In the course of fewer than six days, Cal terminated the least successful head coach in its basketball program’s history and hired a coach with more than 250 career wins to replace him.
The obvious initial take when discussing Mark Fox is that he is in every respect an upgrade over his predecessor. An experienced hand who’s well-respected by his peers, Fox will bring a depth of experience and presence that Cal has not had since Mike Montgomery retired in 2012.
That said, it is not a hire that wins the hearts and minds of Cal fans when they first hear the news. His tenure at Georgia may be impressive in some respects. yet it ended after nine years in his being terminated. And while his successes at Georgia were relatively unprecedented for the Bulldog program, in absolute terms he failed to make the school a consistent top-tier SEC power, much less relevant on the national stage.
Juxtapose this with the unsoiled promise of a mid-major coach who has yet to prove himself one way or the other at a Power 6 school. That type of hire brings with it a sense of unlimited upside with the vacuum of those candidates experience creating an almost irrational sense of hope and little consideration of downside. Thus, it is not surprising that upon first take most Cal fans are left mildly disappointed with the appointment of Fox.
The staff here at Bear Insider understands and sympathizes with that sentiment, as it’s not far off our initial reactions. One of the criteria we laid out for the hire was generating excitement and energy around the program and that’s not something that Fox provides simply by signing his name on a contract. As we’ve had the chance to dig deeper and talk to some of the most prominent and well-respected voices in college basketball, we find ourselves reconsidering the gut reaction with an ever-increasing feeling of optimism.
The obvious wins with the hire of Fox are firstly the instant improvement in the leadership from where we were less than a week ago. Secondly, we’ve hired someone with tremendous character and integrity which are essential at Cal and even more so in the current climate in college basketball, where the FBI has uncovered what can best be reflected as the tip of the iceberg when it comes to under the table payments to recruits and their families. Lastly, Fox represents a very high floor. The chances of his not having a measure of success in Berkeley is exceptionally low given his fourteen-year resume as a head man.
Context is important here in two regards. First, the decision to terminate Wyking Jones after only two seasons came with a cost to Cal. Jim Knowlton and Carol Christ have an ambitious vision for Cal athletics including a transformation of the development approach and team to fully unlock the value of Cal’s alumni base as donors. They are less than 12 months into that process with the new Chief of Development, Brian Mann, having only been in Berkeley for less than 6 weeks. The ability to break the bank and reach for the stars in a basketball head coach is clearly an aspiration for the department, but one that will take time and hard work to fully realize. Secondly, Cal has work to do with regard to overall student athletic facilities and specifically a dedicated basketball practice facility to even be on marginally even footing with the rest of the Pac-12. The net is that Cal was not in a position to hire the “perfect” coach. What it could do was make the decision to terminate a struggling head coach after only two seasons (which is exceptionally rare) and clearly upgrade the position.
The alternatives to Cal’s choice of Fox all had their set of risks and warts. Principally among them was betting on a successful low or mid-major coach. A step up in competition, the premium on recruiting (even to the level that Fox achieved) and the data that shows that most of these coaches clearly fail at Power 6 schools were an obvious factor in the choice of Fox. While there were some compelling candidates, especially when filtered through a criterion of selling hope, objectively they represented a far lower floor and more risk. This at a time when Cal is coming off a head coach that represented huge risk given his lack of a resume.
While looking at Fox’s tenure at Georgia, context also plays a role. Georgia has been a deserted wasteland for college basketball for decades. Since 1950, no Georgia head coach who lasted longer than one season posted a winning career record in Athens other than Hugh Durham and Mark Fox. In the five seasons preceding Fox taking over Georgia, the team had won a total of 22 SEC games. Georgia is a program without tradition or any sustained period of success. Against that backdrop, Fox’s record at Georgia may not be viewed as exceptional but certainly is impressive.
Mark Fox’s resume as it relates to scheme, teaching and player development are strong. His teams consistently played top-tier defense, and defense wins in college basketball. He’s a coach with a chip on his shoulder, hungry to wipe the exit at Georgia from his resume. His X’s and O’s and teaching pedigree are endorsed in fulsome fashion with his recent tenure with Team USA and the praise he received from coaching luminaries in today's press release. Bear Insider has had a chance to source further references from a half dozen industry experts and the praise has been universal and unstinting. Folks who know Pac-12 basketball exceptionally well and have no affiliation with Cal or with Coach Fox have been effusive in their praise of Fox and the fit at Cal.
