Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

---

I listened to this. He sounds ok. It's generic coachspeak. Not charismatic, but not off-putting either.

BearSD said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

---

I listened to this. He sounds ok. It's generic coachspeak. Not charismatic, but not off-putting either.

---

Agreed, not bad, not great. Ben Braun comes to mind.

His analysis of college basketball corruption, absolving the NCAA: "individual schools need to take greater responsibility" sounds good but is absurd. Individual schools and individual coaches have a HUGE incentive to cheat. There are 300 of them, if rules are not enforced there will be cheaters and then the number of cheaters will grow, just to stay competitive. In the absence of consequences, college presidents cannot be counted on to self-police, since they benefit from the corruption.

the video either reflects a less than stellar first team meeting with the players.

or reflects a poor video created by cal.

I didn't agree with the criticism of the one sentence in an email being a sign of the bigger picture of a failure of cal marketing, but this was a very poor video from a marketing standpoint.

First, who is the target audience of this video. It certainly isn't the players or recruits. My guess is its the fans ... but is this what the majority of the fan base wanted to hear to rally them to buy tickets? To me, this seems like it was aimed at the AD, Chancellor, school admin and faculty.

I have a background in marketing and also do amateur videos. I know that it takes a lot of time to video an event and then edit it down to 2 minutes which was the length of this video (way too long for this video in my opinion). I know that you edit clips by 0.2 or 0.3 seconds sometimes.

Just ONE of many examples... after the 'together' rally, they they showed Sueing and the players immediately exiting stage right. I noticed that before Sueing's announcement and it worried me. If it was me, I would had cut faster (assuming the purpose of the video was marketing) and end it on a high note. No need to keep filming the players leaving.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

1. The video was terrible, but I think that was marketing, not Fox. I'm hoping he's spending all his time assembling his staff and recruiting, not worrying about videos.

2. I'd be willing to bet that what we saw in the video was only a small fraction of the communication -- individual and group -- that Fox has had with the current Cal players.

HoopDreams said:

---

the video either reflects a less than stellar first team meeting with the players.

or reflects a poor video created by cal.

I didn't agree with the criticism of the one sentence in an email being a sign of the bigger picture of a failure of cal marketing, but this was a very poor video from a marketing standpoint.

First, who is the target audience of this video. It certainly isn't the players or recruits. My guess is its the fans ... but is this what the majority of the fan base wanted to hear to rally them to buy tickets? To me, this seems like it was aimed at the AD, Chancellor, school admin and faculty.

I have a background in marketing and also do amateur videos. I know that it takes a lot of time to video an event and then edit it down to 2 minutes which was the length of this video (way too long for this video in my opinion). I know that you edit clips by 0.2 or 0.3 seconds sometimes.

Just ONE of many examples... after the 'together' rally, they they showed Sueing and the players immediately exiting stage right. I noticed that before Sueing's announcement and it worried me. If it was me, I would had cut faster (assuming the purpose of the video was marketing) and end it on a high note. No need to keep filming the players leaving.

---

Completely agree about the marketing. But isn't this the same marketing group that oversees the fan experience at HAAS and many of the poorly conceived bear backer outreaches. If so, I am not surprised. That group has been tone-deaf and lacking in Cal knowledge forever.

How many people see the video anyway? I wonder if the readers here are at all realistic in their assessments of the impact of anything on BI, or even social media when it comes to Cal basketball.

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

---

Wasn't terrible. If this had been my first exposure to him as Cal coach I'd probably feel better. I liked his comment about the transfer rules, that kids should be able to choose their own destination. While I didn't like he was sort of absolving the NCAA of oversight, I liked him calling out the corruption at institutions - USC that means you - as opposed to just athletic departments.

But it still all goes back to what Oaktown said, you don't hire a coach who over 9 years in conference had a losing record. Who finished in the bottom half of the conference basically half the years he was there.

TheFiatLux said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

---

Wasn't terrible. If this had been my first exposure to him as Cal coach I'd probably feel better. I liked his comment about the transfer rules, that kids should be able to choose their own destination. While I didn't like he was sort of absolving the NCAA of oversight, I liked him calling out the corruption at institutions - USC that means you - as opposed to just athletic departments.

But it still all goes back to what Oaktown said, you don't hire a coach who over 9 years in conference had a losing record. Who finished in the bottom half of the conference basically half the years he was there.

---

I think it's also what Jon Wilner said -- dude was fired after the 2017-2018 season and didn't have a college coaching job for a year, and we try to snap him up like he's going to be off the board soon? Absolute bizarre process.

I'm kind of over it at this point. If he can keep Grace, Darius, the 3 Wyking recruits, then get a couple of key grad transfers, that would be a good start. I am looking forward to more structured play so hopefully he provides that.

bearchamp said:

---

How many people see the video anyway? I wonder if the readers here are at all realistic in their assessments of the impact of anything on BI, or even social media when it comes to Cal basketball.

