Story Poster
Photo by KLCfotos
Cal Basketball

The Decision to Hire Mark Fox

March 29, 2019
54,662

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.

Discussion from...

The Decision to Hire Mark Fox

52,113 Views | 187 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by SanseiBear
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

oski003 said:

Civil Bear said:

oski003 said:


He took over an awful team. He improved the team. His last five years were better than the first. He had a winning conference record in the last five years.
He only had one sub. 500 year in the last five, which resulted in him being fired. If he can improve his recruiting, he will be successful at Cal. His first step should be making sure the core players do not transfer.

Fox got fired at Georgia because he wasn't successful enough. If middling success is what you want for Cal, then he's your man.


Obviously, my expectations aren't high enough. A coach with success at low levels will always seem to have more potential than a coach who plateaued at a high level. SARCASM.

Hiring a coach is not always about who maybe could possibly take us to the final four. What round did Montana get to? Sometimes you grind up. I'm sorry if you've experienced too many bad seasons to have faith in the process. Perhaps Fox's Team USA experience helps with recruiting. He can coach.


Can you tell me what the process is that we are supposed to trust?


The process is to hope to be near .500 in 9 years.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

OaktownBear said:


Can you tell me what the process is that we are supposed to trust?

If it's to hope to be near .500 in 9 years, then no thanks.
Sure. That would suck.

I think though that (Jenkins?) there was a good article over last 4 weeks that characterized Cal's current "structural" position in Pac-12 pecking order. Understanding that this can vary and that circumstances can change but it argued that we were positioned to be in the upper 1/2. Not really a top quartile program (UoA, UCLA, Oregon) but the next 1/4 below that. Some years we might slip into the top 3. Some years we might slip out but essentially our natural place was a band between 13-5 and 9-9. That made a ton of sense to me. We will NOT compete with the shoe marketing division. We will have a hard time being even with the southern branch based upon support (our school spends for Fox; their school can afford Bennett). UoA is willing to cheat to win so there.

But right below that is the place Cal structurally should be.

That means we are a bubble team. Some years we get in as an 7 to 10. Some years we don't.

Now you can aspire to higher things. But then on you is what do you want to compromise. Do you want to Cheat (UofA). Do you have 50 million to give to the university (UCLA) or do you want to turn Cal over to Converse and ask them to dictate policy (UoO)? Absent your suggestions of paths forward it is kind just senseless *****ing.

Trust me. Not really happy with a 7 to 10 seed but I have decided that Zen is the best way to make it through the day

#teamhope
FloriDreaming
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not super optimistic about the hire. He'll be better than Jones, but pretty much any hire would be able to beat that bar.

It sounds like the logic here is "shore up the program, get donations, build the facilities, and then if Fox turns out to be mediocre, upgrade at that point." I can live with that rationale so long as Cal follows through - get the donations, build the facilities and hold the HC to a high standard.

I'm less concerned about whether Fox turns out to be a success or not. I'm far more concerned about Cal's willingness to follow through with this supposed "big vision" of big-time NCAA MBB they're talking about. My guess is they'll end up doing what they did in FB - replace a mediocre HC with a slightly better but far from big-time HC and "hope" it works out.

I like Wilcox, but I don't see that program moving to the big-time. It'll look a lot like Sark's UW programs in terms of success - just a little above "meh" but not enough to be in any serious conversations about anything. Fox will likely be one side or the other of "mediocre" and if he ends up being the MBB equivalent of Wilcox (a very possible outcome), there's NO WAY Cal will shoot for the moon and upgrade no matter how much they say they will.

And that's the problem - Fox will be Fox - I can live with that. My fear is Cal will be Cal - and that's a nightmare..
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

Civil Bear said:

OaktownBear said:


Can you tell me what the process is that we are supposed to trust?

If it's to hope to be near .500 in 9 years, then no thanks.
Sure. That would suck.

I think though that (Jenkins?) there was a good article over last 4 weeks that characterized Cal's current "structural" position in Pac-12 pecking order. Understanding that this can vary and that circumstances can change but it argued that we were positioned to be in the upper 1/2. Not really a top quartile program (UoA, UCLA, Oregon) but the next 1/4 below that. Some years we might slip into the top 3. Some years we might slip out but essentially our natural place was a band between 13-5 and 9-9. That made a ton of sense to me. We will NOT compete with the shoe marketing division. We will have a hard time being even with the southern branch based upon support (our school spends for Fox; their school can afford Bennett). UoA is willing to cheat to win so there.

But right below that is the place Cal structurally should be.

That means we are a bubble team. Some years we get in as an 7 to 10. Some years we don't.

Now you can aspire to higher things. But then on you is what do you want to compromise. Do you want to Cheat (UofA). Do you have 50 million to give to the university (UCLA) or do you want to turn Cal over to Converse and ask them to dictate policy (UoO)? Absent your suggestions of paths forward it is kind just senseless *****ing.

Trust me. Not really happy with a 7 to 10 seed but I have decided that Zen is the best way to make it through the day

#teamhope
So-Cal - Thank you for the thoughtful response. My issue, though, is what is the process. Those are goals. Even if Jenkins is accurate, how are we getting there? If that is in fact the goal, how does that inform what was done here? How does what you described lead to Mark Fox over other candidates? Everything you describe still leaves us with the goal of this decision is to be to hire the best candidate available for the resources we can provide, right? Like if Coach K had said, I'm tired of Duke. I've dreamed of living in Berkeley. I'll do that job for a nominal salary, Cal's response isn't "Sorry, you might beat that 7-10 seed we are aiming for. We are going with Mark Fox". Nothing you said changes anyone's analysis on this board about whether this is the right hire. I'm asking those who want us to have faith in the process to tell me what they think that process is?

The reason I ask is every time we have a major decision, good or bad, any criticism is met with "They know what they are doing. They have a plan. Have faith in the process." or it's corollary "you just assume they don't have a plan". Well, that argument is assuming that they DO have a plan.

I DON'T THINK THEY DO. The reason why I believe this is because all of my life there has been no indication that they do. Occasionally they go as far as having a general goal (like you describe above). I have never seen anything approaching a goal + a vision to get there. I see them making decisions on an ad hoc basis as they come up. Especially coaching decisions. We need to hire a coach. Call the search firm. Mark Fox? Sound good!

I submit to you that there is no process to trust. Every time a decision has appeared foolish, the decision has turned out to be foolish. I submit that those that say "trust the process" are just throwing words out there. They don't know if there even is a process. They certainly don't know what it is. Trusting the process, like for instance with the 76ers who made the term recently famous, means we have developed a strategy. This is what it is. It may work or it may not, but we are going to "trust the process" and see this strategy through to the end, because no strategy can work if you keep changing midstream. We agree on a strategy, we see it through. If it works, great. If it doesn't, we come up with a new strategy. In the case of the 76ers, the point was "Okay, guys. Part of this process is we are going to suck for a little bit. But there will be a pay off." There is no indication at Cal that there will be a pay off.

I would love for Cal to have a strategy, communicate that strategy, and see it through. They certainly haven't communicated one. They certainly have never followed through with one.

It feels like being told to have faith in the process is just a demand to not question decisions of the athletic department, but consciously or subconsciously they know that doesn't fly so they throw "process" in there to make it more palatable to themselves as much others. So when pushed, they never come up with a serious answer. And I'm sorry, Cal's athletic department lost this benefit of the doubt decades ago. And those that want to "hope for the best" and be "cautiously optimistic" just perpetuate a cycle of no repercussions for the athletic department.

See, I can compartmentalize. I hope for the best too. I can be cautiously optimistic too. We aren't doomed. I'm not saying we are. I'm saying this is a poor hire and should be treated as such. I completely support Mark Fox and hope he does well. (in fact, I'm at the point where if Cal is going to make stupid decisions and fans will blindly support them, I am 100% against paying any more buyouts because the university should not be paying $1 for the lack of accountability of one of its departments. We just paid $2.5M per year after the buyout for a crappy, no experience coach who wasn't going to be offered a job anywhere that paid him more than $300K because we made a moronic hire and there was no accountability. As far as I'm concerned, you guys want Fox, he gets through the end of his contract term). You don't need 5 years to judge a hire.

No. I do not have faith in a process that has never been communicated where there is no evidence one exists. I don't have faith that there is one when the last 50 years have indicated otherwise. If you want to tell me "have faith in the process", tell me what the process is and how we are following it. Otherwise you are asking for blind faith, and I'm not giving that.
DavisBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought the press conference was just ok, Fox is a pretty stiff guy. Not a ton of energy. Lots of coach talk
tsubamoto2001
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That explains the struggles in recruiting.

DavisBear said:

I thought the press conference was just ok, Fox is a pretty stiff guy. Not a ton of energy. Lots of coach talk
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

I'm not super optimistic about the hire. He'll be better than Jones, but pretty much any hire would be able to beat that bar.

It sounds like the logic here is "shore up the program, get donations, build the facilities, and then if Fox turns out to be mediocre, upgrade at that point." I can live with that rationale so long as Cal follows through - get the donations, build the facilities and hold the HC to a high standard.

I'm less concerned about whether Fox turns out to be a success or not. I'm far more concerned about Cal's willingness to follow through with this supposed "big vision" of big-time NCAA MBB they're talking about. My guess is they'll end up doing what they did in FB - replace a mediocre HC with a slightly better but far from big-time HC and "hope" it works out.

I like Wilcox, but I don't see that program moving to the big-time. It'll look a lot like Sark's UW programs in terms of success - just a little above "meh" but not enough to be in any serious conversations about anything. Fox will likely be one side or the other of "mediocre" and if he ends up being the MBB equivalent of Wilcox (a very possible outcome), there's NO WAY Cal will shoot for the moon and upgrade no matter how much they say they will.

And that's the problem - Fox will be Fox - I can live with that. My fear is Cal will be Cal - and that's a nightmare..
This is the problem. Does anyone think that will happen?

