculous

---

What I came to notice about Braun was that his offense frequently depended on players making contested shots. When they shot well, Cal frequently won. But overall, his offense didn't result in players getting open shots. It required an Ed Gray or Gino Carlisle for the offense to function. Maybe part of the reason Ben plateaued was that defenses got more sophisticated and his offense scheme (what little there was) never changed?

---

Braun was defense first, and always man to man so his lineup would be 5 guys to defend the other team's 5. Despite recruiting lots of big men, that usually meant going undersized, starting walkons if need be. Often that meant playing several offensively challenged players.

Being defense oriented, he wanted his team to burn clock, so they would pass the ball around the perimeter until someone forced up a shot at the end of the shot clock.

Knowing the above, a good coach just made sure to deny the best player at the end of the shot clock and leave the offense challenged players open to received a pass. We were best when we had a Gray, Shipp, Lampley or Powe that we could feed and could score one on one (usually earning them PAC-10 POY) .

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear70 said:

---

Why all the negativity over the Fox hiring? Fox did a good job at Nevada. He is light years ahead of Wyking. Give the guy a chance!

---

You can be light years ahead of Wyking and still not be great. I don't think anyone doubts he will outperform Wykiing.

---

Problem is Wyking in Year 3 would have outperformed Wyking in Year 1 and 2. Unless Fox produces a winning record minimum there is no reason to think the $3 million was well spent.

---

I don't doubt that Fox in Year 1 outperforms Wyking in a theoretical Year 3 or even up to Year 50. It's just that the ceiling isn't going to be high enough.

---

Worse than bad, would be mediocre for 5 years and then extended 4 more due to "progress" "needing his own guys" (he will be "saddled" with Wyking's guys for the next 3 years).

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear70 said:

---

Why all the negativity over the Fox hiring? Fox did a good job at Nevada. He is light years ahead of Wyking. Give the guy a chance!

---

You can be light years ahead of Wyking and still not be great. I don't think anyone doubts he will outperform Wykiing.

---

Problem is Wyking in Year 3 would have outperformed Wyking in Year 1 and 2. Unless Fox produces a winning record minimum there is no reason to think the $3 million was well spent.

---

Maybe. Your confidence in Jones is not held by me. Oh we might have gotten to 12 or 13 wins but that is all. And that assumes there would not have been mass transfers that all the Jones apologists would have excused. Then you would have been precisely in the same place.

At BEST it is Year one of Fox's salary poorly spent. We were spending the million either way.

---

That assumes that if we waited another year to let Wyking go we still would have hired Fox.

If Fox gets us to the NCAA tournament in the next 3-4 years, I agree it was certainly an improvement over any reasonable expection for Wyking. If he doesn't, I'm not sure what we are paying for.

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Agreed. And I was happy when Braun was hired as it seemed like a good move: a highly successful mid-major coach who ran a clean program and whose teams had beaten some major teams with higher ranked players. And it was a good choice for a few years until it became evident he had plateaued.

---

I had zero idea who he was or what his background was. I was pretty pleased after Year 1 though.

---

Braun's record at Eastern Michigan wasn't awesome, but we were under a cloud of sanctions and we were way past the seasonal window for coaching hires. Our other options were pretty bad.

Braun did a really good job that first year and the roster he put together for year 2 given what he inherited was miraculous

---

What I came to notice about Braun was that his offense frequently depended on players making contested shots. When they shot well, Cal frequently won. But overall, his offense didn't result in players getting open shots. It required an Ed Gray or Gino Carlisle for the offense to function. Maybe part of the reason Ben plateaued was that defenses got more sophisticated and his offense scheme (what little there was) never changed?

---

Braun was defense first, and always man to man so his lineup would be 5 guys to defend the other team's 5. Despite recruiting lots of big men, that usually meant going undersized, starting walkons if need be. Often that meant playing several offensively challenged players.

Being defense oriented, he wanted his team to burn clock, so they would pass the ball around the perimeter until someone forced up a shot at the end of the shot clock.

Knowing the above, a good coach just made sure to deny the best player at the end of the shot clock and leave the offense challenged players open to received a pass. We were best when we had a Gray, Shipp, Lampley or Powe that we could feed and could score one on one (usually earning them PAC-10 POY) .

---

In fairness to Braun, yes his offense was not good. But he rarely had a full roster of scorers (his own fault). I think that lead him to put secondary lineups on the floor that had little prayer of scoring who just played really good defense on one end of the floor and then ran clock on the other end until we could get the scorers back on the floor. That was really ugly, but given the drawbacks of the roster, I never thought it was a bad strategy vs. subbing out scorers one by one and spending half the game without enough scorers on the floor. That made an already poor offense look really, really bad at times.

calumnus said:

---

Braun was defense first, and always man to man so his lineup would be 5 guys to defend the other team's 5. Despite recruiting lots of big men, that usually meant going undersized, starting walkons if need be. Often that meant playing several offensively challenged players.