---

lather, rinse, repeat

TheFiatLux said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

---

Wasn't terrible. If this had been my first exposure to him as Cal coach I'd probably feel better. I liked his comment about the transfer rules, that kids should be able to choose their own destination. While I didn't like he was sort of absolving the NCAA of oversight, I liked him calling out the corruption at institutions - USC that means you - as opposed to just athletic departments.

But it still all goes back to what Oaktown said, you don't hire a coach who over 9 years in conference had a losing record. Who finished in the bottom half of the conference basically half the years he was there.

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years? You overlook how good the SEC is as a conference. We have no Kentuckys, no Auburns, no Floridas, no Arkansas, no Tennessees in the PAC12. The year Fox was fired, 2018, the SEC had 9 teams who won 20 games that season. The PAC12 has Arizona, Oregon, and maybe UCLA, if they ever get their act together again. Washington with all its seniors leaving will be toast next season. You sweep under the rug all Fox's championships at Nevada over 5 years, and all the fine defensive teams he had at both Nevada and Georgia. And you disregard the fact that Cal does not have exactly the same priorities as you and Oaktown have. It should be important, and was, that Cal not repeat the mistakes they made in hiring Cuonzo Martin, who clearly sold Cal on how he would win by bringing in highly ranked recruits, but he forgot to tell them how hard it would be to keep continuity after they leave early, or Wyking Jones whose strongest suit was probably bringing continuity, which was another mistake. The losses were important, sure, but it was the way Cal lost. They just did not look good. If Cal looks better, fans will come. And if they play defense, they will look better and win more. often. AD Knowlton and whoever approved of hiring Fox clearly have additional priorities. They may not have made a good decision, but they considered more than just wins and losses. This has become a chopped liver conference, and just maybe an average coach, but an above average defensive coach, from a much tougher conference can breathe some life into the Cal basketball program.

Good screen name

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

---

Wasn't terrible. If this had been my first exposure to him as Cal coach I'd probably feel better. I liked his comment about the transfer rules, that kids should be able to choose their own destination. While I didn't like he was sort of absolving the NCAA of oversight, I liked him calling out the corruption at institutions - USC that means you - as opposed to just athletic departments.

But it still all goes back to what Oaktown said, you don't hire a coach who over 9 years in conference had a losing record. Who finished in the bottom half of the conference basically half the years he was there.

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years? You overlook how good the SEC is as a conference. We have no Kentuckys, no Auburns, no Floridas, no Arkansas, no Tennessees in the PAC12. The year Fox was fired, 2018, the SEC had 9 teams who won 20 games that season. The PAC12 has Arizona, Oregon, and maybe UCLA, if they ever get their act together again. Washington with all its seniors leaving will be toast next season. You sweep under the rug all Fox's championships at Nevada over 5 years, and all the fine defensive teams he had at both Nevada and Georgia. And you disregard the fact that Cal does not have exactly the same priorities as you and Oaktown have. It should be important, and was, that Cal not repeat the mistakes they made in hiring Cuonzo Martin, who clearly sold Cal on how he would win by bringing in highly ranked recruits, but he forgot to tell them how hard it would be to keep continuity after they leave early, or Wyking Jones whose strongest suit was probably bringing continuity, which was another mistake. The losses were important, sure, but it was the way Cal lost. They just did not look good. If Cal looks better, fans will come. And if they play defense, they will look better and win more. often. AD Knowlton and whoever approved of hiring Fox clearly have additional priorities. They may not have made a good decision, but they considered more than just wins and losses. This has become a chopped liver conference, and just maybe an average coach, but an above average defensive coach, from a much tougher conference can breathe some life into the Cal basketball program.

---

The SEC was not good as a conference. Auburn and Tennessee? C'mon. Auburn made the postseason - any postseason, including the CIT and NIT - once time in Fox time at Georgia. Their average conference season looks like it was 5-13 when he was there. I know that 5-13 is a wet dream for Wyking but it's not actually good.

Here's the SEC's SRS (simple rating system) conference ranking during Fox' time there (most recent first): 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 7, 4, 6, 5

In the typical season he was coaching in the worst or 2nd worst major conference in the country. That's the overwhelming competition he couldn't handle.

For comparison, here's the PAC in that time: 6, 6, 3, 6, 3, 4, 7, 5, 6. The PAC was actually a bit stronger but let's call it a wash. Fox was mediocre against the same level of competition he'll face here.

His whole run was basically end of the line Braun - mediocre at best teams that are in trouble if the conference has an up year and have a shot at the postseason if the conference is horribly down. In fact, Braun's last team - the one that got him fired - finished 67th in KenPom's ratings. Fox' peak SEC record (12-6) came in the 2013-14 season and that team finished 78th in the country. Braun coached in a super tough conference that year, Fox coached in the equivalent of this year's PAC. So yeah, if the PAC has historically terrible seasons year after year then Fox, in his up years, can have us competing for the top 3rd of the conference and an occasional 10 seed. Yippee.

