RJABear said:

---

Vanover has got a great chance of making it to the NBA. You cannot coach height.

According to the Boston Globe, 1 out of every 6 people in the US (edit) who are 7 feet tall will get to the NBA. If the 7-footer has any athletic ability, then they are decent practice fodder.

---

Vanover isn't just 7 feet, he's 7 feet 3 inches. Also he has coordination and an outside shot. IMHO if he fills out he should be able to make money playing basketball.

Big C said:

---

Can anybody identify players currently in the NBA who have the approximate skill set of Vanover? If so, how are they doing? Or is he capable of breaking the proverbial mold?

---

Aren't these questions ridiculous at this point in the young man's career? You want to compare the skill set of a gangling 7 foot 3 inch bag of bones, an 18 or 19 year old freshman, with the the skill sets of an entire NBA full of mature players of all sizes and ages from 20 to maybe 40 years old (read Tyson Chandler here)? It is comparing apples to oranges isn't it?

Vanover has a little skill doing two things, shooting jump shots and blocking shots. If we take the top 9 or 10 tallest players in the NBA, there is only one who shoots threes better than Vanover, only a little better, and that is Porzingas (.361) vs Vanover (.355). There is no one among the NBA's tallest who blocks shots as well as Vanover, at 2.9 blocks in 40 minutes. Of course these stats are against college players with college rules in place, another reason you can't compare skill sets in different leagues, old players vs a young one. Still Vanover's ability to block shots and shoot threes is a little unique. Wilt Chamberlain did it every night, blocking a ton of shots and making threes almost any time he wanted to, except there was no 3-pt line when he made them. But not many other players have done this.

The game changes. What you see now with Green at 6-7 playing center for the Warriors is something you may not see in 5 years as coaches make changes to get an edge over the personnel and style of other teams.
The Warriors already were not satisfied with just having Green to play center, and brought in Cousins and later brought back Bogut, all to give opponents a different look and skill set.

Vanover may develop into a special player, and maybe there will be others like him. If he starts averaging 6 or 7 blocks a game, or starts shooting threes at 45%in college, the NBA will find a way to use him, you better believe it.

Wilt, as I recall, never shot from distance. Why would he have?

The great Wilt shot FTs @ 50%.
He averaged 42 ppg in six seasons with the W's.
If he had improved his FT shooting to a reasonable 75% he would have averaged 45 ppg.
This was before the 3 pt shot.
Why would he even consider shooting from outside if the "money" was around the key/basket . . . except when he played against Russell and the Celtics?

south bender said:

---

Wilt, as I recall, never shot from distance. Why would he have?

---

Wilt had a long range jumper which he always shot from a particular spot or area near the left side line, about 15 feet from the baseline, and he always banked this shot off the glass. This would have been an NBA three pointer today, as it was shot from close to the sideline. He never shot that long jumper from anywhere else on the floor that I ever saw. I'm surprised you didn't see him shoot these shots.

I was a Warrior fan from the day they moved here from Philly, more so because of my connection with Tom Meschery who played at my high school, but I could not fail to be impressed by Wilt Chamberlain and all he could do on a basketball court. I had several years of watching Wilt shoot that shot here in San Francisco and on TV. The first time I saw it was when the NBA was testing the Bay Area market to help decide whether to permit a franchise to move here. They advertised a game at the Cow Palace between the Philadelphia Warriors and Wilt Chamberlain and the Minneapolis Lakers with Elgin Baylor. It was a close game, but an incredible individual offensive show between those two men. Baylor scored 60 points, and Chamberlain scored 75 points. I would conservatively say that Wilt 6 or 7 long range shots from the one spot on the left side, which would all be NBA three pointers today. My guess would be he made 6 or 7 out of 10. It was uncanny.

Here is a video available of Wilt making 4 hook shots in a row from the left corner, also NBA three point range:



To answer your question as to why he would have shot those shots, I'd say there are a few reasons: One was to keep Russell and other good defenders honest. Another might be that he was deadly with it, and it was unstoppable. But a more important one was to show off, give the fans a thrill, do something no one else could do. Remember that in Wilt's early days in the NBA, the league was struggling financially and having trouble selling tickets. The players and teams tried a lot of fancy athletic stuff, like the ball handling and passing of a Bob Cousy, the artistry and creativity of Elgin Baylor, and later Rick Barry, and all the things that Wilt could do. A lot of basketball was showboating, to draw fans to the games. Wilt used that shot often during the first half of his NBA career. Later, when coaches had changed his role to one of less scoring but more defense, rebounding, and passing, and he had bulked up to 320 pounds, and he did not venture outside much to shoot that long bank shot off the glass.

