bearchamp said:

---

Is putting butts in the seats the paramount issue for Cal sports? Is putting butts in the seats a long-term or short-term objective? I am very impressed with the omniscience of so many on this board who know that the hiring of Fox is a failure already.

---

3146gabby said:

---

Apologies if this has been discussed ad naseum in other posts - right now there are so many on the Fox Hire.

Whatever you think about JK, the news flow about Jones/Fox, etc., what were the viable alternatives to Fox, given the reality of Cal [grades, etc. etc.] and realistically would or would not come here?

As a late 1960s grad my suffering is long-standing too and understand the frustration on this board, but on to more factual matters and the options before JK:

Kidd: minimally logical concerns about his coaching acumen, some personal stuff.

Musselman: previous behavior concerns; coaching mid level; at UNR had much easier entrance requirements and therefore easier recruiting

Turner: mid major, some concerns about the Queen matter

DeC: may have been the best, but also mid major where recruiting much easier.

Others? Who were they and the rationale for them?

Putting aside all the anger, someone please explain how the above are worlds better than Fox.

I am certainly not saying Fox is a great or even good hire - who knows until the games begin, but within the context of the options available what were the alternatives.

---

bearchamp said:

---

I suppose some zealots would "do it", but why? The mission of the University is education, not basketball. In real terms, what does the sale of 5,000 seats do to impact the mission?

---

evanluck said:

---

Nothing that I've seen from Fox so far makes me doubt the positives that he reportedly brings to the table.

---

bearchamp said:

---

I agree that the current situation is that Cal has opted for athletics as an entertainment business model, but that is not necessary. Cal could do away with scholarships and expensive coaches and the athletic budget would be miniscule compared to the current obligations. Every endeavor of the University should be viewed through the prism of its mission. Sports are often touted as providing educational benefit, although "big time' commercial sports are not. The educational benefits of sport are for the participants, not the fans. Cal sports could choose to embrace that model rather than the commercial model. The non-revenue generating sports are in the non-commercial mode. Swimming doesn't seem to have a problem without "putting butts in the seats". Cal primarily needs to "milk" sports revenue to support the very expensive "revenue" sports. Crew is self-funded. Aquatics is self- funded. Maybe golf and tennis (I really don't know except that I have heard they are trying to get self-funded). My point here is that "big time" is not inevitable, it is a choice. By the way, my daughter attended a tiny D-III school: it had both football and basketball and put very few "butts"in the seats.

---

stu said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Nothing that I've seen from Fox so far makes me doubt the positives that he reportedly brings to the table.

---

Do you think one of those positives is an excellent fit with Cal and Berkeley? Does any of his extensive experience indicate so?

---

bearchamp said:

---

I agree that the current situation is that Cal has opted for athletics as an entertainment business model, but that is not necessary. Cal could do away with scholarships and expensive coaches and the athletic budget would be miniscule compared to the current obligations. Every endeavor of the University should be viewed through the prism of its mission. Sports are often touted as providing educational benefit, although "big time' commercial sports are not. The educational benefits of sport are for the participants, not the fans. Cal sports could choose to embrace that model rather than the commercial model. The non-revenue generating sports are in the non-commercial mode. Swimming doesn't seem to have a problem without "putting butts in the seats". Cal primarily needs to "milk" sports revenue to support the very expensive "revenue" sports. Crew is self-funded. Aquatics is self- funded. Maybe golf and tennis (I really don't know except that I have heard they are trying to get self-funded). My point here is that "big time" is not inevitable, it is a choice. By the way, my daughter attended a tiny D-III school: it had both football and basketball and put very few "butts"in the seats.

---

evanluck said:

---

stu said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Nothing that I've seen from Fox so far makes me doubt the positives that he reportedly brings to the table.

---

Do you think one of those positives is an excellent fit with Cal and Berkeley? Does any of his extensive experience indicate so?

---

What do we mean when we say a coach and Cal are a good fit?

The first seems to be that the coach understands how the University values academics and sees that as an asset rather than a burden. (seems like Fox checks this box and his ability to articulate it in his interview may have been what made him stand out against the other final candidates).

The second would be that the coach wants to run a clean program (Fox checks this box).

The third would be that he understands the bureaucracy of UC and how even the premiere athletic programs need to work within that bureaucracy to get things done (Doesn't check this box, probably thinks he understands, but definitely doesn't check this box as well as someone who was an assistant at Cal like Decuire or is currently coaching at another UC like Turner).

Fourth would be West Coast recruiting ties (Fox doesn't check this box but could compensate with assistant hires)

Finally the fourth depending on who you believe is that the coach believes that they can win at Cal and win at the highest level (Every coach will say that he believes this. Fox has said so. Whether he truly believes it would be something more easily assessed in an interview.).

His colleagues that seem to think he is a great fit at Cal are some on the ones advancing the narrative that he was an awkward fit at Georgia and that a coach with his emphasis on ethics would do much better at Cal.