---

Thank you! You beat me to the stats - looked them up as well and the SEC was not some juggernaut of a conference during that time frame and certainly not "much tougher" than the Pac-12. Based on conference RPI, averaged 5.3 among the conferences from 2009 to 2018 versus 6 for the Pac-12. And all of Fox's championships at Nevada? Yes, he did well there, but seems like he built off a base that Trent Johnson started in 1999. The 2003-2004 team, the year before Fox took over, tied for first in the league and went to the Sweet 16. Fox is better than Wyking, no doubt, but it's an incredibly low bar.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the 1,000+ word reply from SFCityBear that will likely reference Pete Newell somehow.

SFCityBear said:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

... And CivilBear.

Despite your cherry picking, the SEC was inferior to the Pac12 most years that Fox was there.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

... And CivilBear.

Despite your cherry picking, the SEC was inferior to the Pac12 most years that Fox was there.

---

If you and Oaktown would reject a coach simply because he had a losing conference record over 9 years, I think you and Oaktown are wrong. It is a HUGE part of the overall package, and it should be VERY hard to overcome, especially if there are other good candidates around, but it shouldn't be the only thing.

There needs to be a LOT of fair reasons for the losing conference record AND a lot of other positives beyond the P6 overall winning record, a record of integrity, and good chemistry with the AD. And even then, you probably don't hire him unless there really aren't other promising prospects who would seem to have a higher ceiling. I don't see how hiring a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years is anything but settling.

Too much emphasis was placed on the P6 HC experience. It is really hard to hire a guy with a winning conference record in P6. Cal did it with Monty and Martin and that's it. Hiring a guy with a losing conference record in P6, not so hard. Not sure who might have been willing to come to Cal this year with a winning overall P6 conference record other than Ben Howland (and I would have preferred Howland to Fox). So, yes, it is hard to find a guy with a winning P6 record. That's why you turn to the unknown with the higher ceiling when you can't find an established P6 winner.

My biggest fear in this hire is that Fox got the job because he has good chemistry with the AD. OK, I lied, my biggest fear is that the hire results in the continuation of the wasteland that is currently Cal MBB, and that will be at least another decade before Cal MBB comes out of the wasteland. I hope Fox can have success that his Georgia record makes unlikely, but I'm not holding my breath.

OaktownBear said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

How many people see the video anyway? I wonder if the readers here are at all realistic in their assessments of the impact of anything on BI, or even social media when it comes to Cal basketball.

---

lather, rinse, repeat

---

You're doing God's work.

boredom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Wondering: do you know that Fox didn't speak to the players individually prior to the videotaping?

---

Exactly. Ridiculous to assume this was his ONLY communication to the players. It's just what some idiot in Marketing chose to send out.

Look, I am not enamored with the hire because Fox had a mediocre record at Georgia, but it doesn't mean he's also a lousy communicator. All signs in that regard point to competency.

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

---

Wasn't terrible. If this had been my first exposure to him as Cal coach I'd probably feel better. I liked his comment about the transfer rules, that kids should be able to choose their own destination. While I didn't like he was sort of absolving the NCAA of oversight, I liked him calling out the corruption at institutions - USC that means you - as opposed to just athletic departments.

But it still all goes back to what Oaktown said, you don't hire a coach who over 9 years in conference had a losing record. Who finished in the bottom half of the conference basically half the years he was there.

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years? You overlook how good the SEC is as a conference. We have no Kentuckys, no Auburns, no Floridas, no Arkansas, no Tennessees in the PAC12. The year Fox was fired, 2018, the SEC had 9 teams who won 20 games that season. The PAC12 has Arizona, Oregon, and maybe UCLA, if they ever get their act together again. Washington with all its seniors leaving will be toast next season. You sweep under the rug all Fox's championships at Nevada over 5 years, and all the fine defensive teams he had at both Nevada and Georgia. And you disregard the fact that Cal does not have exactly the same priorities as you and Oaktown have. It should be important, and was, that Cal not repeat the mistakes they made in hiring Cuonzo Martin, who clearly sold Cal on how he would win by bringing in highly ranked recruits, but he forgot to tell them how hard it would be to keep continuity after they leave early, or Wyking Jones whose strongest suit was probably bringing continuity, which was another mistake. The losses were important, sure, but it was the way Cal lost. They just did not look good. If Cal looks better, fans will come. And if they play defense, they will look better and win more. often. AD Knowlton and whoever approved of hiring Fox clearly have additional priorities. They may not have made a good decision, but they considered more than just wins and losses. This has become a chopped liver conference, and just maybe an average coach, but an above average defensive coach, from a much tougher conference can breathe some life into the Cal basketball program.