Are there any videos of Wilt compiling his workbench stats?

Question for those in the know (after signing Kuany): If the season started today who would our starting five and the rotation players?

Bradley, Antevich, Kelly, Austin, Dyson. Unless we get a shooting guard My guess is the coach will want to focus on defense. Doubt any new players or walk ons could play better defense than Dyson, although he fouls too much.

The preferred walk in kid might get a look but I am just guessing. Hoping some new players can contribute right away .

oskidunker said:

---

Bradley, Antevich, Kelly, Austin, Dyson. Unless we get a shooting guard My guess is the coach will want to focus on defense. Doubt any new players or walk ons could play better defense than Dyson, although he fouls too much.

The preferred walk in kid might get a look but I am just guessing. Hoping some new players can contribute right away .

---

hope everyone is in the gym right now taking 3s

oskidunker said:

---

Bradley, Antevich, Kelly, Austin, Dyson. Unless we get a shooting guard My guess is the coach will want to focus on defense. Doubt any new players or walk ons could play better defense than Dyson, although he fouls too much.

---

If Austin and Kelly don't improve their defense I think they could lose some playing time to new players.

oskidunker said:

---

Bradley, Antevich, Kelly, Austin, Dyson. Unless we get a shooting guard My guess is the coach will want to focus on defense. Doubt any new players or walk ons could play better defense than Dyson, although he fouls too much.

The preferred walk in kid might get a look but I am just guessing. Hoping some new players can contribute right away .

---

If that is the starting line-up, every Pac-12 team would be salivating to play us. Except for Bradley, none of the other guys .... Never mind.

Go Bears!

bearister said:

---

Are there any videos of Wilt compiling his workbench stats?

---

I'm working on it. Clarification please.....what kind of "work"?

Takin' care of bidness, "work."

oskidunker said:

---

Bradley, Antevich, Kelly, Austin, Dyson. Unless we get a shooting guard. My guess is the coach will want to focus on defense. Doubt any new players or walk ons could play better defense than Dyson, although he fouls too much.

The preferred walk in kid might get a look but I am just guessing. Hoping some new players can contribute right away .

---

If you put that team on the floor, you will have a lot of trouble scoring the ball, and a lot of trouble getting rebounds. They will have a lot of trouble scoring 50 points, even with a shot clock to give them possessions. Not sure how we can predict this lineup with any certainty. We have only seen these five players plus Gordon in person, whereas the others we have only seen on high school videos, and most of those were recruiting mixtapes, with footage cherry-picked to show mostly offensive skills. It is always safe to predict the veterans will start.

We have players recovering from serious injury, like Gordon and Thorpe. We have a defensive-minded coach and we have no idea what veterans will absorb Fox's defense. We have no idea whether any of the recruits can play defense. With the offensive weakness of a veterans-only team, my guess is that Fox might play his recruits more, if they can score points. Kuany looks like he can score, and so does Gordon from his high school tapes.

If Brown shows leadership, I might start him. If you insist on playing Bradley at forward, then maybe play Austi and Brown together to get more scoring. I see no starting role for Dyson, because he does not score, or dish. I am hoping that Kuany is a find, and that he will start or play major minutes, or that Anticevich and Kelly have improved greatly. And I hope this coach will realize that he can pass the ball to Kelly in deep and let him score with his post game. I also hope that Thorpe will materialize into a big-time player. The only hope that Cal has this season is that the key veterans have improved a lot and the newcomers are talented and the injured players are recovered. Probably too much to ask for too many players. We are still thin, and need another good player or two.

bearister said:

---

Takin' care of bidness, "work."

---

On it.

Didn't The Stilt claim 10,000 conquests, at one time.

I still blame Cuonzo for our depleted roster. Now that Davis is finished we have a final tally of Cuonzo's recruiting:
2014: Okoroh 4 yrs, Chauca 3 yrs, Domingo 2 yrs, Tarwater 1 yr. Total 10 man-years.
2015: Davis 4 yrs, Rabb 2 yrs, Brown 1 yr. Total 7 man-years.
2016: Coleman 2 yrs, Moore 1 yr, Mullins 1 yr, Lee 1 yr. Total 5 man-years.