---

stu said:

---

I also wonder if Fox is OK with Telegraph Avenue or if he'd rather hide in Danville.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

What difference does it make where the coach lives? Has any Cal coach lived on Telegraph?

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

I also wonder if Fox is OK with Telegraph Avenue or if he'd rather hide in Danville.

---

What difference does it make where the coach lives? Has any Cal coach lived on Telegraph?

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

"They would have all been better because none of them have failed as high major coaches yet. "

I doubt that. Kidd and Musclehead(jk) might have been able to recruit here notwithstanding the weird admission standards we seem to have these days. But Turner and TD, no chance. And I don't think either of them are the second coming of "insert your God of all coaches name", so making up for the lack of talent would not be matched by coaching skill. Just my opinion but this job has gone downhill since the departure of Braun and or Monty.

---

k9dog1 said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

"They would have all been better because none of them have failed as high major coaches yet. "

I doubt that. Kidd and Musclehead(jk) might have been able to recruit here notwithstanding the weird admission standards we seem to have these days. But Turner and TD, no chance. And I don't think either of them are the second coming of "insert your God of all coaches name", so making up for the lack of talent would not be matched by coaching skill. Just my opinion but this job has gone downhill since the departure of Braun and or Monty.

---

---

3146gabby said:

---

Apologies if this has been discussed ad naseum in other posts - right now there are so many on the Fox Hire.

Whatever you think about JK, the news flow about Jones/Fox, etc., what were the viable alternatives to Fox, given the reality of Cal [grades, etc. etc.] and realistically would or would not come here?

As a late 1960s grad my suffering is long-standing too and understand the frustration on this board, but on to more factual matters and the options before JK:

Kidd: minimally logical concerns about his coaching acumen, some personal stuff.

Musselman: previous behavior concerns; coaching mid level; at UNR had much easier entrance requirements and therefore easier recruiting

Turner: mid major, some concerns about the Queen matter

DeC: may have been the best, but also mid major where recruiting much easier.

Others? Who were they and the rationale for them?

Putting aside all the anger, someone please explain how the above are worlds better than Fox.

I am certainly not saying Fox is a great or even good hire - who knows until the games begin, but within the context of the options available what were the alternatives.

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

It's funny that some people on here keep trying argue something that logically is not arguable.

Not true on DeCuire and Turner. Assuming they wouldn't be able to recruit at a satisfactory level is far fetched, IMO. DeCuire recruited well for Cal and identified the right prospects. Monty not being able close was not his fault. Also, you don't have their level of success at the mid-major level without being able to recruit well for that level, and part of that is player evaluation, which is being able to find talent that isn't obvious to everyone. On the other hand, we have actual evidence that Fox did not recruit well as an SEC head coach.

k9dog1 said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

"They would have all been better because none of them have failed as high major coaches yet. "

I doubt that. Kidd and Musclehead(jk) might have been able to recruit here notwithstanding the weird admission standards we seem to have these days. But Turner and TD, no chance. And I don't think either of them are the second coming of "insert your God of all coaches name", so making up for the lack of talent would not be matched by coaching skill. Just my opinion but this job has gone downhill since the departure of Braun and or Monty.

---

---

---

boredom said:

---

Is Johnson even a good recruiter? He had three major conference gigs.

He was at LSU from 2008 - 2012. I would assume that the 2009 - 2011 recruiting classes are his. According to the 247 rankings LSU finished 13th, 7th, and 9th in the SEC. That's... not good.

He was at furd from 2004-2008 so the 2005-2007 classes are the relevant ones. He finished 9th, 2nd, and dead last in conference. The one good finish was because of the Lopez twins who were going to furd anyway.

He most recently was at TCU from 2012-2016. Looking at the 2013-2015 classes: 6th, dead last, 8th. Yikes.

He was a major conference coach for over a decade. He managed to not screw up the Lopez twins' desire to go to furd. Otherwise he was consistently in the bottom of his conference in recruiting rankings. And this guy is the silver bullet to Fox being a bad recruiter?

---

boredom said:

---

Is Johnson even a good recruiter? He had three major conference gigs.

He was at LSU from 2008 - 2012. I would assume that the 2009 - 2011 recruiting classes are his. According to the 247 rankings LSU finished 13th, 7th, and 9th in the SEC. That's... not good.

He was at furd from 2004-2008 so the 2005-2007 classes are the relevant ones. He finished 9th, 2nd, and dead last in conference. The one good finish was because of the Lopez twins who were going to furd anyway.

He most recently was at TCU from 2012-2016. Looking at the 2013-2015 classes: 6th, dead last, 8th. Yikes.

He was a major conference coach for over a decade. He managed to not screw up the Lopez twins' desire to go to furd. Otherwise he was consistently in the bottom of his conference in recruiting rankings. And this guy is the silver bullet to Fox being a bad recruiter?

---