Cal spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars on the football program, and a lot of us assumed that meant they were getting serious because you don't spend hundreds of millions without a plan to follow through. But it turns out that their plan was to build a stadium and training facility and hope the program magically did better without any further investment. Literally every day since the stadium opened, the football program has performed worse and made less money than the day we broke ground. And we followed up by going cheap on head coaching salaries and really cheap on assistant coaching salaries as well as everything else. If Cal was going to spend all that money, they needed to have a complete strategy going forward. A public entity investing that kind of money with no plan is almost criminal. At this point we have a far worse program and a far less healthy program then we had before and a bill for several hundred million dollars, a large percentage of which was totally discretionary, added on. If spending hundreds of millions of dollars was not enough of a trigger for them to develop a strategy and follow through, I'm not confident they are doing so now.

Your last sentence sums up how I'm feeling about this.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DavisBear said:

I thought the press conference was just ok, Fox is a pretty stiff guy. Not a ton of energy. Lots of coach talk
Agreed. But that was what I expected. Of the last few revenue hire press conferences, I'd put him second to last above Wilcox. I'd rate them as follows:

Martin (good)
Dykes (pretty good)
Jones (pretty good)
Fox (meh)
Wilcox (first time, buddy?)

But that's just the intro presser and not a strong correlation to effectiveness as a head coach. Wilcox press conferences have improved dramatically and Dykes and Jones got significantly worse over time. Martin just seemed to repeat the same stuff until the end.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As usual, OTB, a thoughtful post, albeit with some serious hyperbole. (when you say "every day is literally worse than before" do you really mean that last season's 7-6 team was literally worse than Sonny's 1-11 team?)

Where I take issue is your lumping together every administration. I can see the temptation, since the outcome hasn't seemed to vary from AD to AD or Chancellor to Chancellor, but I believe that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits, not those of Berdahl or Birgeneau or Gladstone or Williams. You may feel that there is enough data to indicate that Christ/Knowlton are already failures in athletics, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. I was not pleased with the hire; I do think it doesn't move the excitement needle much, but I'm willing to wait and see what happens. If Knowlton gets other elements of the department in line (practice facility, fundraising, etc.) and Fox turns out to be a decent coach, I'm willing to say things are changing. If not, well I guess you are right.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

Civil Bear said:

OaktownBear said:


Can you tell me what the process is that we are supposed to trust?

If it's to hope to be near .500 in 9 years, then no thanks.
Sure. That would suck.

I think though that (Jenkins?) there was a good article over last 4 weeks that characterized Cal's current "structural" position in Pac-12 pecking order. Understanding that this can vary and that circumstances can change but it argued that we were positioned to be in the upper 1/2. Not really a top quartile program (UoA, UCLA, Oregon) but the next 1/4 below that. Some years we might slip into the top 3. Some years we might slip out but essentially our natural place was a band between 13-5 and 9-9. That made a ton of sense to me. We will NOT compete with the shoe marketing division. We will have a hard time being even with the southern branch based upon support (our school spends for Fox; their school can afford Bennett). UoA is willing to cheat to win so there.

But right below that is the place Cal structurally should be.

That means we are a bubble team. Some years we get in as an 7 to 10. Some years we don't.

Now you can aspire to higher things. But then on you is what do you want to compromise. Do you want to Cheat (UofA). Do you have 50 million to give to the university (UCLA) or do you want to turn Cal over to Converse and ask them to dictate policy (UoO)? Absent your suggestions of paths forward it is kind just senseless *****ing.

Trust me. Not really happy with a 7 to 10 seed but I have decided that Zen is the best way to make it through the day

#teamhope

Good post. My only comment is that if Cal doesn't want to compete for conference titles then it should get out of the conference.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

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?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

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.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
OK, so he is a .500 coach in his last conference. A losing coach by your definition is a coach who loses more games than he wins, so Fox is not a losing coach, in conference. He was not a losing coach overall at Georgia, as he has a .551 record. Considering his time at Nevada, he was 64-16 in conference in five years, a .800 winning percentage. He is an overall winning coach in his two conferences, a .600 winning percentage.

It is one thing I don't see mentioned much about Fox, if at all. His time at Reno. As if it never happened. The WAC is not a chopped liver conference. Those in favor of Decuire (whose good record in the Big Sky is not as good as Fox's in the WAC - Fox with 4 Conference titles in 5 years vs 2 titles for DeCuire in 5 years) should consider Fox's early record. And the WAC is a stronger conference by almost any measure, SOS, BPI, etc.

Fox began his career at Georgia hoping to straighten out the mess left by previous coach Dennis Felton, who had 6 losing seasons in 6 years in conference, and a conference win percentage of .302. Fox's .500 probably looked good compared to that. It took Fox 2 years to have a winning season in conference, and 3 more years to become competitive, with his 3 best seasons in conference in a row, 12, 11, and 10 wins. Maybe one reason he was hired was that he had turned a program around before at Georgia. Hopefully, he will do it faster this time, but Cal fans will not give him a long leash.

Being under . 500 in conference is not breaking .500 in conference.

Yes, I am well aware Fox was a winning coach in a minor conference over a decade ago. Lots of people have already brought it up.

The difference between Fox and Decure is that Decure hasn't yet proven he can't win at the next level.
Tsubamoto pointed out my error. It was an error in addition. Sorry. .500 or two games below .500, Fox was still an average coach in conference, over all. Overall records don't mean nearly as much as recent records, and the second half of Fox's career at Georgia was better than the first half, as someone else just pointed out. He arrived and found a very weak roster from a losing team with I think a 6 year streak of losing seasons. Over the next few seasons he made Georgia a little better. Previous Georgia coach Felton had a .302 record in conference. Fox's was way better than that.

Fox was not just a winning coach in a minor conference. He dominated the conference with 4 titles in 5 years. Better record than DeCuire's (which is good) and in a much higher ranked conference than DeCuire's Big Sky. There are a number of differences between Fox and Decuire. Not only has DeCuire not yet proven he can win at the next level, but he has not yet proven he can get hired at the next level. Fox has 9 more years of head coach experience than DeCuire. He proved he can win at the next level. Georgia, I read here, has had a tougher non-conference schedule, plus always having to play Kentucky and other good teams a few times. And by the way, if the PAC12 keeps trending down, it will soon become one of your minor conferences and not be "the next level".

Look, Fox is not coach K or Bill Self or whoever you wanted. He is a coach with a record who had some success turning a team around to get it out of the cellar, and an outstanding record at in a minor conference. You and others have some questions, good ones, about what he might bring to Cal. The fear I'd have is he'd be Ben Braun all over again, but Ben had his good points, recruited some fine players, had a few good teams. I don't have any fear that Fox will continue the Wyking Jones string of poor play and losing most games. Can't we just accept the fact that Fox is the new coach. There is nothing we can do about it for a while, and let's see how it plays out?
SFCityBear
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

socaltownie said:

Civil Bear said:

OaktownBear said:


Can you tell me what the process is that we are supposed to trust?

If it's to hope to be near .500 in 9 years, then no thanks.
Sure. That would suck.

I think though that (Jenkins?) there was a good article over last 4 weeks that characterized Cal's current "structural" position in Pac-12 pecking order. Understanding that this can vary and that circumstances can change but it argued that we were positioned to be in the upper 1/2. Not really a top quartile program (UoA, UCLA, Oregon) but the next 1/4 below that. Some years we might slip into the top 3. Some years we might slip out but essentially our natural place was a band between 13-5 and 9-9. That made a ton of sense to me. We will NOT compete with the shoe marketing division. We will have a hard time being even with the southern branch based upon support (our school spends for Fox; their school can afford Bennett). UoA is willing to cheat to win so there.

But right below that is the place Cal structurally should be.

That means we are a bubble team. Some years we get in as an 7 to 10. Some years we don't.

Now you can aspire to higher things. But then on you is what do you want to compromise. Do you want to Cheat (UofA). Do you have 50 million to give to the university (UCLA) or do you want to turn Cal over to Converse and ask them to dictate policy (UoO)? Absent your suggestions of paths forward it is kind just senseless *****ing.

Trust me. Not really happy with a 7 to 10 seed but I have decided that Zen is the best way to make it through the day

#teamhope
So-Cal - Thank you for the thoughtful response. My issue, though, is what is the process. Those are goals. Even if Jenkins is accurate, how are we getting there? If that is in fact the goal, how does that inform what was done here? How does what you described lead to Mark Fox over other candidates? Everything you describe still leaves us with the goal of this decision is to be to hire the best candidate available for the resources we can provide, right? Like if Coach K had said, I'm tired of Duke. I've dreamed of living in Berkeley. I'll do that job for a nominal salary, Cal's response isn't "Sorry, you might beat that 7-10 seed we are aiming for. We are going with Mark Fox". Nothing you said changes anyone's analysis on this board about whether this is the right hire. I'm asking those who want us to have faith in the process to tell me what they think that process is?

The reason I ask is every time we have a major decision, good or bad, any criticism is met with "They know what they are doing. They have a plan. Have faith in the process." or it's corollary "you just assume they don't have a plan". Well, that argument is assuming that they DO have a plan.

I DON'T THINK THEY DO. The reason why I believe this is because all of my life there has been no indication that they do. Occasionally they go as far as having a general goal (like you describe above). I have never seen anything approaching a goal + a vision to get there. I see them making decisions on an ad hoc basis as they come up. Especially coaching decisions. We need to hire a coach. Call the search firm. Mark Fox? Sound good!

I submit to you that there is no process to trust. Every time a decision has appeared foolish, the decision has turned out to be foolish. I submit that those that say "trust the process" are just throwing words out there. They don't know if there even is a process. They certainly don't know what it is. Trusting the process, like for instance with the 76ers who made the term recently famous, means we have developed a strategy. This is what it is. It may work or it may not, but we are going to "trust the process" and see this strategy through to the end, because no strategy can work if you keep changing midstream. We agree on a strategy, we see it through. If it works, great. If it doesn't, we come up with a new strategy. In the case of the 76ers, the point was "Okay, guys. Part of this process is we are going to suck for a little bit. But there will be a pay off." There is no indication at Cal that there will be a pay off.