---

The SEC was not good as a conference. Auburn and Tennessee? C'mon. Auburn made the postseason - any postseason, including the CIT and NIT - once time in Fox time at Georgia. Their average conference season looks like it was 5-13 when he was there. I know that 5-13 is a wet dream for Wyking but it's not actually good.

Here's the SEC's SRS (simple rating system) conference ranking during Fox' time there (most recent first): 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 7, 4, 6, 5

In the typical season he was coaching in the worst or 2nd worst major conference in the country. That's the overwhelming competition he couldn't handle.

For comparison, here's the PAC in that time: 6, 6, 3, 6, 3, 4, 7, 5, 6. The PAC was actually a bit stronger but let's call it a wash. Fox was mediocre against the same level of competition he'll face here.

His whole run was basically end of the line Braun - mediocre at best teams that are in trouble if the conference has an up year and have a shot at the postseason if the conference is horribly down. In fact, Braun's last team - the one that got him fired - finished 67th in KenPom's ratings. Fox' peak SEC record (12-6) came in the 2013-14 season and that team finished 78th in the country. Braun coached in a super tough conference that year, Fox coached in the equivalent of this year's PAC. So yeah, if the PAC has historically terrible seasons year after year then Fox, in his up years, can have us competing for the top 3rd of the conference and an occasional 10 seed. Yippee.

---

You're doing God's work.

SFCityBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

What I bolded. Really? This video points to competency for you, because it doesn't to me. This video is certainly part of all signs.

I don't know what else he did. But this video that Cal decided to push on social is terrible. Of course it looked even worse two days later.

---

Fox was interviewed in hour 3 of this radio show. 13 min mark. You can judge whether it's any better.

https://omny.fm/shows/tiki-and-tierney/tiki-and-tierney-4-4-19-hour-3

---

Wasn't terrible. If this had been my first exposure to him as Cal coach I'd probably feel better. I liked his comment about the transfer rules, that kids should be able to choose their own destination. While I didn't like he was sort of absolving the NCAA of oversight, I liked him calling out the corruption at institutions - USC that means you - as opposed to just athletic departments.

But it still all goes back to what Oaktown said, you don't hire a coach who over 9 years in conference had a losing record. Who finished in the bottom half of the conference basically half the years he was there.

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years? You overlook how good the SEC is as a conference. We have no Kentuckys, no Auburns, no Floridas, no Arkansas, no Tennessees in the PAC12. The year Fox was fired, 2018, the SEC had 9 teams who won 20 games that season. The PAC12 has Arizona, Oregon, and maybe UCLA, if they ever get their act together again. Washington with all its seniors leaving will be toast next season. You sweep under the rug all Fox's championships at Nevada over 5 years, and all the fine defensive teams he had at both Nevada and Georgia. And you disregard the fact that Cal does not have exactly the same priorities as you and Oaktown have. It should be important, and was, that Cal not repeat the mistakes they made in hiring Cuonzo Martin, who clearly sold Cal on how he would win by bringing in highly ranked recruits, but he forgot to tell them how hard it would be to keep continuity after they leave early, or Wyking Jones whose strongest suit was probably bringing continuity, which was another mistake. The losses were important, sure, but it was the way Cal lost. They just did not look good. If Cal looks better, fans will come. And if they play defense, they will look better and win more. often. AD Knowlton and whoever approved of hiring Fox clearly have additional priorities. They may not have made a good decision, but they considered more than just wins and losses. This has become a chopped liver conference, and just maybe an average coach, but an above average defensive coach, from a much tougher conference can breathe some life into the Cal basketball program.

---

Others have pointed out how ridiculous your assertion about the SEC was, so that makes it hard for me to take any "data" points you provide seriously. I'm sorry. But let me add, Arkansas??? Really? While Fox was at Georgia, Arkansas failed to make any post-season five times, despite one of those years being 10-8 in conference, which should tell you what the committee thought about the conference.

But to your main question

Quote:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

That's exactly right. Maybe if we were looking for an assistant, then, sure, he might bring something. But for a head coach. No. Not remotely. Never.

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

... And CivilBear.

Despite your cherry picking, the SEC was inferior to the Pac12 most years that Fox was there.

---

If you and Oaktown would reject a coach simply because he had a losing conference record over 9 years, I think you and Oaktown are wrong. It is a HUGE part of the overall package, and it should be VERY hard to overcome, especially if there are other good candidates around, but it shouldn't be the only thing.

There needs to be a LOT of fair reasons for the losing conference record AND a lot of other positives beyond the P6 overall winning record, a record of integrity, and good chemistry with the AD. And even then, you probably don't hire him unless there really aren't other promising prospects who would seem to have a higher ceiling. I don't see how hiring a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years is anything but settling.

