I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

Spoiler for those who don't like to scroll: At the bottom, filed under "The Head-Scratcher".
One positive: "There's basically nowhere to go but up, at least."

stu said:

---

Spoiler for those who don't like to scroll: At the bottom, filed under "The Head-Scratcher".
One positive: "There's basically nowhere to go but up, at least."

---

"Head-Scratcher" is a pretty accurate description for this mess. Jim "Search Firm" Knowlton should be put on notice if this hire bombs.

Robocheme said:

---

I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

---

Thanks for sharing. Every single hire on that listed sounded better than ours.

HKBear97! said:

---

Robocheme said:

---

I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

---

Thanks for sharing. Every single hire on that listed sounded better than ours.

---

Well other than Kyle Smith to Wasu. He's an up & comer because he beat Stanfurd? Heck, Jones beat Stanfurd...at Stanfurd...twice!

Not saying Smith is going to succeed at Wazzu (it's a coaches graveyard for almost everyone...which goes to show you how special Tony Bennett is), but he's a reasonably good hire for them.

Since USF started up their program again in the '80's, no one was been able to have much success there. Jim Brovelli, Phil Mathews, Jessie Evans, Rex Walters...all of them failed. Remember, USF has a great basketball history prior to the early '80's, when they self-imposed the Dealth Penalty on their program. They had gone to 8 NCAA's in 11 seasons prior to shutting down. And Smith winning 20 games 3 seasons in a row is no small feat, especially with the WCC as strong as it has ever been.

And at Columbia, Smith had been their most successful coach in a long time. They've only won more than 20 games in a season twice since 1970, and both of them were under Smith.

So while lot has to go right for him to succeed at Wazzu, I think he's a comparatively better hire for them than Fox is for us.

Civil Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Robocheme said:

---

I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

---

Thanks for sharing. Every single hire on that listed sounded better than ours.

---

Well other than Kyle Smith to Wasu. He's an up & comer because he beat Stanfurd? Heck, Jones beat Stanfurd...at Stanfurd...twice!

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Not saying Smith is going to succeed at Wazzu (it's a coaches graveyard for almost everyone...which goes to show you how special Tony Bennett is), but he's a reasonably good hire for them.

Since USF started up their program again in the '80's, no one was been able to have much success there. Jim Brovelli, Phil Mathews, Jessie Evans, Rex Walters...all of them failed. Remember, USF has a great basketball history prior to the early '80's, when they self-imposed the Dealth Penalty on their program. They had gone to 8 NCAA's in 11 seasons prior to shutting down. And Smith winning 20 games 3 seasons in a row is no small feat, especially with the WCC as strong as it has ever been.

And at Columbia, Smith had been their most successful coach in a long time. They've only won more than 20 games in a season twice since 1970, and both of them were under Smith.

So while lot has to go right for him to succeed at Wazzu, I think he's a comparatively better hire for them than Fox is for us.

Civil Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Robocheme said:

---

I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

---

Thanks for sharing. Every single hire on that listed sounded better than ours.

---

Well other than Kyle Smith to Wasu. He's an up & comer because he beat Stanfurd? Heck, Jones beat Stanfurd...at Stanfurd...twice!

---

---

Call me when he makes it to the NIT.

Robocheme said:

---

I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

---

Three stars, that's pretty good right ? smh

haha - when I quote your post I can see the underlying that has been autocensored, lol.

Here's another hire that makes Knowlton's hire look worse:

St. John's is also about to hire a coach who was recently fired from an SEC head coaching job.

But the guy they are going to hire, Mike Anderson, has had much more coaching success at the top level than Mark Fox...

Quote:

---

Anderson was fired by Arkansas last month after eight seasons as head coach of the Razorbacks. During his time in Fayetteville, Anderson led Arkansas to the NCAA tournament three times. Prior to taking over at Arkansas, Anderson spent five seasons at Missouri, with which he went to three NCAA tournaments -- including an Elite Eight run in 2009. Anderson also was the head coach at UAB for four seasons, winning at least 20 games in all four seasons and advancing to the NCAA tournament three times.