I would love for Cal to have a strategy, communicate that strategy, and see it through. They certainly haven't communicated one. They certainly have never followed through with one.

It feels like being told to have faith in the process is just a demand to not question decisions of the athletic department, but consciously or subconsciously they know that doesn't fly so they throw "process" in there to make it more palatable to themselves as much others. So when pushed, they never come up with a serious answer. And I'm sorry, Cal's athletic department lost this benefit of the doubt decades ago. And those that want to "hope for the best" and be "cautiously optimistic" just perpetuate a cycle of no repercussions for the athletic department.

See, I can compartmentalize. I hope for the best too. I can be cautiously optimistic too. We aren't doomed. I'm not saying we are. I'm saying this is a poor hire and should be treated as such. I completely support Mark Fox and hope he does well. (in fact, I'm at the point where if Cal is going to make stupid decisions and fans will blindly support them, I am 100% against paying any more buyouts because the university should not be paying $1 for the lack of accountability of one of its departments. We just paid $2.5M per year after the buyout for a crappy, no experience coach who wasn't going to be offered a job anywhere that paid him more than $300K because we made a moronic hire and there was no accountability. As far as I'm concerned, you guys want Fox, he gets through the end of his contract term). You don't need 5 years to judge a hire.

No. I do not have faith in a process that has never been communicated where there is no evidence one exists. I don't have faith that there is one when the last 50 years have indicated otherwise. If you want to tell me "have faith in the process", tell me what the process is and how we are following it. Otherwise you are asking for blind faith, and I'm not giving that.
I think they DO have a strategy - it is just that communicating it wouldn't necessarily move tickets and keep "fans" other than those VERY close (aka about 1/3 of the readers of BI) happy.


1) They can not break the bank. This puts our budget, at the high end, in the 1.5 to 2 million range that is below P6 going rates. This is a function of the overall revenues of the department and constraints by the lack of $$ from the P12 network. Saying that out loud would make people sad but it is clear - or else we would get into a bidding war for some of the up and coming P5 conference coaches.

2) They will prioritize football over basketball and that reflects donor interest. We know that because, according to rumors, Sandy was camping out in Idaho HOPING to lure Peterson. SO it tells me that, if the right candidate is on the market, those with purse strings will invest in football. That doesn't seem to be the case in Hoops - where, for example, we have been on the market with some VERY mid-major hot candidates and never played.

3) THey will always prioritize graduating players over Wins. It is telling fox at his news conference highlighted that at Georgia and their APR. Honestly I am OK with that. I love wins. I love seeing kids like Jorge walk more.

4) They rightly worry that cal requires "management" skills. The challenge with a guy like Travis (or any mid-major) is that Cal is a HARD place to manage up, across and down at. One of the reasons I have always been a Turner fan (until last week) is that I figured that a guy who could get it done at UCI would have a minimal learning curve to understand, for example, who the heck the OoP is and why it is important.

5) Big fish REALLY drive AD decisions at Cal. This relates to #1 but I am increasingly convinced there are a few donors, some who post her, who have a big influence on AD decisions at Cal _AND_ that they do not prioritize wins at all costs. I am not sure that they like LOSING but it is very important that the Athletic Department is aligned to how THEY see Cal. A Mid Major was always going to be a reach because that is not how they see Cal. Ditto (sadly) a guy like Turner because these donors dont' buy into (perhaps correctly) that Cal is one of 10 but rather see it as a "flagship". Thus the hire needs to "fit the mold".

If you look at 1-5 then Fox makes sense. Relatively Cheap. Graduates his players. 14 years of coaching. Universally acclaimed for managing the "inside" game. Won't land the program in hotwater. Will keep the APR where it needs to be. Will be "respectable."

THe problem is that the above isn't going to get the masses "fired up." But is their strategy.

#teamhope
3146gabby
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perhaps not a major explanation, but my guess is that Georgia recruiting in the SEC (Kentucky, Florida, et al) puts that school at major disadvantage for any coach hired there....

Like historically recruiting against UCLA, Arizona?
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

As usual, OTB, a thoughtful post, albeit with some serious hyperbole. (when you say "every day is literally worse than before" do you really mean that last season's 7-6 team was literally worse than Sonny's 1-11 team?)

Where I take issue is your lumping together every administration. I can see the temptation, since the outcome hasn't seemed to vary from AD to AD or Chancellor to Chancellor, but I believe that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits, not those of Berdahl or Birgeneau or Gladstone or Williams. You may feel that there is enough data to indicate that Christ/Knowlton are already failures in athletics, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. I was not pleased with the hire; I do think it doesn't move the excitement needle much, but I'm willing to wait and see what happens. If Knowlton gets other elements of the department in line (practice facility, fundraising, etc.) and Fox turns out to be a decent coach, I'm willing to say things are changing. If not, well I guess you are right.
Ursa:

First of all, on the hyperbole point, you misquoted me, which I point out because your understanding of what I said was not what I was trying to convey. I said "Literally every day since the stadium opened, the football program has performed worse and made less money than the day we broke ground." I'm not saying every day we get worse. (obviously last season was better than Sonny's first). I'm saying we invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the program. We broke ground on that investment. I'm saying take a snapshot of the program the day we broke ground. The investment was then realized in the opening of the stadium and on that day, and every day since, the program has been worse than the program was when we broke ground. I stand by that statement. So financially what did we get for that investment? Cal can't afford to spend money for alumni tushies to be more comfortable or student athlete lockers to be better or even training facilities to be better. Those things are a means to an end - that being more success and more revenue. And what we have gotten is less success and less revenue than we had before. That is not to say the investment in the stadium and training facility was bad. It is to say the investment with no follow through is bad. We need to pick. Go cheap or invest with a plan and follow through and knowing it will require further investment. Investing with no follow through means we chucked our money into the toilet.

But the second issue is really the substantive point. I get what you are saying. However, as much as it might seem that I am lumping together every administration, that is not my intent. I am using past to analyze how Cal fans judge every administration and why that is faulty. I 100% agree that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits.

What I am saying is that Cal fans judge every administration by the magic bean philosophy. New administration comes in. They say "our goal is to compete for conference championships/Rose Bowls" You've heard that once or twice, right? (Though now they seem to be downgrading that). Do they tell you how they'll do that? No. Then nothing happens. And Cal fans say "Oh, I know. They planted magic beans. It's all germinating under the surface. We just can't see it yet. One morning we will wake up and there will be a giant beanstalk." Then there is never a beanstalk. Then the next administration comes in and its "no, no, no. The last administration sucked. Turns out they never planted beans. THIS administration is planting beans. It's all germinating under the surface. We just can't see it yet. One morning there will be a giant beanstalk."

I'm saying, show me the beans.

In 8 days, Knowlton will have been on the job for a year. Nothing has happened. We are far beyond the point that he should have his own stamp on this department and some good changes would have been made that are visible to the public. Cal needs more than an administration that keeps the Yugo steered in the same lane and maybe fund raises a little better. It needs more than getting "other elements of the department in line". A practice facility is not going to fundamentally change the fortunes of this department. A little bit better fundraising is not going to change the fortunes of this department. You are just swapping out Tom Holmoe for Sonny Dykes. If the beanstalk was coming, we'd see sprouts by now.

And now, a year in, we have the first major decision. A decision that it was very apparent the day that Knowlton was hire was very likely to have to be made. He had a year to prepare. And the decision was a very Cal decision handled in a very Cal way. So now, I'm watching Knowlton in the garden spraying all over from a can labeled "Bean-be-gone. Guaranteed to kill all beanstalks before they grow" and I'm still supposed to think the beanstalk is coming.

You say that I feel there is enough data to indicate they are failures. I said nothing for 11 months and 2 weeks. I think at this point, you are asking the question in the wrong direction. What is the indication that anything positive is brewing? You say you are not pleased by the hire, but you are waiting. You say you'll know things are changing IF Knowlton gets other elements in line. So the major decision you CAN see, you don't like. And you are waiting to see if things you CAN'T see happen. Shouldn't you see some of those things by now? How long are you willing to wait.

The administration has had a year to articulate a vision. And no, we want to compete for championships is not a vision. We want to be a mid tier program is not a vision. A vision is "this is what we want. this is how we get there. These are the specific steps we are going to take to do that." They have not articulated a vision. They have not changed any practices. They struggled to decide whether to terminate possibly the worst coach in the history of Cal revenue sports. Then they made an at best uninspiring hire. That is what I'm judging them on.

All the past administrations failures - that is what I'm judging the fans that want to wait and see on. Because they always wait and see. The reckoning never comes. The fan that stood by 25 times having faith that the beanstalk is coming and had no beanstalk come, and then for the 26th time tells me it's all happening beneath the surface, I'm sorry, no.

By the way, I'm realizing the Great Pumpkin might have been a better analogy, but it's too late to rewrite. Suffice it to say, I ain't gonna be Sally. All the Linuses can freeze in the pumpkin patch with their security blankets.
Genocide Joe 58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


By the way, I'm realizing the Great Pumpkin might have been a better analogy, but it's too late to rewrite. Suffice it to say, I ain't gonna be Sally. All the Linuses can freeze in the pumpkin patch with their security blankets.
LOLOLOLOL. So true.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

As usual, OTB, a thoughtful post, albeit with some serious hyperbole. (when you say "every day is literally worse than before" do you really mean that last season's 7-6 team was literally worse than Sonny's 1-11 team?)