Too much emphasis was placed on the P6 HC experience. It is really hard to hire a guy with a winning conference record in P6. Cal did it with Monty and Martin and that's it. Hiring a guy with a losing conference record in P6, not so hard. Not sure who might have been willing to come to Cal this year with a winning overall P6 conference record other than Ben Howland (and I would have preferred Howland to Fox). So, yes, it is hard to find a guy with a winning P6 record. That's why you turn to the unknown with the higher ceiling when you can't find an established P6 winner.

My biggest fear in this hire is that Fox got the job because he has good chemistry with the AD. OK, I lied, my biggest fear is that the hire results in the continuation of the wasteland that is currently Cal MBB, and that will be at least another decade before Cal MBB comes out of the wasteland. I hope Fox can have success that his Georgia record makes unlikely, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

I'm sorry, but 9 years of mediocrity at a similar level of competition should be a non-starter for a program that wishes to do better. I presume that is why Georgia fired him. And to be clear, making it a non-starter does not in any way equate to automatically hiring someone simply because they had a better record.

Civil Bear said:

---

I'm sorry, but 9 years of mediocrity at a similar level of competition should be a non-starter for a program that wishes to do better.

---

Therein lies the problem. I don't believe that the Cal administration or the AD leadership really expects to do better than "mediocrity" in men's basketball or football. Averaging .500 seasons and 5th to 6th place in the conference are just fine with them.

oskidunker said:

---

At some point you have support the decision. They are not going to fire fox and get someone they can't afford . Our situation is improved. Why not give the guy a chance? Otherwise just ignore Cal basketball. Might be better thing to do .

---

As long as folks tell me I should like the hire I'll tell them why I don't.

I'll continue to follow the team and hope Fox prooves me wrong, but will no longer financially support a team that is shooting for mediocracy. For about 28 years I felt like at least Cal wanted to compete for titles, and I wanted to be part of the ride.

My gift to Cal fans is Cal will probably start winning now that I've stepped off the ride. I'd be happy with that.

oskidunker said:

---

At some point you have support the decision.

---

No you don't. And it depends on what you mean by support. Buy tickets? Donate? Watch on TV? I did essentially none of those things under Wyking because it was that bad of a decision (maybe I watched 3 games in 2 years).

What's done is done with Fox. There is perhaps some Bruce Snyder chance that he learned something in his last job that will make him better in this job. So I'm willing to watch to see if the team is disciplined and well-coached If it is, I'll be willing to watch even though I think we're looking at a couple of tough years before recruiting could possibly improve enough to lift our talent level higher.

Civil Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

At some point you have support the decision. They are not going to fire fox and get someone they can't afford . Our situation is improved. Why not give the guy a chance? Otherwise just ignore Cal basketball. Might be better thing to do .

---

As long as folks tell me I should like the hire I'll tell them why I don't.

I'll continue to follow the team and hope Fox prooves me wrong, but will no longer financially support a team that is shooting for mediocracy. For about 28 years I felt like at least Cal wanted to compete for titles, and I wanted to be part of the ride.

My gift to Cal fans is Cal will probably start winning now that I've stepped off the ride. I'd be happy with that.

---

Exactly. I am ready to get on board and support him because I support Cal and our players, just don't try to tell me it was a great hire, well researched, etc. i hope it turns out well despite his record and the process.

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

At some point you have support the decision. They are not going to fire fox and get someone they can't afford . Our situation is improved. Why not give the guy a chance? Otherwise just ignore Cal basketball. Might be better thing to do .

---

As long as folks tell me I should like the hire I'll tell them why I don't.

I'll continue to follow the team and hope Fox prooves me wrong, but will no longer financially support a team that is shooting for mediocracy. For about 28 years I felt like at least Cal wanted to compete for titles, and I wanted to be part of the ride.

My gift to Cal fans is Cal will probably start winning now that I've stepped off the ride. I'd be happy with that.

---

Exactly. I am ready to get on board and support him because I support Cal and our players, just don't try to tell me it was a great hire, well researched, etc. i hope it turns out well despite his record and the process.

---

I'm tired of the word "support" and its connection to Cal sports. Especially since some people seem to think certain types of "support" don't count.

I don't think Fox should've been hired, but he was. Bruce Snyder probably shouldn't have been hired but he was. Nothing in his career up to that point would have suggested he was a 10 win coach or a Rose Bowl coach waiting to happen. But he was, even if he didn't maintain that level.

When Cal plays basketball, I'll root for them to win. If the games are on TV, I'll check them out to see how the team looks. But for god's sake Cal fans, stop using the word support like your individual fanhood is buoying their spirits. We get that you're a Cal fan, cause otherwise you wouldn't be posting on the board. You are open to the idea that Fox could be good despite some evidence that he isn't. Leave it at that.

Yogi Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

At some point you have support the decision.