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

stu said:

---

Spoiler for those who don't like to scroll: At the bottom, filed under "The Head-Scratcher".
One positive: "There's basically nowhere to go but up, at least."

---

"Head-Scratcher" is a pretty accurate description for this mess. Jim "Search Firm" Knowlton should be put on notice if this hire bombs.

---

Agreed. I wish people would stop trying to spin it otherwise, so I can just hope he exceeds anything he has done in the past.

OK. Look. Bottom line is that Fox "fits" the vision that some (many?) have for Cal. It isn't binary but it is close - do you want a coach that wins or do you want a coach that plays within the rules and gets the kids to graduate? I am frankly sick and tired of Cal fans thinking that you can have both.

If the shoe scandal (and the North Carolina debacle) have proven anything it is that the MODERN era (aka if I hear about Pete Newel's 1960 team I may throw my laptop through the wall) most of the kids that get you over the hump don't really CARE about a Bachelors degree. Some of the most important parts of the machine don't really want to be in college ANYWAY - forced to be there for the NCAA rule.

And honestly we know that (or you should) because of what Coach K. has done. For a WHILE he rejected the idea of one and dones. He was going to "do it the Duke way." But because he is a lot smarter about basketball than any of us he understood the talent vs. coached up dynamic as well as what these kids really wanted. Ergo Duke becoming, along with Kentucky, a one and done machine.

Now honestly am not sure where I come down on this spectrum. As a "townie" I am not emotionally invested as some of you in the ideal vision of Cal as a pristine bastion in a world of corruption. But I get that if you want a program that will not cheat and get the kids through school and likely finish 7 and 11 every year in conference Fox is your man.

#teamhope

BearSD said:

---

Here's another hire that makes Knowlton's hire look worse:

St. John's is also about to hire a coach who was recently fired from an SEC head coaching job.

But the guy they are going to hire, Mike Anderson, has had much more coaching success at the top level than Mark Fox...

Quote:

---

Anderson was fired by Arkansas last month after eight seasons as head coach of the Razorbacks. During his time in Fayetteville, Anderson led Arkansas to the NCAA tournament three times. Prior to taking over at Arkansas, Anderson spent five seasons at Missouri, with which he went to three NCAA tournaments -- including an Elite Eight run in 2009. Anderson also was the head coach at UAB for four seasons, winning at least 20 games in all four seasons and advancing to the NCAA tournament three times.

---

---

His run at Arkansas seems very similar to Fox' run at Georgia. Both were trending down, and both were fired, although our man didn't have a college job for a year.

KoreAmBear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Here's another hire that makes Knowlton's hire look worse:

St. John's is also about to hire a coach who was recently fired from an SEC head coaching job.

But the guy they are going to hire, Mike Anderson, has had much more coaching success at the top level than Mark Fox...

Quote:

---

Anderson was fired by Arkansas last month after eight seasons as head coach of the Razorbacks. During his time in Fayetteville, Anderson led Arkansas to the NCAA tournament three times. Prior to taking over at Arkansas, Anderson spent five seasons at Missouri, with which he went to three NCAA tournaments -- including an Elite Eight run in 2009. Anderson also was the head coach at UAB for four seasons, winning at least 20 games in all four seasons and advancing to the NCAA tournament three times.

---

---

His run at Arkansas seems very similar to Fox' run at Georgia. Both were trending down, and both were fired, although our man didn't have a college job for a year.

---

Fox's last five seasons at Georgia: NIT, NCAA, NIT, NIT, no postseason.

Anderson's last five seasons at Arkansas: NCAA, no postseason, NCAA, NCAA, NIT

socaltownie said:

---

OK. Look. Bottom line is that Fox "fits" the vision that some (many?) have for Cal. It isn't binary but it is close - do you want a coach that wins or do you want a coach that plays within the rules and gets the kids to graduate? I am frankly sick and tired of Cal fans thinking that you can have both.