Where I take issue is your lumping together every administration. I can see the temptation, since the outcome hasn't seemed to vary from AD to AD or Chancellor to Chancellor, but I believe that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits, not those of Berdahl or Birgeneau or Gladstone or Williams. You may feel that there is enough data to indicate that Christ/Knowlton are already failures in athletics, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. I was not pleased with the hire; I do think it doesn't move the excitement needle much, but I'm willing to wait and see what happens. If Knowlton gets other elements of the department in line (practice facility, fundraising, etc.) and Fox turns out to be a decent coach, I'm willing to say things are changing. If not, well I guess you are right.
Ursa:

First of all, on the hyperbole point, you misquoted me, which I point out because your understanding of what I said was not what I was trying to convey. I said "Literally every day since the stadium opened, the football program has performed worse and made less money than the day we broke ground." I'm not saying every day we get worse. (obviously last season was better than Sonny's first). I'm saying we invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the program. We broke ground on that investment. I'm saying take a snapshot of the program the day we broke ground. The investment was then realized in the opening of the stadium and on that day, and every day since, the program has been worse than the program was when we broke ground. I stand by that statement. So financially what did we get for that investment? Cal can't afford to spend money for alumni tushies to be more comfortable or student athlete lockers to be better or even training facilities to be better. Those things are a means to an end - that being more success and more revenue. And what we have gotten is less success and less revenue than we had before. That is not to say the investment in the stadium and training facility was bad. It is to say the investment with no follow through is bad. We need to pick. Go cheap or invest with a plan and follow through and knowing it will require further investment. Investing with no follow through means we chucked our money into the toilet.

But the second issue is really the substantive point. I get what you are saying. However, as much as it might seem that I am lumping together every administration, that is not my intent. I am using past to analyze how Cal fans judge every administration and why that is faulty. I 100% agree that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits.

What I am saying is that Cal fans judge every administration by the magic bean philosophy. New administration comes in. They say "our goal is to compete for conference championships/Rose Bowls" You've heard that once or twice, right? (Though now they seem to be downgrading that). Do they tell you how they'll do that? No. Then nothing happens. And Cal fans say "Oh, I know. They planted magic beans. It's all germinating under the surface. We just can't see it yet. One morning we will wake up and there will be a giant beanstalk." Then there is never a beanstalk. Then the next administration comes in and its "no, no, no. The last administration sucked. Turns out they never planted beans. THIS administration is planting beans. It's all germinating under the surface. We just can't see it yet. One morning there will be a giant beanstalk."

I'm saying, show me the beans.

In 8 days, Knowlton will have been on the job for a year. Nothing has happened. We are far beyond the point that he should have his own stamp on this department and some good changes would have been made that are visible to the public. Cal needs more than an administration that keeps the Yugo steered in the same lane and maybe fund raises a little better. It needs more than getting "other elements of the department in line". A practice facility is not going to fundamentally change the fortunes of this department. A little bit better fundraising is not going to change the fortunes of this department. You are just swapping out Tom Holmoe for Sonny Dykes. If the beanstalk was coming, we'd see sprouts by now.

And now, a year in, we have the first major decision. A decision that it was very apparent the day that Knowlton was hire was very likely to have to be made. He had a year to prepare. And the decision was a very Cal decision handled in a very Cal way. So now, I'm watching Knowlton in the garden spraying all over from a can labeled "Bean-be-gone. Guaranteed to kill all beanstalks before they grow" and I'm still supposed to think the beanstalk is coming.

You say that I feel there is enough data to indicate they are failures. I said nothing for 11 months and 2 weeks. I think at this point, you are asking the question in the wrong direction. What is the indication that anything positive is brewing? You say you are not pleased by the hire, but you are waiting. You say you'll know things are changing IF Knowlton gets other elements in line. So the major decision you CAN see, you don't like. And you are waiting to see if things you CAN'T see happen. Shouldn't you see some of those things by now? How long are you willing to wait.

The administration has had a year to articulate a vision. And no, we want to compete for championships is not a vision. We want to be a mid tier program is not a vision. A vision is "this is what we want. this is how we get there. These are the specific steps we are going to take to do that." They have not articulated a vision. They have not changed any practices. They struggled to decide whether to terminate possibly the worst coach in the history of Cal revenue sports. Then they made an at best uninspiring hire. That is what I'm judging them on.

All the past administrations failures - that is what I'm judging the fans that want to wait and see on. Because they always wait and see. The reckoning never comes. The fan that stood by 25 times having faith that the beanstalk is coming and had no beanstalk come, and then for the 26th time tells me it's all happening beneath the surface, I'm sorry, no.

By the way, I'm realizing the Great Pumpkin might have been a better analogy, but it's too late to rewrite. Suffice it to say, I ain't gonna be Sally. All the Linuses can freeze in the pumpkin patch with their security blankets.
OTB -

What you describe is dysfunction in the athletic department. And I can't really argue that the athletic department has not been dysfunctional on almost every level (objective, design, execution and communication). I think where we disagree is that there IS evidence that the current regime is less dysfunctional than in the past. For example, when I speak with Jim Knowlton and Carol Christ - they actually speak to me. There is some obvious bs in there, but it is a far cry from prior administrations (Williams would avoid communicating me, when directly engaged and both Birgenau and Dierks were only concerned with my donations to the Math Dept, when we were talking about sports). I would also say that Knowlton has demonstrated evidence of less dysfunction than Williams (but my cat could have done that). Better, but still dysfunctional.

I also think there is more going on than you are aware of and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In particular when discussing a personnel hire - discretion often benefits both sides (fans don't count). I'm surmising by your posts that you are aware that Decuire was interested in the Cal job (but it doesn't seem you are aware he was interested in other jobs as well). Your post also seems to suggest a lack or process. As days pass, we are learning more about it, but it was kept discrete. For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS. He only announced it after the season. Which is the correct methodology, IMHO. Announcing that we was looking for Jones replacement in January would not have been helpful. You may desire and argue for complete instant transparency, but I would disagree.

Anyway, at this point in time, I still feel TD would have been a better hire than MF, but as more and more info is coming to light, I must admit that the decision may not be as bad as you portray and the process may not be as random as you suggest. The results will speak for themselves and we will know a lot in year 1. No need to wait 9 years. No need for Blind Faith, but also probably don't need to abandon the program. I'm confident there is a happy medium somewhere. I'm also confident that collectively, the stakeholders haven't found it - and I'm not sure we are much closer.

But your description of the fan base as Linus with the Great Pumpkin is hilarious and spot on in some cases. There are also many Sallies and a couple Charlies, Lucies and Shroders in this group as well. However, I think most of those voices were the ones that have been silent for the last few months. So perhaps a different subset of Cal fandom and BI subscribers. Similarly blind faith is one extreme. Eeyore is another. Most are in between somewhere.

BTW - as for the vision. I believe it is along the lines that the Athletic Department wants to work in partnership with the university and move towards excellence for all sports. It seems that the movement of stadium debt payments and the plan for Edwards are evidence of that vision.
Genocide Joe 58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:


For example, when I speak with Jim Knowlton and Carol Christ - they actually speak to me.
Knowlton and Christ are far from the first Cal administrators to try to get people to part with their money by making them feel important and heard. What matters is what they do, not how they make you feel like your opinion matters.

Quote:

Quote:

For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS.

Why do people abandon critical thinking skills and just accept what they are told to pacify them?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
3146gabby said:

Perhaps not a major explanation, but my guess is that Georgia recruiting in the SEC (Kentucky, Florida, et al) puts that school at major disadvantage for any coach hired there....

Like historically recruiting against UCLA, Arizona?


Probably the best analogy would be USC? Georgia and Atlanta specifically is one of the best recruiting bases in the country. They lack a tradition and they worsen it with bad coaching hires.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

3146gabby said:

Perhaps not a major explanation, but my guess is that Georgia recruiting in the SEC (Kentucky, Florida, et al) puts that school at major disadvantage for any coach hired there....

Like historically recruiting against UCLA, Arizona?


Probably the best analogy would be USC? Georgia and Atlanta specifically is one of the best recruiting bases in the country. They lack a tradition and they worsen it with bad coaching hires.
That is probably as close as any. The one caveat is that Athens is 70 miles from Atlanta. So it would be as if USC was in Riverside while UCLA (georgia tech) has more tradition of winning and is located in the heart of Atlanta.
GoCalBears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Fox is a great X&O coach and his Achilles heel is the inability to recruit talented players...then what prevented him from getting an ace recruiter at UGA during his tenure? the ATL is a hotbed for blue chip players.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoCalBears said:

If Fox is a great X&O coach and his Achilles heel is the inability to recruit talented players...then what prevented him from getting an ace recruiter at UGA during his tenure? the ATL is a hotbed for blue chip players.
Because the SEC is dirty as sin and he wouldn't agree to pay his players?
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoCalBears said:

If Fox is a great X&O coach and his Achilles heel is the inability to recruit talented players...then what prevented him from getting an ace recruiter at UGA during his tenure? the ATL is a hotbed for blue chip players.

Doesn't matter. Talented players aren't needed.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

BeachedBear said:


For example, when I speak with Jim Knowlton and Carol Christ - they actually speak to me.
Knowlton and Christ are far from the first Cal administrators to try to get people to part with their money by making them feel important and heard. What matters is what they do, not how they make you feel like your opinion matters.

Quote:

Quote:

For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS.

Why do people abandon critical thinking skills and just accept what they are told to pacify them?
And here I thought you had me on ignore, Yogi.

Points well taken, but I think you misunderstood my context. OTB claimed there was no evidence and suggested that everyone else is defending the administration and praising victory. Regardless which conspiracy you follow, both of the examples that you cherry picked are evidence of different behaviors than the prior regime(s). There are more.

That's all I was claiming. Didn't say it was a great hire. Didn't say I like it. Didn't claim the current administration is not dysfunctional as well. Not encouraging anyone to donate or attend. In fact, I've recommended against it in many other posts, because why toss good money after bad. But equating current with past and taking an extreme position is just as 'Blind' as blind faith - and warrants a response IMHO (just as your response was warranted).