To sustain a program you should average 3.25 players every year and those should each stay 4 years. Any who leave early should be replaced with additional recruits. That amounts to 13 man-years per season, or 39 man-years for Cuonzo's 3 seasons.

Cuonzo's total was 22 man-years, only 56% of what would be sustainable. And it was getting worse. Subtracting 7 man-years for non-contributors Chauca and Davis gives 15 man-years of presentable players, or 38% of sustainability. Either way it put us in a hole we'll be climbing out of for some time.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Didn't The Stilt claim 10,000 conquests, at one time.

---

You are off by a multiple: x 2

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12310/did-wilt-chamberlain-really-sleep-20000-women

I think We will better than some think. We do need another wing and a couple of bigs. Wish we could get a couple of grad transfers. Not sure if that happens.

Gkhoury2325 said:

---

I think We will better than some think. We do need another wing and a couple of bigs. Wish we could get a couple of grad transfers. Not sure if that happens.

---

just got our wing

HoopDreams said:

---

Gkhoury2325 said:

---

I think We will better than some think. We do need another wing and a couple of bigs. Wish we could get a couple of grad transfers. Not sure if that happens.

---

just got our wing

---

Hoops, I definitely like the Commit. I do feel we another wing for depth. Would be nice to have the depth, so practices can be intense and guys can get better. It would be nice to have full practices, that breeds competition.

HoopDreams said:

---

just got our wing

---

Good news! Now we'll have 10 players and reasonable position balance. From the little I've been able to find I'm guessing Klonaras has good size for a guard and good BBIQ. Sure hope he can defend and shoot, those might be our most glaring weaknesses. Other than inexperience - we'll have 4 freshies and Gordon hasn't played much.

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

just got our wing

---

Good news! Now we'll have 10 players and reasonable position balance. From the little I've been able to find I'm guessing Klonaras has good size for a guard and good BBIQ. Sure hope he can defend and shoot, those might be our most glaring weaknesses. Other than inexperience - we'll have 4 freshies and Gordon hasn't played much.

---

his video shows good shooting form, and maybe as important, he's not just a catch and shoot guy. He looks like he can make his own shot, and with good length should be able to get his shot off.

HoopDreams said:

---

his video shows good shooting form, and maybe as important, he's not just a catch and shoot guy. He looks like he can make his own shot, and with good length should be able to get his shot off.

---

Klonaras' FIBA U16 stats show good scoring (13.9), rebounding (5.3), 2-pt shooting (.506), and steals (2.4). Also OK free throw shooting (.613), assists (3.0) and turnovers (2.4) but poor 3-point shooting (.167). Probably not worth much as that was 2 years ago and only 8 games.

So at this point the player delta from last season is Vanover, Sueing, McNeill, and Davis out but Thorpe, Brown, Kuane, and Klonaras in. IMHO Vanover was a unique player whose talents won't be replaced this coming season. However if the 4 freshies develop I won't miss Sueing and McNeill as much as I feared.

I do expect improvement in coaching. So put me down for predicting double-digit wins. Just don't ask me how small those digits might be.

stu said:

---

I still blame Cuonzo for our depleted roster. Now that Davis is finished we have a final tally of Cuonzo's recruiting:
2014: Okoroh 4 yrs, Chauca 3 yrs, Domingo 2 yrs, Tarwater 1 yr. Total 10 man-years.
2015: Davis 4 yrs, Rabb 2 yrs, Brown 1 yr. Total 7 man-years.
2016: Coleman 2 yrs, Moore 1 yr, Mullins 1 yr, Lee 1 yr. Total 5 man-years.

To sustain a program you should average 3.25 players every year and those should each stay 4 years. Any who leave early should be replaced with additional recruits. That amounts to 13 man-years per season, or 39 man-years for Cuonzo's 3 seasons.

Cuonzo's total was 22 man-years, only 56% of what would be sustainable. And it was getting worse. Subtracting 7 man-years for non-contributors Chauca and Davis gives 15 man-years of presentable players, or 38% of sustainability. Either way it put us in a hole we'll be climbing out of for some time.

---

Stu,

Real interesting. What is your criteria for sustainability? Where does the figure 3.25 players every year come from?