Being defense oriented, he wanted his team to burn clock, so they would pass the ball around the perimeter until someone forced up a shot at the end of the shot clock.

Knowing the above, a good coach just made sure to deny the best player at the end of the shot clock and leave the offense challenged players open to received a pass. We were best when we had a Gray, Shipp, Lampley or Powe that we could feed and could score one on one (usually earning them PAC-10 POY) .

---

I see this myth perpetuated quite a bit. Yes, there were a few seasons with Powe and Lamply on the block where Cal would use most of the clock passing around the perimeter trying to get the ball into them.

This might not be a perfect metric, but of Braun's 12 seasons, only three times did his Cal teams finish in the bottom half in Field Goal Attempts (224 being the worst). 7 times they finished in the top 100. In the three seasons he had Senior laden teams (Duck, Carlisle, and Ship years), his teams finished in the top 50 (with 15th being the best).

One thing that was clear is that his pro-flex style offense, which was designed to get his best scores in the best position to score, worked much better with his more experienced teams.

I didn't like the Monty hiring for 2 reasons:

1. I thought it was a retread hire, his best day were behind him, and at his age, his Cal tenure would be short. I wanted a younger, up-and-comer.

2. I didn't think it was possible to recreate his Stanford success at Cal. Because Cal.

3. But I really like Monty. I wish we had 10-20 years of a coach like him.

The Martin hire pushed all of my skepticism buttons.

1. Why would he want to come to Cal?

2. Does he understand the recruitment and retention challenges here?

3. What if all the criticism of his Tennessee tenure were true?

After her arrived, I found:

1. His Xs & Os and in-game coaching were as bad as advertised. His substitution patterns induced seizures.

2. He brought in some great individual recruits, but unbalanced classes. He swung for the fences and missed, a lot.

3. His coach-speak was indecipherable. I could never get a clear bead on what he was after.

4. Based on his road record, I feel the home unbeaten streak happened in spite of him.

5. He dropped us like a hot rock, and left the program 5 years behind. It was sneaky and underhanded. It was timed to inflict maximum damage. I will hate him forever.

I will be the first to admit that my brain works weirdly. But sometimes the skepticism and paranoia are justified. And sometimes they're overwrought. Such is life.

Fyght4Cal said:

---

I didn't like the Monty hiring for 2 reasons:

1. I thought it was a retread hire, his best day were behind him, and at his age, his Cal tenure would be short. I wanted a younger, up-and-comer.

2. I didn't think it was possible to recreate his Stanford success at Cal. Because Cal.

3. But I really like Monty. I wish we had 10-20 years of a coach like him.

The Martin hire pushed all of my skepticism buttons.

1. Why would he want to come to Cal?

2. Does he understand the recruitment and retention challenges here?

3. What if all the criticism of his Tennessee tenure were true?

After her arrived, I found:

1. His Xs & Os and in-game coaching were as bad as advertised. His substitution patterns induced seizures.

2. He brought in some great individual recruits, but unbalanced classes. He swung for the fences and missed, a lot.

3. His coach-speak was indecipherable. I could never get a clear bead on what he was after.

4. Based on his road record, I feel the home unbeaten streak happened in spite of him.

5. He dropped us like a hot rock, and left the program 5 years behind. It was sneaky and underhanded. It was timed to inflict maximum damage. I will hate him forever.

I will be the first to admit that my brain works weirdly. But sometimes the skepticism and paranoia are justified. And sometimes they're overwrought. Such is life.

---

I was no Cuonzo Martin fan at all, but I think it is a little harsh to blame the unbalance of his roster entirely on him. This started back in the Ben Braun era. Ben left Montgomery a very good roster, but it was loaded with juniors who were his best players at the end of his tenure. What this did was allow Montgomery to win a PAC10 championship, but after that championship, all those players would graduate, and Montgomery was then faced with rebuilding the roster. It took a while, but three years later he would come up with his best recruiting class, and he would leave a pretty balanced roster for Cuonzo, a senior, 2 juniors and 4 sophs. After one season only the senior graduated, and once he added Rabb and Brown, 2016 became a good roster. He knew he would have a good season, but he should have known that they were one-and-dones, and he would begin to be in real trouble in for the 2017 season. Again he landed a good grad transfer in Mullins, but he would be done in a year too. His mistake, if any, was to recruit one-and-dones, because they can kill any chance you have at roster balance. They got the fan base excited, but then they were gone, Brown in one and Rabb in two years (Rabb's mistake). Once those guys and Mullins were gone, it was going to take another 3 years to rebuild the roster. I think we should focus on the good recruits who will stay in school. When and if we start to win, then we can look to the big star recruits. So if a new coach inherits a good roster, but it is seniors and juniors, in 2 years he will have to start rebuilding again. It happened to Montgomery, to Cuonzo, and a little worse to Wyking, as he lost all Cuonzo's players after one year, so I was expecting last season to be worse than Wyking's first. And it almost was.

Everything else you said I'd agree with.