Go Bears!

tsubamoto2001
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So Knowlton has been eyeing coaches for months and the best he could do was get someone that didn't currently have a college job? You're either lying or Knowlton is as incompetent as I think he is.

BeachedBear said:

OaktownBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

As usual, OTB, a thoughtful post, albeit with some serious hyperbole. (when you say "every day is literally worse than before" do you really mean that last season's 7-6 team was literally worse than Sonny's 1-11 team?)

Where I take issue is your lumping together every administration. I can see the temptation, since the outcome hasn't seemed to vary from AD to AD or Chancellor to Chancellor, but I believe that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits, not those of Berdahl or Birgeneau or Gladstone or Williams. You may feel that there is enough data to indicate that Christ/Knowlton are already failures in athletics, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. I was not pleased with the hire; I do think it doesn't move the excitement needle much, but I'm willing to wait and see what happens. If Knowlton gets other elements of the department in line (practice facility, fundraising, etc.) and Fox turns out to be a decent coach, I'm willing to say things are changing. If not, well I guess you are right.
Ursa:

First of all, on the hyperbole point, you misquoted me, which I point out because your understanding of what I said was not what I was trying to convey. I said "Literally every day since the stadium opened, the football program has performed worse and made less money than the day we broke ground." I'm not saying every day we get worse. (obviously last season was better than Sonny's first). I'm saying we invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the program. We broke ground on that investment. I'm saying take a snapshot of the program the day we broke ground. The investment was then realized in the opening of the stadium and on that day, and every day since, the program has been worse than the program was when we broke ground. I stand by that statement. So financially what did we get for that investment? Cal can't afford to spend money for alumni tushies to be more comfortable or student athlete lockers to be better or even training facilities to be better. Those things are a means to an end - that being more success and more revenue. And what we have gotten is less success and less revenue than we had before. That is not to say the investment in the stadium and training facility was bad. It is to say the investment with no follow through is bad. We need to pick. Go cheap or invest with a plan and follow through and knowing it will require further investment. Investing with no follow through means we chucked our money into the toilet.

But the second issue is really the substantive point. I get what you are saying. However, as much as it might seem that I am lumping together every administration, that is not my intent. I am using past to analyze how Cal fans judge every administration and why that is faulty. I 100% agree that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits.

What I am saying is that Cal fans judge every administration by the magic bean philosophy. New administration comes in. They say "our goal is to compete for conference championships/Rose Bowls" You've heard that once or twice, right? (Though now they seem to be downgrading that). Do they tell you how they'll do that? No. Then nothing happens. And Cal fans say "Oh, I know. They planted magic beans. It's all germinating under the surface. We just can't see it yet. One morning we will wake up and there will be a giant beanstalk." Then there is never a beanstalk. Then the next administration comes in and its "no, no, no. The last administration sucked. Turns out they never planted beans. THIS administration is planting beans. It's all germinating under the surface. We just can't see it yet. One morning there will be a giant beanstalk."

I'm saying, show me the beans.

In 8 days, Knowlton will have been on the job for a year. Nothing has happened. We are far beyond the point that he should have his own stamp on this department and some good changes would have been made that are visible to the public. Cal needs more than an administration that keeps the Yugo steered in the same lane and maybe fund raises a little better. It needs more than getting "other elements of the department in line". A practice facility is not going to fundamentally change the fortunes of this department. A little bit better fundraising is not going to change the fortunes of this department. You are just swapping out Tom Holmoe for Sonny Dykes. If the beanstalk was coming, we'd see sprouts by now.

And now, a year in, we have the first major decision. A decision that it was very apparent the day that Knowlton was hire was very likely to have to be made. He had a year to prepare. And the decision was a very Cal decision handled in a very Cal way. So now, I'm watching Knowlton in the garden spraying all over from a can labeled "Bean-be-gone. Guaranteed to kill all beanstalks before they grow" and I'm still supposed to think the beanstalk is coming.

You say that I feel there is enough data to indicate they are failures. I said nothing for 11 months and 2 weeks. I think at this point, you are asking the question in the wrong direction. What is the indication that anything positive is brewing? You say you are not pleased by the hire, but you are waiting. You say you'll know things are changing IF Knowlton gets other elements in line. So the major decision you CAN see, you don't like. And you are waiting to see if things you CAN'T see happen. Shouldn't you see some of those things by now? How long are you willing to wait.

The administration has had a year to articulate a vision. And no, we want to compete for championships is not a vision. We want to be a mid tier program is not a vision. A vision is "this is what we want. this is how we get there. These are the specific steps we are going to take to do that." They have not articulated a vision. They have not changed any practices. They struggled to decide whether to terminate possibly the worst coach in the history of Cal revenue sports. Then they made an at best uninspiring hire. That is what I'm judging them on.

All the past administrations failures - that is what I'm judging the fans that want to wait and see on. Because they always wait and see. The reckoning never comes. The fan that stood by 25 times having faith that the beanstalk is coming and had no beanstalk come, and then for the 26th time tells me it's all happening beneath the surface, I'm sorry, no.

By the way, I'm realizing the Great Pumpkin might have been a better analogy, but it's too late to rewrite. Suffice it to say, I ain't gonna be Sally. All the Linuses can freeze in the pumpkin patch with their security blankets.
OTB -

What you describe is dysfunction in the athletic department. And I can't really argue that the athletic department has not been dysfunctional on almost every level (objective, design, execution and communication). I think where we disagree is that there IS evidence that the current regime is less dysfunctional than in the past. For example, when I speak with Jim Knowlton and Carol Christ - they actually speak to me. There is some obvious bs in there, but it is a far cry from prior administrations (Williams would avoid communicating me, when directly engaged and both Birgenau and Dierks were only concerned with my donations to the Math Dept, when we were talking about sports). I would also say that Knowlton has demonstrated evidence of less dysfunction than Williams (but my cat could have done that). Better, but still dysfunctional.

I also think there is more going on than you are aware of and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In particular when discussing a personnel hire - discretion often benefits both sides (fans don't count). I'm surmising by your posts that you are aware that Decuire was interested in the Cal job (but it doesn't seem you are aware he was interested in other jobs as well). Your post also seems to suggest a lack or process. As days pass, we are learning more about it, but it was kept discrete. For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS. He only announced it after the season. Which is the correct methodology, IMHO. Announcing that we was looking for Jones replacement in January would not have been helpful. You may desire and argue for complete instant transparency, but I would disagree.

Anyway, at this point in time, I still feel TD would have been a better hire than MF, but as more and more info is coming to light, I must admit that the decision may not be as bad as you portray and the process may not be as random as you suggest. The results will speak for themselves and we will know a lot in year 1. No need to wait 9 years. No need for Blind Faith, but also probably don't need to abandon the program. I'm confident there is a happy medium somewhere. I'm also confident that collectively, the stakeholders haven't found it - and I'm not sure we are much closer.

But your description of the fan base as Linus with the Great Pumpkin is hilarious and spot on in some cases. There are also many Sallies and a couple Charlies, Lucies and Shroders in this group as well. However, I think most of those voices were the ones that have been silent for the last few months. So perhaps a different subset of Cal fandom and BI subscribers. Similarly blind faith is one extreme. Eeyore is another. Most are in between somewhere.

BTW - as for the vision. I believe it is along the lines that the Athletic Department wants to work in partnership with the university and move towards excellence for all sports. It seems that the movement of stadium debt payments and the plan for Edwards are evidence of that vision.

BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tsubamoto2001 said:

So Knowlton has been eyeing coaches for months and the best he could do was get someone that didn't currently have a college job? You're either lying or Knowlton is as incompetent as I think he is.

Lying? Really Tsuba? Welcome back!

Well, I wasn't inside his brain and working for the search firm and cannot prove it. Just as much as you can't seem to prove that he wasn't do anything until three weeks ago. Nor, if I could, would I do it on this venue. But I'll re-iterate my offer to join me at a game next year. But it is prudent and plausible and agrees with the evidence I have (which includes candid conversations).

As for incompetence, you may be right. By no means, am I attempting to defend this hire anymore than you and others are attempting to vilify it based on little to no more evidence than what I have.

Incompetent may be too harsh, but I agree that we could have done better than Fox or Decuire. Who do you suggest we should have hired?

Feel free step up your game and avoid personal attacks.

BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Beached:

Thanks for a thoughtful response. That's all I ask. I don't agree with everything, but you don't have to agree with everything I say. Some responses


Quote:

What you describe is dysfunction in the athletic department. And I can't really argue that the athletic department has not been dysfunctional on almost every level (objective, design, execution and communication). I think where we disagree is that there IS evidence that the current regime is less dysfunctional than in the past. For example, when I speak with Jim Knowlton and Carol Christ - they actually speak to me. There is some obvious bs in there, but it is a far cry from prior administrations (Williams would avoid communicating me, when directly engaged and both Birgenau and Dierks were only concerned with my donations to the Math Dept, when we were talking about sports). I would also say that Knowlton has demonstrated evidence of less dysfunction than Williams (but my cat could have done that). Better, but still dysfunctional.


Here's the thing. I don't donate enough for anyone to talk to me. If I did, I wouldn't care if anyone talked to me. I'm one of those types that sees a $1000 charity dinner and says, why don't we just donate the $1000 and forget about the dinner. That said, when it became clear that Williams was not communicating, I knew that was bad. To fail that badly in something so simple is an indicator. Obviously, I'm glad that Knowlton and Christ have improved that area. But it is an easy thing to do. Not doing it is fatal, but doing it really isn't that big a deal. It is kind of like saying the pit crew remembered to put air in the tires before the Indy500. I understand why it gives you more confidence in the administration, but at this point I just don't care about words. I care about actions and they've had a year to do something. I just don't see anything.