His inability to keep Georgia at the top of the SEC and part of the national discussion can be traced squarely to his inability to recruit enough talent, especially talent that can score. That capped his upside in Athens and will be his biggest challenge in Berkeley, especially after spending the last decade on the East Coast. His choice of former Stanford head coach Trent Johnson as his top assistant is a self-aware action from Fox as Johnson cannot only provide sage advice as a long time head coach but unlike Fox, Johnson's reputation as a recruiter is well established. If Fox can fill in the remaining two assistant positions with at least one strong recruiter with a West Coast network, there’s a real possibility that Cal could hit a home run with their choice of Mark Fox.
The news of Wyking Jones departure and Mark Fox’s hire are not the beginning and end of this story. Expect to hear some very good news with regard to donations and facilities upgrades in the near future. Cal’s basketball brand has been diminished in the past two seasons and needs to be rebuilt. That starts with experienced. competent leadership and continues with substantial donations that benefit not only basketball but the athletic department as a whole.
In short, we are cautiously optimistic.
socaliganbear said:
The irony in this article is pointing to low success rate of guys making the jump to p6 jobs as evidence that Fox was the better choice. After a decade without a single tournament win, Fox is actually that guy. He's the guy that didn't work out.
calumnus said:OaktownBear said:When Sonny Dykes was hired it was said over and over that he was the best coach we could get with Head Coaching experience. And my response was, then you don't hire a coach with head coaching experience.socaltownie said:I have moved past my grief. I would advise as well.socaliganbear said:BearGreg said:
Curious how you would compare Georgia's tradition in basketball and historical recruiting success (including NBA alums) versus Cal's?
As a comparison, it's be less relevant than the money they have, or facilities, or general attitude towards athletics.
His very long Georgia tenure is very clearly mediocre. We went out and hired mediocrity. This is not a wild claim.
Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.
It was either unknown hope with low floor on a mid-major or this sort of hire. Support the program. Get it to a place to be better in 4 years.
#teamhope
I acknowledge since we have the lowest salary in a power conference that this was the best resume we could buy fro a power conference. So you don't hire a head coach from a power conference.
I refuse to play the cautiously optimistic game. This hire was at best massively uninspired and has very little upside. It is possible that he succeeds. If he does, fine. Call me when that happens. I'm not going to spend the meantime prancing around like a pink fluffy unicorn pretending that it will probably work. I already played that game with Dykes.
I don't care what the context is. I don't care what Georgia's history is. (and whatever the history is, I doubt they spend less on basketball than we do). 9 years losing record in conference. You do not hire a losing coach under any circumstances. Let him change that record somewhere else. Ask Udub about playing the "Keith Gilbertson is really a great coach who had a losing record at Cal because Cal is a weak program" game.
1. Ask yourself what is the hit rate on coaches with his record succeeding at the next stop without dropping down a level.
2. Ask yourself why the internet is laughing at us.
This is worse than hiring Dykes. (Setting aside the poor cultural fit) Dykes was the equivalent of a mid-major hire where he had some success. He was mediocre or worse at Cal so he got fired and moved back down to a mid-major (SMU).
When Georgia hired Fox out of Nevada (a mid-major) they took a reasonable chance on a guy who had some success at a lower level. He proved he couldn't hack it at that level. His next job should have been at a mid-major.
Cal hiring Fox is like if Texas had hired Dykes after he was fired from Cal.
Only because we choose to cry poor. The university is not poor. In fact, it has a bottomless well of cash when it comes to hiring search firms to find candidates for us that we'll have to buy out in 3-4 years.socaltownie said:
Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.
We need less of that attitude at Cal. Stop financially supporting bad AD's and chancellors who don't care.OaktownBear said:You supported Wyking Jonesjoe amos yaks said:
Most excellent hire. I'm very optimistic.
You supported the decision to retain him
You then supported the decision to fire him
You supported the AD's process where he retained then fired him
You now support this.
If you are just a very supportive guy, great. The world needs guys like you.
I get that you are bitter. I am a bit as well (but decided that it wasn't healthy). But you do need to stop with some of this. Most likely the MOST we paid for these services was 10% of the first year salary. So figure 160K. I figure actually a LOT less.Yogi Bear said:Only because we choose to cry poor. The university is not poor. In fact, it has a bottomless well of cash when it comes to hiring search firms to find candidates for us that we'll have to buy out in 3-4 years.socaltownie said:
Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.