---

No you don't. And it depends on what you mean by support. Buy tickets? Donate? Watch on TV? I did essentially none of those things under Wyking because it was that bad of a decision (maybe I watched 3 games in 2 years).

What's done is done with Fox. There is perhaps some Bruce Snyder chance that he learned something in his last job that will make him better in this job. So I'm willing to watch to see if the team is disciplined and well-coached If it is, I'll be willing to watch even though I think we're looking at a couple of tough years before recruiting could possibly improve enough to lift our talent level higher.

---

Bruce Snyder comparison gives me reason for hope. Thanks.

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

... And CivilBear.

Despite your cherry picking, the SEC was inferior to the Pac12 most years that Fox was there.

---

If you and Oaktown would reject a coach simply because he had a losing conference record over 9 years, I think you and Oaktown are wrong. It is a HUGE part of the overall package, and it should be VERY hard to overcome, especially if there are other good candidates around, but it shouldn't be the only thing.

There needs to be a LOT of fair reasons for the losing conference record AND a lot of other positives beyond the P6 overall winning record, a record of integrity, and good chemistry with the AD. And even then, you probably don't hire him unless there really aren't other promising prospects who would seem to have a higher ceiling. I don't see how hiring a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years is anything but settling.

Too much emphasis was placed on the P6 HC experience. It is really hard to hire a guy with a winning conference record in P6. Cal did it with Monty and Martin and that's it. Hiring a guy with a losing conference record in P6, not so hard. Not sure who might have been willing to come to Cal this year with a winning overall P6 conference record other than Ben Howland (and I would have preferred Howland to Fox). So, yes, it is hard to find a guy with a winning P6 record. That's why you turn to the unknown with the higher ceiling when you can't find an established P6 winner.

My biggest fear in this hire is that Fox got the job because he has good chemistry with the AD. OK, I lied, my biggest fear is that the hire results in the continuation of the wasteland that is currently Cal MBB, and that will be at least another decade before Cal MBB comes out of the wasteland. I hope Fox can have success that his Georgia record makes unlikely, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

8285

It is easy to find flaws in any argument if you force it to be an absolute. Let me say this. I will never eat bull *****. Now, that being said, if I'm trapped for a month in an automated bull ***** processing plant and I must eat bull ***** to survive, I will do so. If I become a star in the entertainment industry and I'm invited on the James Cordon show where we play "Spill Your Guts or Fill Your Guts", I MAY eat the bull ***** to show to my fans what a great sport I am. So it isn't technically true I will never eat bull *****. However, I feel very comfortable with a reasonable interpretation that I can say I will never eat bull *****.

As to the topic at hand, SFCity shorthanded what I said (and I'm okay with that). I said losing conference record over 9 years at this level. I said the coach could go somewhere else and win and rehabilitate his record. I will say if his entire team dies in a plane crash, and he fields a team of volunteer walk ons and goes 0-18, with all the school supporting them and then he slowly builds them into a champion and they make a major motion picture out of it that wins an Oscar, okay. In a more realistic scenario, if he takes over a horrible program and has really horrible records in the early years, then maybe. But the thing is with 9 years, it is really hard to come up with a reasonable scenario where a winning coach has not overcome the early years to get over .500. And none of this is relevant to the current situation because Fox had a losing conference record over his last 3 years and got worse every year for his last 4.

Under that scenario, I see no justification. I do not see integrity as a justification. Lack of integrity is a reason you do not hire a coach. Integrity is not a reason to hire a coach (Tom Holmoe anyone). There is no way getting along with the AD overcomes a losing record. In fact, for years this was a big issue I had with Cal hiring. They either hire a guy entirely on personality (Kapp) or hire a guy with a terrible personality because of his resume (Gilby). You need both. One does not overcome the other.

So I go back to the rule being you don't hire a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years. There can be exceptions to the rule, but that is the rule. I see no exceptions in this case.

As for SFCity's statement that we wouldn't hire someone simply because they have a losing record. Yes. If he wants to make a case that Fox is otherwise qualified, he can be my guest. Making a case that a candidate is not disqualified is not the same as making a case that he is qualified.

Civil Bear said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

... And CivilBear.

Despite your cherry picking, the SEC was inferior to the Pac12 most years that Fox was there.

---

If you and Oaktown would reject a coach simply because he had a losing conference record over 9 years, I think you and Oaktown are wrong. It is a HUGE part of the overall package, and it should be VERY hard to overcome, especially if there are other good candidates around, but it shouldn't be the only thing.

There needs to be a LOT of fair reasons for the losing conference record AND a lot of other positives beyond the P6 overall winning record, a record of integrity, and good chemistry with the AD. And even then, you probably don't hire him unless there really aren't other promising prospects who would seem to have a higher ceiling. I don't see how hiring a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years is anything but settling.