Quote:

I also think there is more going on than you are aware of and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In particular when discussing a personnel hire - discretion often benefits both sides (fans don't count). I'm surmising by your posts that you are aware that Decuire was interested in the Cal job (but it doesn't seem you are aware he was interested in other jobs as well). Your post also seems to suggest a lack or process. As days pass, we are learning more about it, but it was kept discrete. For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS. He only announced it after the season. Which is the correct methodology, IMHO. Announcing that we was looking for Jones replacement in January would not have been helpful. You may desire and argue for complete instant transparency, but I would disagree.


I don't need to see the sausage get made as long as I get good sausage. I don't think he should have announced anything prior to season end. I do think it should have been announced the day after season end, but I would have been fine with his timing IF not for the obvious reversal. I think we know enough to know that the news reports that Jones was coming back were entirely a logical result of Knowlton's actions and statements and if he didn't think that was going to happen, he was naive. He may have had a list prepared, but he was not prepared enough to know he was going to get significant blowback in keeping Jones. While he didn't need to tell us his decision in February, the decision should have been made before season end. There is no excuse in the decision not being made, the decision then being that he was going to keep him, not knowing the blowback that was going to cause, and the fact that he let that info out before intended. He handled this badly. All of which I would excuse if he got the hire right.

I assume that Decuire has other interests. Understand, I'm not mad it is not Decuire. Decuire is the embodiment of what we should be looking for. It didn't have to be Decuire, but it should have been somebody like him. It should not have been someone with Fox's profile.

Quote:

Anyway, at this point in time, I still feel TD would have been a better hire than MF


See, the thing is that most of you say that or some variation. Why doesn't it matter to you? Seems like even the people arguing to wait and see don't like this hire.


Quote:

, but as more and more info is coming to light, I must admit that the decision may not be as bad as you portray


Confirmation bias. You guys knew the answer when it happened, but you don't like the answer. So you hear all the reasons from the administration about why this is actually good and since you aren't getting the other side, it starts to sound good. And let's be honest, you want it to be good. I sympathize.


Quote:

The results will speak for themselves and we will know a lot in year 1.


We will only know a lot in year 1 if it is a disaster or a colossal success. Jones was not ready. Fox isn't great, but he is experienced. We should see marked improvement, which will not be evidence that this is the right hire, long term. Doubtful we do something like go 14-4. Unlikely we don't improve. I went through Dykes' first year. I guarantee that if we don't improve, the story will be that it is because Jones left the program in tatters. I also have to say that almost every year I hear that "we'll know this year". And we never do.



Quote:

No need to wait 9 years.


I suspect that is exactly how long we will wait. I give it a 5% chance that Fox blows out expectations. I give it a 20% chance he pulls a Braun at Rice or Walt Harris at Stanford. I give it a 75% chance that we see something like 6-12, 8-10, 8-10, 10-8, 12-6, 9-9, 8-10, 6-12, 4-14. And if that is what we get, at what point do you suppose Cal will do anything. Yup. year 9.


Quote:

BTW - as for the vision. I believe it is along the lines that the Athletic Department wants to work in partnership with the university and move towards excellence for all sports. It seems that the movement of stadium debt payments and the plan for Edwards are evidence of that vision.


I have given Christ a lot of credit for the move and still do. However, my credit is not for what she did. It is the political astuteness in how she handled it. The existing debt situation was unfair and unsustainable but changing it was going to create a political backlash from one group. It had to happen anyway. Edwards continuing to be dedicated to a few students was unfair and unsustainable, but changing it was going to create a political backlash from the other group. It had to happen anyway. Portraying it as a deal prevented most of the blow back.

That said, has the university done anything really meaningful to establish this partnership? To get the faculty on board with supporting athletics and not mistreating athletes in the classroom? I just don't see it. I think they throw out statements that sound good but they don't back it up with plans.

My suspicion is they don't think that we can succeed in revenue sports. I think they are putting more effort in football because that is where the money is. Honestly, I think they are trying to run in place just enough so that their motion looks like they are trying so they won't kill off the donations, but I don't see actions that actually lead to success.
tsubamoto2001
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't mean offend. My apologies if I did.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this hire. On multiple levels, it just does not make sense. However unlikely it may be, Fox could do a good job here, but that still doesn't excuse the way this all went down. What was the rush to hire an unemployed (for all intents and purposes) coach? Fox was likely a suggestion from the search firm, and if so, it shows that Jim just doesn't know college hoops well enough to have had an idea of what he was doing.

As for coach suggestions, that's not the point. My big issue is the mucked up process. Knowlton did not give himself the time or chance to find the best candidate.

BeachedBear said:

tsubamoto2001 said:

So Knowlton has been eyeing coaches for months and the best he could do was get someone that didn't currently have a college job? You're either lying or Knowlton is as incompetent as I think he is.

Lying? Really Tsuba? Welcome back!

Well, I wasn't inside his brain and working for the search firm and cannot prove it. Just as much as you can't seem to prove that he wasn't do anything until three weeks ago. Nor, if I could, would I do it on this venue. But I'll re-iterate my offer to join me at a game next year. But it is prudent and plausible and agrees with the evidence I have (which includes candid conversations).

As for incompetence, you may be right. By no means, am I attempting to defend this hire anymore than you and others are attempting to vilify it based on little to no more evidence than what I have.

Incompetent may be too harsh, but I agree that we could have done better than Fox or Decuire. Who do you suggest we should have hired?

Feel free step up your game and avoid personal attacks.


BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

OaktownBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

As usual, OTB, a thoughtful post, albeit with some serious hyperbole. (when you say "every day is literally worse than before" do you really mean that last season's 7-6 team was literally worse than Sonny's 1-11 team?)

Where I take issue is your lumping together every administration. I can see the temptation, since the outcome hasn't seemed to vary from AD to AD or Chancellor to Chancellor, but I believe that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits, not those of Berdahl or Birgeneau or Gladstone or Williams. You may feel that there is enough data to indicate that Christ/Knowlton are already failures in athletics, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. I was not pleased with the hire; I do think it doesn't move the excitement needle much, but I'm willing to wait and see what happens. If Knowlton gets other elements of the department in line (practice facility, fundraising, etc.) and Fox turns out to be a decent coach, I'm willing to say things are changing. If not, well I guess you are right.
Ursa:

First of all, on the hyperbole point, you misquoted me, which I point out because your understanding of what I said was not what I was trying to convey. I said "Literally every day since the stadium opened, the football program has performed worse and made less money than the day we broke ground." I'm not saying every day we get worse. (obviously last season was better than Sonny's first). I'm saying we invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the program. We broke ground on that investment. I'm saying take a snapshot of the program the day we broke ground. The investment was then realized in the opening of the stadium and on that day, and every day since, the program has been worse than the program was when we broke ground. I stand by that statement. So financially what did we get for that investment? Cal can't afford to spend money for alumni tushies to be more comfortable or student athlete lockers to be better or even training facilities to be better. Those things are a means to an end - that being more success and more revenue. And what we have gotten is less success and less revenue than we had before. That is not to say the investment in the stadium and training facility was bad. It is to say the investment with no follow through is bad. We need to pick. Go cheap or invest with a plan and follow through and knowing it will require further investment. Investing with no follow through means we chucked our money into the toilet.

But the second issue is really the substantive point. I get what you are saying. However, as much as it might seem that I am lumping together every administration, that is not my intent. I am using past to analyze how Cal fans judge every administration and why that is faulty. I 100% agree that the current administration deserves to be judged on its own merits.

What I am saying is that Cal fans judge every administration by the magic bean philosophy. New administration comes in. They say "our goal is to compete for conference championships/Rose Bowls" You've heard that once or twice, right? (Though now they seem to be downgrading that). Do they tell you how they'll do that? No. Then nothing happens. And Cal fans say "Oh, I know. They planted magic beans. It's all germinating under the surface. We just can't see it yet. One morning we will wake up and there will be a giant beanstalk." Then there is never a beanstalk. Then the next administration comes in and its "no, no, no. The last administration sucked. Turns out they never planted beans. THIS administration is planting beans. It's all germinating under the surface. We just can't see it yet. One morning there will be a giant beanstalk."

I'm saying, show me the beans.

In 8 days, Knowlton will have been on the job for a year. Nothing has happened. We are far beyond the point that he should have his own stamp on this department and some good changes would have been made that are visible to the public. Cal needs more than an administration that keeps the Yugo steered in the same lane and maybe fund raises a little better. It needs more than getting "other elements of the department in line". A practice facility is not going to fundamentally change the fortunes of this department. A little bit better fundraising is not going to change the fortunes of this department. You are just swapping out Tom Holmoe for Sonny Dykes. If the beanstalk was coming, we'd see sprouts by now.

And now, a year in, we have the first major decision. A decision that it was very apparent the day that Knowlton was hire was very likely to have to be made. He had a year to prepare. And the decision was a very Cal decision handled in a very Cal way. So now, I'm watching Knowlton in the garden spraying all over from a can labeled "Bean-be-gone. Guaranteed to kill all beanstalks before they grow" and I'm still supposed to think the beanstalk is coming.

You say that I feel there is enough data to indicate they are failures. I said nothing for 11 months and 2 weeks. I think at this point, you are asking the question in the wrong direction. What is the indication that anything positive is brewing? You say you are not pleased by the hire, but you are waiting. You say you'll know things are changing IF Knowlton gets other elements in line. So the major decision you CAN see, you don't like. And you are waiting to see if things you CAN'T see happen. Shouldn't you see some of those things by now? How long are you willing to wait.

The administration has had a year to articulate a vision. And no, we want to compete for championships is not a vision. We want to be a mid tier program is not a vision. A vision is "this is what we want. this is how we get there. These are the specific steps we are going to take to do that." They have not articulated a vision. They have not changed any practices. They struggled to decide whether to terminate possibly the worst coach in the history of Cal revenue sports. Then they made an at best uninspiring hire. That is what I'm judging them on.