What you don't get and what Oaktown understands is my choice is the healthy choice. I spend my money on other things that make me happier. I waste less time on things that make me unhappy. All of you who are twisting yourselves into knots trying to convince yourself that this was an intelligent well-thought out choice are the ones who are going to be bitter.socaltownie said:I get that you are bitter. I am a bit as well (but decided that it wasn't healthy). But you do need to stop with some of this.Yogi Bear said:Only because we choose to cry poor. The university is not poor. In fact, it has a bottomless well of cash when it comes to hiring search firms to find candidates for us that we'll have to buy out in 3-4 years.socaltownie said:
Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.
Thank you. All the best.OaktownBear said:You supported Wyking Jonesjoe amos yaks said:
Most excellent hire. I'm very optimistic.
You supported the decision to retain him
You then supported the decision to fire him
You supported the AD's process where he retained then fired him
You now support this.
If you are just a very supportive guy, great. The world needs guys like you.
"Our greatest freedom is the freedom to choose our attitude." -VFYogi Bear said:We need less of that attitude at Cal. Stop financially supporting bad AD's and chancellors who don't care.OaktownBear said:You supported Wyking Jonesjoe amos yaks said:
Most excellent hire. I'm very optimistic.
You supported the decision to retain him
You then supported the decision to fire him
You supported the AD's process where he retained then fired him
You now support this.
If you are just a very supportive guy, great. The world needs guys like you.
And yet you are here ;-)Yogi Bear said:What you don't get and what Oaktown understands is my choice is the healthy choice. I spend my money on other things that make me happier. I waste less time on things that make me unhappy. All of you who are twisting yourselves into knots trying to convince yourself that this was an intelligent well-thought out choice are the ones who are going to be bitter.socaltownie said:I get that you are bitter. I am a bit as well (but decided that it wasn't healthy). But you do need to stop with some of this.Yogi Bear said:Only because we choose to cry poor. The university is not poor. In fact, it has a bottomless well of cash when it comes to hiring search firms to find candidates for us that we'll have to buy out in 3-4 years.socaltownie said:
Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.
I maybe saw part of the Yale game this year, saw it was the same old deal, and didn't watch a second of Cal basketball after that. And didn't miss it either. If it ever becomes worthy of paying attention to again, I will, but I'm under zero obligation to do that.
bearingup said:
Well this reassures me. I do see that, instead of hiring a mid major star coach who is a risk to be mediocre at the next level, we short cut the process and risk to hire a former mid major coach who has proven to be mediocre at this level. No risk involved. Very smart after all.
This is so spot on, I wish I could "star" it more than once.OaktownBear said:Greg:BearGreg said:
OTB - Appreciate your thoughtful comments.
A data point for you and a question:
Not trying to change your mind in the least but we talked to six coaches/senior media analysts today and off the record, they all said glowing things about Fox.
What's your view of Steve Lavin (oops)as a coach and his resume? Were you surprised no one hired him for eight years after he won 65% of his games at UCLA and had an elite eight and four sweet sixteens?
How often have you had a coach tell you a coach your school just hired sucks? Monty was saying on television broadcasts what a great job that Braun was doing in Braun's last year and he is about as brutally honest as they come. I'm not surprised at all that you would get good reviews. He did a good job at Nevada. He was entirely deserving of the opportunity he got at Georgia. He failed in that opportunity. The Georgia fans are emphatic that he sucked. How do you explain that? They know sucking. They have had decades of sucking. And they got rid of him.
Question: Do you think MustangGreg from SMU found 6 coaches and media analysts that said that Sonny Dykes was awesome. I'm sure he did. I've heard them. Think about Sonny Dykes, Greg. He has a ton of support from coaches and media analysts. You want him back? You are putting way too much stock in "experts" when you have lots of data on the table.
Experts opinions are only good for what you don't know. If a weatherman says it will rain tomorrow, I listen. If he says it is raining right now and it isn't, I don't listen. Bottom line data point. He has a losing record in conference. He had 9 years. And he had a losing record in conference over his last 3 years. That is all on him. How does that change under Cal. You really think we are in that much better of a position than Georgia? Udub certainly thought their awesomeness compared to Cal was going to make Gilby okay. Then they thought their awesomeness was going to make Willingham okay. Then Stanford thought their awesomeness was going to make Walt Harris okay. I don't believe in our awesomeness, Greg. You don't hire a losing coach. Period end of story. Let him rehabilitate somewhere else.