Thanks

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

his video shows good shooting form, and maybe as important, he's not just a catch and shoot guy. He looks like he can make his own shot, and with good length should be able to get his shot off.

---

Klonaras' FIBA U16 stats show good scoring (13.9), rebounding (5.3), 2-pt shooting (.506), and steals (2.4). Also OK free throw shooting (.613), assists (3.0) and turnovers (2.4) but poor 3-point shooting (.167). Probably not worth much as that was 2 years ago and only 8 games.

So at this point the player delta from last season is Vanover, Sueing, McNeill, and Davis out but Thorpe, Brown, Kuane, and Klonaras in. IMHO Vanover was a unique player whose talents won't be replaced this coming season. However if the 4 freshies develop I won't miss Sueing and McNeill as much as I feared.

I do expect improvement in coaching. So put me down for predicting double-digit wins. Just don't ask me how small those digits might be.

---

I think the 7th to 9th range in the PAC would be a good goal for the program next season. Anything better than that would be above my expectations.

bearister said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Didn't The Stilt claim 10,000 conquests, at one time.

---

You are off by a multiple: x 2

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12310/did-wilt-chamberlain-really-sleep-20000-women

---

It may have been the women who were making many of the conquests, not so much Wilt. I remember one time when my girlfriend wanted Nate Thurmond's autograph so we were hanging out at the Warrior locker room door, together with about 25 gorgeous women, dressed to the nines, all waiting for the players. Out the door came Sleepy Floyd. Three of the best looking ladies immediately took his arm and they walked off with him into the night to have a good time.

Quote:

---

What is your criteria for sustainability? Where does the figure 3.25 players every year come from?

---

To me sustainable means having 13 (decent) scholarship players on the roster every season. If we recruit 3 players each season we'll eventually reach and maintain a 12-player roster. We'll get to 13 by recruiting a 4th player once every 4 seasons, hence the 3.25 average.

Of course in the real world every team has fat and lean recruiting years, injuries, transfers, etc and may not be able to fill all 13 spots with quality players. So maybe an average of 3.0 recruits per year is more realistic. But Cuonzo didn't reach even half of that.

Right now it looks like we'll have 10 scholarship players this fall. With luck all will be healthy and good enough to contribute. The following season we'll lose Austin for sure, possibly also an unhappy or injured player or two. Then with a year on the job our coaches should be able to recruit 3 or 4 new players to get us up to a full complement.

After that the big question will be quality - will these recruits be good enough to win?

SFCityBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Didn't The Stilt claim 10,000 conquests, at one time.

---

You are off by a multiple: x 2

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12310/did-wilt-chamberlain-really-sleep-20000-women

---

It may have been the women who were making many of the conquests, not so much Wilt. I remember one time when my girlfriend wanted Nate Thurmond's autograph so we were hanging out at the Warrior locker room door, together with about 25 gorgeous women, dressed to the nines, all waiting for the players. Out the door came Sleepy Floyd. Three of the best looking ladies immediately took his arm and they walked off with him into the night to have a good time.

---

All good points on this thread on realistic goals for next year's undermanned team.

IMO, a major emphasis should be on player retention throughout the season. Keep the players happy. Always be on an upward trajectory. Maybe that means Austin coming off the bench like mentioned above. Build offense around and design plays for Matt Bradley---and whomever else will be our best players. Securing strong Fall commitments that provide hope for 2020, etc.

Do whatever it takes to avoid half our team entering the transfer portal again.

bearister said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Didn't The Stilt claim 10,000 conquests, at one time.

---

You are off by a multiple: x 2

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12310/did-wilt-chamberlain-really-sleep-20000-women

---

It may have been the women who were making many of the conquests, not so much Wilt. I remember one time when my girlfriend wanted Nate Thurmond's autograph so we were hanging out at the Warrior locker room door, together with about 25 gorgeous women, dressed to the nines, all waiting for the players. Out the door came Sleepy Floyd. Three of the best looking ladies immediately took his arm and they walked off with him into the night to have a good time.

---

---

In Living Color had a skit with a mother and daughter walking alongside what at first appeared to be the Vietnam Memorial with names etched on a wall. Only, it turned out, the wall was women who had slept with Wilt Chamberlain. And both their names were on the wall.

stu said:

---

Quote:

---

What is your criteria for sustainability? Where does the figure 3.25 players every year come from?