All the past administrations failures - that is what I'm judging the fans that want to wait and see on. Because they always wait and see. The reckoning never comes. The fan that stood by 25 times having faith that the beanstalk is coming and had no beanstalk come, and then for the 26th time tells me it's all happening beneath the surface, I'm sorry, no.

By the way, I'm realizing the Great Pumpkin might have been a better analogy, but it's too late to rewrite. Suffice it to say, I ain't gonna be Sally. All the Linuses can freeze in the pumpkin patch with their security blankets.
OTB -

What you describe is dysfunction in the athletic department. And I can't really argue that the athletic department has not been dysfunctional on almost every level (objective, design, execution and communication). I think where we disagree is that there IS evidence that the current regime is less dysfunctional than in the past. For example, when I speak with Jim Knowlton and Carol Christ - they actually speak to me. There is some obvious bs in there, but it is a far cry from prior administrations (Williams would avoid communicating me, when directly engaged and both Birgenau and Dierks were only concerned with my donations to the Math Dept, when we were talking about sports). I would also say that Knowlton has demonstrated evidence of less dysfunction than Williams (but my cat could have done that). Better, but still dysfunctional.

I also think there is more going on than you are aware of and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In particular when discussing a personnel hire - discretion often benefits both sides (fans don't count). I'm surmising by your posts that you are aware that Decuire was interested in the Cal job (but it doesn't seem you are aware he was interested in other jobs as well). Your post also seems to suggest a lack or process. As days pass, we are learning more about it, but it was kept discrete. For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS. He only announced it after the season. Which is the correct methodology, IMHO. Announcing that we was looking for Jones replacement in January would not have been helpful. You may desire and argue for complete instant transparency, but I would disagree.

Anyway, at this point in time, I still feel TD would have been a better hire than MF, but as more and more info is coming to light, I must admit that the decision may not be as bad as you portray and the process may not be as random as you suggest. The results will speak for themselves and we will know a lot in year 1. No need to wait 9 years. No need for Blind Faith, but also probably don't need to abandon the program. I'm confident there is a happy medium somewhere. I'm also confident that collectively, the stakeholders haven't found it - and I'm not sure we are much closer.

But your description of the fan base as Linus with the Great Pumpkin is hilarious and spot on in some cases. There are also many Sallies and a couple Charlies, Lucies and Shroders in this group as well. However, I think most of those voices were the ones that have been silent for the last few months. So perhaps a different subset of Cal fandom and BI subscribers. Similarly blind faith is one extreme. Eeyore is another. Most are in between somewhere.

BTW - as for the vision. I believe it is along the lines that the Athletic Department wants to work in partnership with the university and move towards excellence for all sports. It seems that the movement of stadium debt payments and the plan for Edwards are evidence of that vision.

I want to address this point in particular. So many of you say you don't like the hire, but... They need to know we don't like the hire.

When Sandy hired Dykes, I didn't like the hire. I didn't think he'd be as bad as he was, but I didn't like the hire. I stayed mum on that. I gave Dykes the benefit of the doubt. I even stupidly bought into his Cal is my dream job total lying bullshyte and was really pulling for him at one point. Then, well, Dykes happened.

Why didn't I like the hire? In football, Cal is not attractive enough to pull a good "proven" head coach. It just isn't. It never will be. There was nothing in Dykes record that indicated he could bring us back to the heights of Tedford and that was where we wanted to go. It was clear that Barbour only looked for Dykes type candidates. All of them sucked. She picked one anyway. In football, Cal needs to take a chance on an assistant. Because it may fail, but it may succeed. The other is doomed to at best mediocrity. Every successful Cal coach in the modern era has been an assistant coach.

I know a lot of people agreed with me, but we all took the "wait and see, stay positive, don't say anything" approach. I think that was a mistake. I think Cal needs to know these hires will mean blow back. This is not the right fit for Cal.

Whether it works or not, Fox is the Sonny Dykes hire for basketball. Basketball is different - with over 300 schools, there are plenty of lower level head coaches looking for a promotion and assistant coaches are not nearly as important as offensive and defensive coordinators. Bottom line, Cal can't attract a good, proven power conference head coach. They should not be playing in that pool. They need to look at mid major head coaches that haven't been noticed yet. Monty was a huge outlier. That is unlikely to happen again.

As I said elsewhere, I can compartmentalize supporting Fox and criticizing the Fox hire. They are different things. But maybe Cal should know how many of you guys who are taking a wait and see approach are taking a wait and see approach on a hire you do not like.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

GoCalBears said:

If Fox is a great X&O coach and his Achilles heel is the inability to recruit talented players...then what prevented him from getting an ace recruiter at UGA during his tenure? the ATL is a hotbed for blue chip players.
Because the SEC is dirty as sin and he wouldn't agree to pay his players?
C'mon man. Oregon and Arizona. Talk to the FBI. You aren't realistic if you think the Pac is going to be easier to recruit in.

Is this what we do now? We take failed SEC coaches because we can tell this story?

How did Cal get Jaylen Brown? Why didn't Fox?
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Limited counter points, removing the wordy discourse for appearance sake.


Quote:

Beached:

Thanks for a thoughtful response. That's all I ask. I don't agree with everything, but you don't have to agree with everything I say. Some responses

Ditto. I enjoy rational discourse with intelligent people I respect. Personal attacks are only fun in person

Quote:

. . . While he didn't need to tell us his decision in February, the decision should have been made before season end. There is no excuse in the decision not being made, the decision then being that he was going to keep him, not knowing the blowback that was going to cause, and the fact that he let that info out before intended. He handled this badly. All of which I would excuse if he got the hire right.
Personally, I would say how he handled it is my biggest criticism of Knowlton so far.



Quote:

I assume that Decuire has other interests. Understand, I'm not mad it is not Decuire. Decuire is the embodiment of what we should be looking for. It didn't have to be Decuire, but it should have been somebody like him. It should not have been someone with Fox's profile.

See, the thing is that most of you say that or some variation. Why doesn't it matter to you? Seems like even the people arguing to wait and see don't like this hire.
I can't speak for 'most of you', only me. It matters, but I probably don't feel FOX is as bad a hire as you do. I generally prefer Thai to Indian cuisine, but I'm Ok with Indian. But I really like good Sushi. I really don't like Pizza Hut. Fox=Indian, DeCuire=Thai, Craig Smith-Sushi, Jones=Pizza Hut, Dykes = Domino's, Kyle Smith = Round Table.

The thing is, I'm not at the donor level where I get to choose where I eat. I never will be and don't recommend anyone contribute as much to do so. It's more like a family member invited me to dinner and served mediocre Indian. Didn't like it. I mentioned to the host in a very tactful way that next time he plans to service mediocre Indian, invite me over for dessert and drinks afterward (actually worded it clearer than that - more like: If you continue to serve Pizza, we're no longer family)



Quote:

Confirmation bias. You guys knew the answer when it happened, but you don't like the answer. So you hear all the reasons from the administration about why this is actually good and since you aren't getting the other side, it starts to sound good. And let's be honest, you want it to be good. I sympathize.
Perhaps that is the case with most. But I'm leaving the option open that not all information is perceived through blue colored glasses.

Quote:

We will only know a lot in year 1 if it is a disaster or a colossal success. Jones was not ready. Fox isn't great, but he is experienced. We should see marked improvement, which will not be evidence that this is the right hire, long term. Doubtful we do something like go 14-4. Unlikely we don't improve. I went through Dykes' first year. I guarantee that if we don't improve, the story will be that it is because Jones left the program in tatters. I also have to say that almost every year I hear that "we'll know this year". And we never do.

- - - No need to wait 9 years - - -

I suspect that is exactly how long we will wait. I give it a 5% chance that Fox blows out expectations. I give it a 20% chance he pulls a Braun at Rice or Walt Harris at Stanford. I give it a 75% chance that we see something like 6-12, 8-10, 8-10, 10-8, 12-6, 9-9, 8-10, 6-12, 4-14. And if that is what we get, at what point do you suppose Cal will do anything. Yup. year 9.
I fear you may be right. I lobbied to can Dykes after his first year and was not heard. Comes with the territory. If I was AD, I would be looking for FOX in year one for colossal success and consider year two accordingly if not. I think your percentages are about right.

Quote:

My suspicion is they don't think that we can succeed in revenue sports. I think they are putting more effort in football because that is where the money is. Honestly, I think they are trying to run in place just enough so that their motion looks like they are trying so they won't kill off the donations, but I don't see actions that actually lead to success.

Unfortunately, I agree with this assessment. I would support Cal if we were out of the arms race and competing in a different conference. I accept that this won't happen soon, if ever. For the last 5 years or so, I have considered my renewals on a yearly basis and have come close to shutting down. Wasn't that way at all for the prior few decades. I feel like Cal (as an institution) is competing in 1999 revenue sports, not realizing how much has changed in 20 years.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tsubamoto2001 said:

I didn't mean offend. My apologies if I did.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this hire. On multiple levels, it just does not make sense. However unlikely it may be, Fox could do a good job here, but that still doesn't excuse the way this all went down. What was the rush to hire an unemployed (for all intents and purposes) coach? Fox was likely a suggestion from the search firm, and if so, it shows that Jim just doesn't know college hoops well enough to have had an idea of what he was doing.

As for coach suggestions, that's not the point. My big issue is the mucked up process. Knowlton did not give himself the time or chance to find the best candidate.


We're good.

I'd love to explore the bolded comment, because I feel there is some truth to it. The search firm probably influenced it more than simply placed it. I also would guess that the firm convinced JK that these are the candidates that Cal can afford or get. A more experienced AD would work past that - and that is the type of AD Cal needs. Maybe JK can get there or maybe the next AD.

I think there are more than a few of us that might be better able to judge basketball coaching ability than Knowlton. Doubt any of those could handle dealing with the institution that is Cal.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

tsubamoto2001 said:

I didn't mean offend. My apologies if I did.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this hire. On multiple levels, it just does not make sense. However unlikely it may be, Fox could do a good job here, but that still doesn't excuse the way this all went down. What was the rush to hire an unemployed (for all intents and purposes) coach? Fox was likely a suggestion from the search firm, and if so, it shows that Jim just doesn't know college hoops well enough to have had an idea of what he was doing.