Too much emphasis was placed on the P6 HC experience. It is really hard to hire a guy with a winning conference record in P6. Cal did it with Monty and Martin and that's it. Hiring a guy with a losing conference record in P6, not so hard. Not sure who might have been willing to come to Cal this year with a winning overall P6 conference record other than Ben Howland (and I would have preferred Howland to Fox). So, yes, it is hard to find a guy with a winning P6 record. That's why you turn to the unknown with the higher ceiling when you can't find an established P6 winner.

My biggest fear in this hire is that Fox got the job because he has good chemistry with the AD. OK, I lied, my biggest fear is that the hire results in the continuation of the wasteland that is currently Cal MBB, and that will be at least another decade before Cal MBB comes out of the wasteland. I hope Fox can have success that his Georgia record makes unlikely, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

I'm sorry, but 9 years of mediocrity at a similar level of competition should be a non-starter for a program that wishes to do better. I presume that is why Georgia fired him. And to be clear, making it a non-starter does not in any way equate to automatically hiring someone simply because they had a better record.

---

That is limited thinking. Rejecting a candidate based on nothing more than a slightly under .500 P6 conference record over nine years is as foolish as hiring a candidate with a slightly under .500 P6 record over nine years and nothing else meaningful besides integrity and chemistry with the AD.

Based on the fact that a guy had 9 years of mediocrity at a similar level, more than 99% of the time, neither one of us would hire a guy with that record. I wouldn't have hired Fox (at least not based any of the reasoning Knowlton has given for hiring him). The only difference between us is you say, "No way, period," and I say, "No way, barring something REALLY unusual," but there was nothing really unusual present here.

Since I don't have a concrete example of a guy with that record that I would have hired in a similar circumstance, we can't really test whether you might agree, but I believe in being open minded. Closed minded thinking can lead to great opportunities passing you by. But I see nothing to make me think hiring Fox was the right move.

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

... And CivilBear.

Despite your cherry picking, the SEC was inferior to the Pac12 most years that Fox was there.

---

If you and Oaktown would reject a coach simply because he had a losing conference record over 9 years, I think you and Oaktown are wrong. It is a HUGE part of the overall package, and it should be VERY hard to overcome, especially if there are other good candidates around, but it shouldn't be the only thing.

There needs to be a LOT of fair reasons for the losing conference record AND a lot of other positives beyond the P6 overall winning record, a record of integrity, and good chemistry with the AD. And even then, you probably don't hire him unless there really aren't other promising prospects who would seem to have a higher ceiling. I don't see how hiring a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years is anything but settling.

Too much emphasis was placed on the P6 HC experience. It is really hard to hire a guy with a winning conference record in P6. Cal did it with Monty and Martin and that's it. Hiring a guy with a losing conference record in P6, not so hard. Not sure who might have been willing to come to Cal this year with a winning overall P6 conference record other than Ben Howland (and I would have preferred Howland to Fox). So, yes, it is hard to find a guy with a winning P6 record. That's why you turn to the unknown with the higher ceiling when you can't find an established P6 winner.

My biggest fear in this hire is that Fox got the job because he has good chemistry with the AD. OK, I lied, my biggest fear is that the hire results in the continuation of the wasteland that is currently Cal MBB, and that will be at least another decade before Cal MBB comes out of the wasteland. I hope Fox can have success that his Georgia record makes unlikely, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

. . . So I go back to the rule being you don't hire a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years. There can be exceptions to the rule, but that is the rule. I see no exceptions in this case. . . .

---

There we are 100% in agreement. You don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing conference record over 9 years when he presents no exceptions to the rule that you don't hire such a guy.

Integrity and chemistry with the AD is not enough to create an exception to the rule. The former is a requirement of the job, the latter is not essential and worse yet, can blind the AD. I know it is hard not to hire people I have great chemistry with, but it almost every instance, that is nowhere near the most important part of the job, and people doing hiring need to forget about who wins the interview and who would be best to have a beer with and hire who is best for the damn job. I don't think that happened here.

To turn around a 5-31 program with no practice facility and one conference championship in 60 years, you had better start by being ready to teach defense to a bunch of four-year players (there won't be any one-and done stand-outs coming any time soon to a program of this declining status). It may not work, but that is clearly the rationale behind this decision.

I am also looking at DeCuire's record this year. He lost to Michigan 74-55 and Arizona 61-42, and additionally managed to lose games to Creighton, Eastern Washington, Georgia Southern and Northern Colorado.

Civil Bear said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

... And CivilBear.

Despite your cherry picking, the SEC was inferior to the Pac12 most years that Fox was there.

---

If you and Oaktown would reject a coach simply because he had a losing conference record over 9 years, I think you and Oaktown are wrong. It is a HUGE part of the overall package, and it should be VERY hard to overcome, especially if there are other good candidates around, but it shouldn't be the only thing.