---

To me sustainable means having 13 (decent) scholarship players on the roster every season. If we recruit 3 players each season we'll eventually reach and maintain a 12-player roster. We'll get to 13 by recruiting a 4th player once every 4 seasons, hence the 3.25 average.

Of course in the real world every team has fat and lean recruiting years, injuries, transfers, etc and may not be able to fill all 13 spots with quality players. So maybe an average of 3.0 recruits per year is more realistic. But Cuonzo didn't reach even half of that.

Right now it looks like we'll have 10 scholarship players this fall. With luck all will be healthy and good enough to contribute. The following season we'll lose Austin for sure, possibly also an unhappy or injured player or two. Then with a year on the job our coaches should be able to recruit 3 or 4 new players to get us up to a full complement.

After that the big question will be quality - will these recruits be good enough to win?

---

The problem is that it is difficult to plan, and difficult to know how many scholarships a coach will have available in any given year. That is compounded by the fact that there are good recruiting classes with many good players available, and there are lean years when there are not as many good players available.

I can't blame the current mess entirely on Cuonzo. I do blame and criticize him for a lot of things, but this problem began way back in the Ben Braun era somewhere, maybe even earlier, with Bozeman. When Bozeman was fired, he left his replacement an outstanding roster. The trouble was they were all seniors. They had quite a run, but at the end of that first Braun season, they all graduated except Sean Marks and a guard, maybe McQueen. The next few years Braun filled the roster with good transfers.

The players which Mike Montgomery inherited from Braun, Randle, Christopher, Theo, and Boykin helped Montgomery win the PAC10 title in 2010, and then all graduated after that season on the same day. Monty had only Jorge and Kamp (returning to the team after recovering from an injury) to build a team around. He did not do a good enough job recruiting in the next few years, and was hit by Crabbe leaving early, plus the unforeseen Amoke situation. In 2013 he then recruited a large class, 5 players, Bird, Mathews, Singer, Rooks, and RMB. This was the nucleus for Cuonzo's first season at Cal. But all those players would be graduating at once, except for Mathews who left after 3 years in a dispute with Cuonzo.

Cuonzo's big mistake, knowing full well that the remaining 4 players would graduate after 3 seasons with him, was to sign one-and-done players Rabb and Brown, which would leave two big holes to fill in the next recruiting class after they had left. He lucked out a little bit, when Rabb decided to stay another year before leaving. What Cuonzo should have done was go full bore after good players, not top 10 or top 20 players, but good 4-star players who would stay 3 or 4 years, to build a base, with the talent evenly distributed between classes and positions as much as possible. Once he had that stable base in his roster, then he could think about bringing in a top 10 player like Rabb or Brown, to make the team even better. I don't know if Cuonzo had it in mind not to stay at Cal, but it sure looks like he went for all the publicity with signing Rabb and Brown, and parlayed that into a lucrative job at Missouri. He could care less about what he left for the next Cal coach and for the Cal fans. He left next to nothing. I think he left less for Jones than any Cal coach left for his replacement, but the problem began back farther than Cuonzo, IMO.

SFCityBear said:

---

stu said:

---

Quote:

---

What is your criteria for sustainability? Where does the figure 3.25 players every year come from?

---

To me sustainable means having 13 (decent) scholarship players on the roster every season. If we recruit 3 players each season we'll eventually reach and maintain a 12-player roster. We'll get to 13 by recruiting a 4th player once every 4 seasons, hence the 3.25 average.

Of course in the real world every team has fat and lean recruiting years, injuries, transfers, etc and may not be able to fill all 13 spots with quality players. So maybe an average of 3.0 recruits per year is more realistic. But Cuonzo didn't reach even half of that.

Right now it looks like we'll have 10 scholarship players this fall. With luck all will be healthy and good enough to contribute. The following season we'll lose Austin for sure, possibly also an unhappy or injured player or two. Then with a year on the job our coaches should be able to recruit 3 or 4 new players to get us up to a full complement.

After that the big question will be quality - will these recruits be good enough to win?

---

The problem is that it is difficult to plan, and difficult to know how many scholarships a coach will have available in any given year. That is compounded by the fact that there are good recruiting classes with many good players available, and there are lean years when there are not as many good players available.