I'm not sure where you are going with your Alford question, but I assume that it has something to do with judging him based on his record on paper. 1. No one hired him true. 2. No one was going to hire Mark Fox until Cal came along. 3. I'm not an expert on Alford. I do, however, know UCLA. It is a storied program with huge recruiting advantages. Any coach should do well there. Everyone expects it and they just don't look at 12-6 at UCLA the same way they look at 12-6 most places. Nor should they. The advantage to coaching at UCLA is you have everything you need to win. The disadvantage is everyone knows that so you better not only win but excel. On top of that, Alford sucked at Iowa. So, no it doesn't surprise me that people are laying off a coach that succeeded some at UCLA after sucking at his other Power conference job. If I were looking at a coach from UCLA, I'd throw out his tenure there from my calculation. In the case of Alford, that would leave me with a guy who looks like Mark Fox. Pass.
So this is what I would challenge you to. How many coaches who had a conference record in a power conference job as bad as or worse than Fox, went on to success at another power conference? Then compare how many didn't go on to success. Then especially think of how many did it by going straight to another Power conference job without a tenure at a mid major first. If you do that honestly and still feel great about this, okay.
You have the statistics and everything you need to know. You don't need to ask 6 coaches and media analysts. You knew the answer when the hire went down. You just want a lifeline. It reminds me of the Dykes era when we'd get the posts that went something like "I was really upset after that 112-17 loss but I watched it again on DVR. It really wasn't that bad. Here's why."
You don't hire a losing coach from anywhere for any reason. You know you don't. It's a bad hire, Greg. You knew it this morning and deep inside you know it now. If this were another school that you are not emotionally attached to making this hire and you had all the info you have, you'd say this hire is a stinker (which is what everyone is saying). I get it. You have to cover Cal going forward. I don't. I don't have to find a coping mechanism. I can just ignore.
It takes little to no effort to tell you guys that your standards are terrible. Honestly, I could just start recycling material from 2-3 years ago and take out names and it would still apply. Cal will Cal.socaltownie said:And yet you are here ;-)Yogi Bear said:What you don't get and what Oaktown understands is my choice is the healthy choice. I spend my money on other things that make me happier. I waste less time on things that make me unhappy. All of you who are twisting yourselves into knots trying to convince yourself that this was an intelligent well-thought out choice are the ones who are going to be bitter.socaltownie said:I get that you are bitter. I am a bit as well (but decided that it wasn't healthy). But you do need to stop with some of this.Yogi Bear said:Only because we choose to cry poor. The university is not poor. In fact, it has a bottomless well of cash when it comes to hiring search firms to find candidates for us that we'll have to buy out in 3-4 years.socaltownie said:
Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.
I maybe saw part of the Yale game this year, saw it was the same old deal, and didn't watch a second of Cal basketball after that. And didn't miss it either. If it ever becomes worthy of paying attention to again, I will, but I'm under zero obligation to do that.
BearGreg said:
OTB - Appreciate your thoughtful comments.
A data point for you and a question:
Not trying to change your mind in the least but we talked to six coaches/senior media analysts today and off the record, they all said glowing things about Fox.
What's your view of Steve Lavin (oops)as a coach and his resume? Were you surprised no one hired him for eight years after he won 65% of his games at UCLA and had an elite eight and four sweet sixteens?
boredom said:BearGreg said:
OTB - Appreciate your thoughtful comments.
A data point for you and a question:
Not trying to change your mind in the least but we talked to six coaches/senior media analysts today and off the record, they all said glowing things about Fox.
What's your view of Steve Lavin (oops)as a coach and his resume? Were you surprised no one hired him for eight years after he won 65% of his games at UCLA and had an elite eight and four sweet sixteens?
I'm not OTB but...
Cal put out some quotes from other coaches supporting the hire. Some of them are obviously bs. For example, Geno Auriemma said "Obviously he did a terrific job at Georgia as a coach." Doesn't seem that obvious to me.
The other coaches may like him and may actually genuinely think he's a great guy and high integrity and blah blah blah. And let's say they're telling the truth. So what? At some point you are what your record says you are. Right now his record says he's a mediocre at best major conference coach.
That Cal put out quotes praising the hire as if they're putting together a movie poster tells me that they knew that the hire would not be popular. Or at the very least that they knew his record sucked and since usually you crow about the new guy's recent success (and our new guy hasn't had success in a decade) they had to come up with something.
If he's so well regarded in the profession why did no one else want him?