There needs to be a LOT of fair reasons for the losing conference record AND a lot of other positives beyond the P6 overall winning record, a record of integrity, and good chemistry with the AD. And even then, you probably don't hire him unless there really aren't other promising prospects who would seem to have a higher ceiling. I don't see how hiring a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years is anything but settling.

Too much emphasis was placed on the P6 HC experience. It is really hard to hire a guy with a winning conference record in P6. Cal did it with Monty and Martin and that's it. Hiring a guy with a losing conference record in P6, not so hard. Not sure who might have been willing to come to Cal this year with a winning overall P6 conference record other than Ben Howland (and I would have preferred Howland to Fox). So, yes, it is hard to find a guy with a winning P6 record. That's why you turn to the unknown with the higher ceiling when you can't find an established P6 winner.

My biggest fear in this hire is that Fox got the job because he has good chemistry with the AD. OK, I lied, my biggest fear is that the hire results in the continuation of the wasteland that is currently Cal MBB, and that will be at least another decade before Cal MBB comes out of the wasteland. I hope Fox can have success that his Georgia record makes unlikely, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

I'm sorry, but 9 years of mediocrity at a similar level of competition should be a non-starter for a program that wishes to do better. I presume that is why Georgia fired him. And to be clear, making it a non-starter does not in any way equate to automatically hiring someone simply because they had a better record.

---

News Flash! "Mediocrity" is much, much "better" than Cal was in the last two years under Wyking Jones. Not good enough for you and for me and for most Cal fans, but it is "better" by a lot. Jones would have killed for just one .500 season.

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

So you and Oaktown don't hire a coach simply because he had a losing (very slightly below .500) record over 9 years?

---

... And CivilBear.

Despite your cherry picking, the SEC was inferior to the Pac12 most years that Fox was there.

---

If you and Oaktown would reject a coach simply because he had a losing conference record over 9 years, I think you and Oaktown are wrong. It is a HUGE part of the overall package, and it should be VERY hard to overcome, especially if there are other good candidates around, but it shouldn't be the only thing.

There needs to be a LOT of fair reasons for the losing conference record AND a lot of other positives beyond the P6 overall winning record, a record of integrity, and good chemistry with the AD. And even then, you probably don't hire him unless there really aren't other promising prospects who would seem to have a higher ceiling. I don't see how hiring a guy with a losing conference record over 9 years is anything but settling.

Too much emphasis was placed on the P6 HC experience. It is really hard to hire a guy with a winning conference record in P6. Cal did it with Monty and Martin and that's it. Hiring a guy with a losing conference record in P6, not so hard. Not sure who might have been willing to come to Cal this year with a winning overall P6 conference record other than Ben Howland (and I would have preferred Howland to Fox). So, yes, it is hard to find a guy with a winning P6 record. That's why you turn to the unknown with the higher ceiling when you can't find an established P6 winner.

My biggest fear in this hire is that Fox got the job because he has good chemistry with the AD. OK, I lied, my biggest fear is that the hire results in the continuation of the wasteland that is currently Cal MBB, and that will be at least another decade before Cal MBB comes out of the wasteland. I hope Fox can have success that his Georgia record makes unlikely, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

I'm sorry, but 9 years of mediocrity at a similar level of competition should be a non-starter for a program that wishes to do better. I presume that is why Georgia fired him. And to be clear, making it a non-starter does not in any way equate to automatically hiring someone simply because they had a better record.

---

News Flash! "Mediocrity" is much, much "better" than Cal was in the last two years under Wyking Jones. Not good enough for you and for me and for most Cal fans, but it is "better" by a lot. Jones would have killed for just one .500 season.

---

"Better" is not "mediocrity". We can and have done better. Three years ago (March, 2016) we were a 4-seed in the NCAA tourney. In the twenty years prior to Jones, we AVERAGED 19.5 wins a year and 9.9 conference wins a year. Jones is the anomaly, not the norm.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

At some point you have support the decision.

---

No you don't. And it depends on what you mean by support. Buy tickets? Donate? Watch on TV? I did essentially none of those things under Wyking because it was that bad of a decision (maybe I watched 3 games in 2 years).

What's done is done with Fox. There is perhaps some Bruce Snyder chance that he learned something in his last job that will make him better in this job. So I'm willing to watch to see if the team is disciplined and well-coached If it is, I'll be willing to watch even though I think we're looking at a couple of tough years before recruiting could possibly improve enough to lift our talent level higher.

---

Bruce Snyder comparison gives me reason for hope. Thanks.

---

If you want to use the Snyder comparison, you need some patience.

Snyder's first three seasons as Cal football head coach:

1987 3-6-2 overall, 2-3-2 in Pac-10, 8th place
1988 5-5-1 overall, 1-5-1 in Pac-10, 10th place
1989 4-7 overall, 2-6 in Pac-10, 10th place