As for coach suggestions, that's not the point. My big issue is the mucked up process. Knowlton did not give himself the time or chance to find the best candidate.


We're good.

I'd love to explore the bolded comment, because I feel there is some truth to it. The search firm probably influenced it more than simply placed it. I also would guess that the firm convinced JK that these are the candidates that Cal can afford or get. A more experienced AD would work past that - and that is the type of AD Cal needs. Maybe JK can get there or maybe the next AD.

I think there are more than a few of us that might be better able to judge basketball coaching ability than Knowlton. Doubt any of those could handle dealing with the institution that is Cal.

I have to say, the more I hear "search firm" in a Cal coaching search, the worse the result seems to be. I'd be curious to know how they are compensated. They do not appear to be objective to me.

People say you have to use one. That just isn't the case. (also not the case that you have to extend a coach with 2 years left on his contract).
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:


Anyway, at this point in time, I still feel TD would have been a better hire than MF, but as more and more info is coming to light, I must admit that the decision may not be as bad as you portray and the process may not be as random as you suggest. The results will speak for themselves and we will know a lot in year 1. No need to wait 9 years. No need for Blind Faith, but also probably don't need to abandon the program. I'm confident there is a happy medium somewhere. I'm also confident that collectively, the stakeholders haven't found it - and I'm not sure we are much closer.



It was such a weird hire in that Fox checks no boxes that I can think of:
1. Cal connections to get locals excited;
2. California/West coast connections for recruiting purposes;
3. Racial minority to help fight against those against athletics;
4. Unexpected success at last job;
5. Interesting offensive playing style to make team fun to watch;
6. Up-and-coming coach to give hope.

He is a generic, middle aged white coach who has excuses for not succeeding at his previous job and is a defense first, offensively challenged coach (read another site). How does Cal choose to hire a coach who checks NO boxes? That he has not been caught cheating does not count as a box to me. What am I missing?

As there is no competition for him and never will be any, as with Jones, I am sure he will be overpaid with no reasonable buyout because Cal.

Sluggo
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Tsubamoto pointed out my error. It was an error in addition. Sorry. .500 or two games below .500, Fox was still an average coach in conference, over all. Overall records don't mean nearly as much as recent records, and the second half of Fox's career at Georgia was better than the first half, as someone else just pointed out. He arrived and found a very weak roster from a losing team with I think a 6 year streak of losing seasons. Over the next few seasons he made Georgia a little better. Previous Georgia coach Felton had a .302 record in conference. Fox's was way better than that.

So we are in agreement that Fox is a mediocre P6 coach. I could care less if he was better than Felton. I'm sure he'll be better than Jones too.

SFCityBear said:

Fox was not just a winning coach in a minor conference. He dominated the conference with 4 titles in 5 years. Better record than DeCuire's (which is good) and in a much higher ranked conference than DeCuire's Big Sky. There are a number of differences between Fox and Decuire. Not only has DeCuire not yet proven he can win at the next level, but he has not yet proven he can get hired at the next level. Fox has 9 more years of head coach experience than DeCuire. He proved he can win at the next level. Georgia, I read here, has had a tougher non-conference schedule, plus always having to play Kentucky and other good teams a few times. And by the way, if the PAC12 keeps trending down, it will soon become one of your minor conferences and not be "the next level".

It appears you've missed my point altogether. I would have been perfectly happy to take a chance on Fox back then had Monty not taken the job. Lucky for us, it was some other school that took the chance only to find he was no better than mediocre at the next level. But wait, apparently that's what we've been looking for all along.

SFCityBear said:

Look, Fox is not coach K or Bill Self or whoever you wanted.


Nice strawman. I challenge you to show me where I lead you to believe that is who I wanted.

SFCityBear said:


There is nothing we can do about it for a while, and let's see how it plays out?

Agreed. I just won't be watching how it plays out live any longer (25yr season ticket holder). How about you. Will you be investing season tickets next year?
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

OaktownBear said:

Limited counter points, removing the wordy discourse for appearance sake.


Quote:

Beached:

Thanks for a thoughtful response. That's all I ask. I don't agree with everything, but you don't have to agree with everything I say. Some responses

Ditto. I enjoy rational discourse with intelligent people I respect. Personal attacks are only fun in person

Quote:

. . . While he didn't need to tell us his decision in February, the decision should have been made before season end. There is no excuse in the decision not being made, the decision then being that he was going to keep him, not knowing the blowback that was going to cause, and the fact that he let that info out before intended. He handled this badly. All of which I would excuse if he got the hire right.
Personally, I would say how he handled it is my biggest criticism of Knowlton so far.



Quote:

I assume that Decuire has other interests. Understand, I'm not mad it is not Decuire. Decuire is the embodiment of what we should be looking for. It didn't have to be Decuire, but it should have been somebody like him. It should not have been someone with Fox's profile.

See, the thing is that most of you say that or some variation. Why doesn't it matter to you? Seems like even the people arguing to wait and see don't like this hire.
I can't speak for 'most of you', only me. It matters, but I probably don't feel FOX is as bad a hire as you do. I generally prefer Thai to Indian cuisine, but I'm Ok with Indian. But I really like good Sushi. I really don't like Pizza Hut. Fox=Indian, DeCuire=Thai, Craig Smith-Sushi, Jones=Pizza Hut, Dykes = Domino's, Kyle Smith = Round Table.

The thing is, I'm not at the donor level where I get to choose where I eat. I never will be and don't recommend anyone contribute as much to do so. It's more like a family member invited me to dinner and served mediocre Indian. Didn't like it. I mentioned to the host in a very tactful way that next time he plans to service mediocre Indian, invite me over for dessert and drinks afterward (actually worded it clearer than that - more like: If you continue to serve Pizza, we're no longer family)



Quote:

Confirmation bias. You guys knew the answer when it happened, but you don't like the answer. So you hear all the reasons from the administration about why this is actually good and since you aren't getting the other side, it starts to sound good. And let's be honest, you want it to be good. I sympathize.
Perhaps that is the case with most. But I'm leaving the option open that not all information is perceived through blue colored glasses.

Quote:

We will only know a lot in year 1 if it is a disaster or a colossal success. Jones was not ready. Fox isn't great, but he is experienced. We should see marked improvement, which will not be evidence that this is the right hire, long term. Doubtful we do something like go 14-4. Unlikely we don't improve. I went through Dykes' first year. I guarantee that if we don't improve, the story will be that it is because Jones left the program in tatters. I also have to say that almost every year I hear that "we'll know this year". And we never do.

- - - No need to wait 9 years - - -

I suspect that is exactly how long we will wait. I give it a 5% chance that Fox blows out expectations. I give it a 20% chance he pulls a Braun at Rice or Walt Harris at Stanford. I give it a 75% chance that we see something like 6-12, 8-10, 8-10, 10-8, 12-6, 9-9, 8-10, 6-12, 4-14. And if that is what we get, at what point do you suppose Cal will do anything. Yup. year 9.
I fear you may be right. I lobbied to can Dykes after his first year and was not heard. Comes with the territory. If I was AD, I would be looking for FOX in year one for colossal success and consider year two accordingly if not. I think your percentages are about right.

Quote:

My suspicion is they don't think that we can succeed in revenue sports. I think they are putting more effort in football because that is where the money is. Honestly, I think they are trying to run in place just enough so that their motion looks like they are trying so they won't kill off the donations, but I don't see actions that actually lead to success.

Unfortunately, I agree with this assessment. I would support Cal if we were out of the arms race and competing in a different conference. I accept that this won't happen soon, if ever. For the last 5 years or so, I have considered my renewals on a yearly basis and have come close to shutting down. Wasn't that way at all for the prior few decades. I feel like Cal (as an institution) is competing in 1999 revenue sports, not realizing how much has changed in 20 years.

See I feel like Cal is always 20 years behind. I feel like the history goes like this:

What do you mean a football coach makes $200K. That is more than the professors. No way!
No.
No.
No.
No.
Okay, okay, I guess we have to pay $200K. Here.
Wait. They make $500K now? No way!
No.
No.
No.
No.
Okay, Okay. Fine! Sheesh. Wait. It's a million now? No way in hell is that ever going to happen.
No!
No!
No!
Okay. Okay. You are really trying my patience. IT'S $2m NOW!!!!!!??????? I JUST GAVE YOU THE MILLION!!!!!! ***!!!! But I'm not paying for anything else and you are taking buses to Los Angeles.

And on and on.

I think they have spent virtually the maximum amount they could and still not support enough to win. At this point, I'd be fine with going whole hog on being cheap. (I'm an A's fan for goodness sake!) Accept it. Own it. Or don't. But don't go middle ground where you just pay too much for bottom of the barrel.

This is part of what I mean about a plan. I think Cal fans are smart. They get it. They get that we will always be outbid. Decide what WE CAN PAY. Then think outside the box to maximize those dollars.

I would love to see some investment in analytics to determine where money returns the best value. In football, what kind of offense and defense schemes maximize success with the types of players we can recruit.

I have a by the seat of my pants hypothesis that I would love to analyze if it were my job on football coaching salaries. That is this. Cal can't afford big name head coaches. So I wonder. Would it be best for Cal to do something different with coaching salaries. Rather than maximize head coaching salaries and still not being competitive, pay a head coach at the low end of the scale, pay coordinators at the middle range, and go out and get the best position coaches money can buy to develop the players. Not saying it would work. But I'd like to see Cal look at alternative ways of doing things. Instead, we just do things the same way everyone else does, but we invest a lot less in everything.

As I said, I'm an A's fan. Cal has got to find it's Moneyball approach. We have brilliant young alums, some of whom turn out to be leaders in sports management. We have to do more than we are doing.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.