Once young Bryce Alford graduated, Coach Alford mentally flat lined and had absolutely nothing to offer. It was unfortunate for players and fans that he waited to grasp this epiphany until midway into the 2018-17 season.socaliganbear said:Fortunately for him, UCLA basketball recruits itself so his limitations were masked by 5* players for a few years.tsubamoto2001 said:
This is basically like UCLA hiring Steve Alford (failure at Iowa) except Fox didn't have to redeem himself at a midmajor like Alford did because he had Jeff Van gundy and some other friends say nice things about him.
I hate to break it to you, but the most elite coaches that you wish we would hire do not want to come to Cal, because we do not have the winning tradition, the fan support, the salary, the easy admissions, and the name brand for recruits that would afford them as coaches the requirements for success.socaliganbear said:BearGreg said:
Curious how you would compare Georgia's tradition in basketball and historical recruiting success (including NBA alums) versus Cal's?
As a comparison, it's be less relevant than the money they have, or facilities, or general attitude towards athletics.
His very long Georgia tenure is very clearly mediocre. We went out and hired mediocrity. This is not a wild claim.
Makes me wonder again about what Wyking had to offer Pitino.tsubamoto2001 said:
I Yup. Rick Pitino praised the Wyking hire. Every newly hired coach gets a testimonial from their buddies in the business.
There is something to this. Not all Cal fans or donors (athletic or campus) are "all in" no matter what. There is plenty fo competition for entertainment or charitable dollars. And. by the way, that is okay. Forces institutions like Cal to be at their best. I might add there is nothing wrong with Beach's approach either.Yogi Bear said:What you don't get and what Oaktown understands is my choice is the healthy choice. I spend my money on other things that make me happier. I waste less time on things that make me unhappy. All of you who are twisting yourselves into knots trying to convince yourself that this was an intelligent well-thought out choice are the ones who are going to be bitter.socaltownie said:I get that you are bitter. I am a bit as well (but decided that it wasn't healthy). But you do need to stop with some of this.Yogi Bear said:Only because we choose to cry poor. The university is not poor. In fact, it has a bottomless well of cash when it comes to hiring search firms to find candidates for us that we'll have to buy out in 3-4 years.socaltownie said:
Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.
I maybe saw part of the Yale game this year, saw it was the same old deal, and didn't watch a second of Cal basketball after that. And didn't miss it either. If it ever becomes worthy of paying attention to again, I will, but I'm under zero obligation to do that.
Perhaps recruiting isn't a big factor for the USA coaches.oski003 said:
The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches.
I expect we have high standards for professors, but Cal professor jobs are probably more highly coveted than Cal coaching jobs.Quote:
why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.oski003 said:
The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
And you know that no one wanted him how? If your source is the Bear Insider, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Ever hear of a coach wanting time away from the rat race of modern ball, the stress of trying to teach young skulls full of mush how to move their feet properly, or teach them the difference between a good shot and a bad one, and convince them not to take the bad ones, or trying to convince parents that he will try to get their kid NBA ready, but he can't promise them how many minutes he can give the kid, not to mention the constant pressure from fans, sportswriters and an AD and more breathing down his neck to win more and put more butts in the seats? Montgomery took time off from coaching, so did Lavin, Raveling, many coaches do this.. It is stressful on mind and body.boredom said:BearGreg said:
OTB - Appreciate your thoughtful comments.
A data point for you and a question:
Not trying to change your mind in the least but we talked to six coaches/senior media analysts today and off the record, they all said glowing things about Fox.
What's your view of Steve Lavin (oops)as a coach and his resume? Were you surprised no one hired him for eight years after he won 65% of his games at UCLA and had an elite eight and four sweet sixteens?
I'm not OTB but...
Cal put out some quotes from other coaches supporting the hire. Some of them are obviously bs. For example, Geno Auriemma said "Obviously he did a terrific job at Georgia as a coach." Doesn't seem that obvious to me.
The other coaches may like him and may actually genuinely think he's a great guy and high integrity and blah blah blah. And let's say they're telling the truth. So what? At some point you are what your record says you are. Right now his record says he's a mediocre at best major conference coach.
That Cal put out quotes praising the hire as if they're putting together a movie poster tells me that they knew that the hire would not be popular. Or at the very least that they knew his record sucked and since usually you crow about the new guy's recent success (and our new guy hasn't had success in a decade) they had to come up with something.
If he's so well regarded in the profession why did no one else want him?
SFCityBear said:This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.oski003 said:
The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.
Thanks, I had missed that. I'm finding it hard to sort out sarcasm from vitriol.oski003 said:
I was being sarcastic and thought it was obvious.