If the shoe scandal (and the North Carolina debacle) have proven anything it is that the MODERN era (aka if I hear about Pete Newel's 1960 team I may throw my laptop through the wall) most of the kids that get you over the hump don't really CARE about a Bachelors degree. Some of the most important parts of the machine don't really want to be in college ANYWAY - forced to be there for the NCAA rule.

And honestly we know that (or you should) because of what Coach K. has done. For a WHILE he rejected the idea of one and dones. He was going to "do it the Duke way." But because he is a lot smarter about basketball than any of us he understood the talent vs. coached up dynamic as well as what these kids really wanted. Ergo Duke becoming, along with Kentucky, a one and done machine.

Now honestly am not sure where I come down on this spectrum. As a "townie" I am not emotionally invested as some of you in the ideal vision of Cal as a pristine bastion in a world of corruption. But I get that if you want a program that will not cheat and get the kids through school and likely finish 7 and 11 every year in conference Fox is your man.

#teamhope

---

Agree that you can't have it both ways. Personally, I would like a coach that plays by the same rules as their peers, not any more of a risk taker and not any less. As I see it, if everyone playing a game is "cheating" besides you, then you're just the idiot that hasn't been able to adapt to the new way of playing the game.

Yep. Given how good our MBB program used to be, and how much they want to do as far as capital projects, this hire is bizarre. It's like the admin is going out of its way to find the worst coaches.

It's not the guaranteed disaster that Jones was, but uninspired to say the least.

Well, good luck to him. Hope he does well, because the program is in a death spiral. But I see a lot of empty seats at Haas for many years to come.

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Jim "Search Firm" Knowlton

---

Ha. Love the nickname.

pierrezo said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Jim "Search Firm" Knowlton

---

Ha. Love the nickname.

---

Yeah.

IMHO the AD's responsibilities break down approximately:
60% make sure football is doing well
30% make sure men's basketball is doing well
5% make sure women's basketball is doing well
5% make sure everything else is doing well

So I'd say relying on a search firm to pick your short list is abdicating the most important part of 30% of your job.

stu said:

---

pierrezo said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Jim "Search Firm" Knowlton

---

Ha. Love the nickname.

---

Yeah.

IMHO the AD's responsibilities break down approximately:
60% make sure football is doing well
30% make sure men's basketball is doing well
5% make sure women's basketball is doing well
5% make sure everything else is doing well

So I'd say relying on a search firm to pick your short list is abdicating the most important part of 30% of your job.

---

You do realize that while that might be the job description of most AD's it isn't the description of the Cal AD. There are clearly people with juice (read $$$) that care deeply about "aquatics" and are very pleased that the AD focuses attention there. C'est la vi.

socaltownie said:

---

stu said:

---

pierrezo said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Jim "Search Firm" Knowlton

---

Ha. Love the nickname.

---

Yeah.

IMHO the AD's responsibilities break down approximately:
60% make sure football is doing well
30% make sure men's basketball is doing well
5% make sure women's basketball is doing well
5% make sure everything else is doing well

So I'd say relying on a search firm to pick your short list is abdicating the most important part of 30% of your job.

---

You do realize that while that might be the job description of most AD's it isn't the description of the Cal AD. There are clearly people with juice (read $$$) that care deeply about "aquatics" and are very pleased that the AD focuses attention there. C'est la vi.

---

There's your 5%.

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

You do realize that while that might be the job description of most AD's it isn't the description of the Cal AD. There are clearly people with juice (read $$$) that care deeply about "aquatics" and are very pleased that the AD focuses attention there. C'est la vi.

---

There's your 5%.

---

As in 95% for aquatics and 5% for everything else?

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Not saying Smith is going to succeed at Wazzu (it's a coaches graveyard for almost everyone...which goes to show you how special Tony Bennett is), but he's a reasonably good hire for them.

Since USF started up their program again in the '80's, no one was been able to have much success there. Jim Brovelli, Phil Mathews, Jessie Evans, Rex Walters...all of them failed. Remember, USF has a great basketball history prior to the early '80's, when they self-imposed the Dealth Penalty on their program. They had gone to 8 NCAA's in 11 seasons prior to shutting down. And Smith winning 20 games 3 seasons in a row is no small feat, especially with the WCC as strong as it has ever been.