I can't blame the current mess entirely on Cuonzo. I do blame and criticize him for a lot of things, but this problem began way back in the Ben Braun era somewhere, maybe even earlier, with Bozeman. When Bozeman was fired, he left his replacement an outstanding roster. The trouble was they were all seniors. They had quite a run, but at the end of that first Braun season, they all graduated except Sean Marks and a guard, maybe McQueen. The next few years Braun filled the roster with good transfers.

The players which Mike Montgomery inherited from Braun, Randle, Christopher, Theo, and Boykin helped Montgomery win the PAC10 title in 2010, and then all graduated after that season on the same day. Monty had only Jorge and Kamp (returning to the team after recovering from an injury) to build a team around. He did not do a good enough job recruiting in the next few years, and was hit by Crabbe leaving early, plus the unforeseen Amoke situation. In 2013 he then recruited a large class, 5 players, Bird, Mathews, Singer, Rooks, and RMB. This was the nucleus for Cuonzo's first season at Cal. But all those players would be graduating at once, except for Mathews who left after 3 years in a dispute with Cuonzo.

Cuonzo's big mistake, knowing full well that the remaining 4 players would graduate after 3 seasons with him, was to sign one-and-done players Rabb and Brown, which would leave two big holes to fill in the next recruiting class after they had left. He lucked out a little bit, when Rabb decided to stay another year before leaving. What Cuonzo should have done was go full bore after good players, not top 10 or top 20 players, but good 4-star players who would stay 3 or 4 years, to build a base, with the talent evenly distributed between classes and positions as much as possible. Once he had that stable base in his roster, then he could think about bringing in a top 10 player like Rabb or Brown, to make the team even better. I don't know if Cuonzo had it in mind not to stay at Cal, but it sure looks like he went for all the publicity with signing Rabb and Brown, and parlayed that into a lucrative job at Missouri. He could care less about what he left for the next Cal coach and for the Cal fans. He left next to nothing. I think he left less for Jones than any Cal coach left for his replacement, but the problem began back farther than Cuonzo, IMO.

---

Bozeman left Braun with Sean Marks, Circus King, Kenyon Jones, and Sean Jackson as returning players Braun's second year. He easily could have left him with Eddie House, but he chose not to offer which is mind boggling given he had empty scholarships.

Long ago, people would say something was wrong with Braun because he had so many departures. Back then, I demonstrated that his departure rate was essentially the same as Campanelli and Bozeman. I didn't go back further. To the extent it is a "problem", it has been a normal situation for us for decades.

You are absolutely right that Braun left Monty with a really good class that graduated all at once. Fully reasonable to acknowledge that was a challenge for 2011 or 2012 or even 2013. Not 2019. Cuonzo has to shoulder the bulk of the blame. I also think that part of it is just the whole circumstances around his departure. I think that you are 100% accurate that he left less for Jones than any Cal coach has left for his replacement.

I've been over this many times. Signing Brown and Rabb was not a mistake at all, let alone his biggest one. He literally left scholarships on the table that year. And he left at least one empty scholarship the next year. Brown and Rabb did not cost us a single player, let alone any player that contributed as much as they did over a career, even if that career was only one or two years. Maybe he made a mistake in not filling his empty scholarships because he didn't think the players he could use it on were good enough. That would certainly be a far bigger mistake than taking Rabb and Brown. If he didn't take Rabb and Brown, the only change that would have changed is we would have sucked the one year we were good and we would have sucked worse the next year than we already did. His mistakes were not filling all the scholarships he had with quality players and not following up the recruiting buzz from signing Brown and Rabb or the successful year we had with them with any higher quality recruiting. If you are going to claim that Brown and Rabb was a problem, you have to explain how Noah Body was going to lead Cal to higher success.

As I've said many times, Cal has very few one or two and dones. They have never cost us another recruit. Cal's problem isn't one and dones it is the bottom of the recruiting class that cycles between leaving the scholarships open and taking flyers on really lousy players.

Have the games been chosen for both the Greek And Southern Sudan heritage nights?

Quote:

---

His mistakes were not filling all the scholarships he had with quality players and not following up the recruiting buzz from signing Brown and Rabb or the successful year we had with them with any higher quality recruiting.

---

From reading this forum I got the impression Cuonzo tried but failed. I remember at least 4 commits who for one reason or another (possibly academics) never came to Cal.