And at Columbia, Smith had been their most successful coach in a long time. They've only won more than 20 games in a season twice since 1970, and both of them were under Smith.

So while lot has to go right for him to succeed at Wazzu, I think he's a comparatively better hire for them than Fox is for us.

Civil Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Robocheme said:

---

I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

---

Thanks for sharing. Every single hire on that listed sounded better than ours.

---

Well other than Kyle Smith to Wasu. He's an up & comer because he beat Stanfurd? Heck, Jones beat Stanfurd...at Stanfurd...twice!

---

---

Smith is a program builder. Columbia (my other alma mater) was horrible forever. USF has been since they revived the basketball program from self imposed death. He is a great tactician and motivator. He has not yet had the chance to coach at a Cal or a Georgia, so you cannot make an apples to apples comparison. However there is nothing in Fox's resume that suggests he can take over a team at the bottom of the conference and get them to the top half of the conference.

I'd rather take a chance on an up and coming possible great coach than settle for a coach that has so far given a lot of evidence over many years he is not. However, there is still s chance he will exceed his past. I will be rooting for him to.

KoreAmBear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Here's another hire that makes Knowlton's hire look worse:

St. John's is also about to hire a coach who was recently fired from an SEC head coaching job.

But the guy they are going to hire, Mike Anderson, has had much more coaching success at the top level than Mark Fox...

Quote:

---

Anderson was fired by Arkansas last month after eight seasons as head coach of the Razorbacks. During his time in Fayetteville, Anderson led Arkansas to the NCAA tournament three times. Prior to taking over at Arkansas, Anderson spent five seasons at Missouri, with which he went to three NCAA tournaments -- including an Elite Eight run in 2009. Anderson also was the head coach at UAB for four seasons, winning at least 20 games in all four seasons and advancing to the NCAA tournament three times.

---

---

His run at Arkansas seems very similar to Fox' run at Georgia. Both were trending down, and both were fired, although our man didn't have a college job for a year.

---

Almost all coaches that get fired are trending down, but he was far more successful than Fox. Not a good comparison at all.

Who could Cal have hired instead?

calumnus said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Not saying Smith is going to succeed at Wazzu (it's a coaches graveyard for almost everyone...which goes to show you how special Tony Bennett is), but he's a reasonably good hire for them.

Since USF started up their program again in the '80's, no one was been able to have much success there. Jim Brovelli, Phil Mathews, Jessie Evans, Rex Walters...all of them failed. Remember, USF has a great basketball history prior to the early '80's, when they self-imposed the Dealth Penalty on their program. They had gone to 8 NCAA's in 11 seasons prior to shutting down. And Smith winning 20 games 3 seasons in a row is no small feat, especially with the WCC as strong as it has ever been.

And at Columbia, Smith had been their most successful coach in a long time. They've only won more than 20 games in a season twice since 1970, and both of them were under Smith.

So while lot has to go right for him to succeed at Wazzu, I think he's a comparatively better hire for them than Fox is for us.

Civil Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Robocheme said:

---

I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

---

Thanks for sharing. Every single hire on that listed sounded better than ours.

---

Well other than Kyle Smith to Wasu. He's an up & comer because he beat Stanfurd? Heck, Jones beat Stanfurd...at Stanfurd...twice!

---

---

Smith is a program builder. Columbia (my other alma mater) was horrible forever. USF has been since they revived the basketball program from self imposed death. He is a great tactician and motivator. He has not yet had the chance to coach at a Cal or a Georgia, so you cannot make an apples to apples comparison. However there is nothing in Fox's resume that suggests he can take over a team at the bottom of the conference and get them to the top half of the conference.

I'd rather take a chance on an up and coming possible great coach than settle for a coach that has so far given a lot of evidence over many years he is not. However, there is still s chance he will exceed his past. I will be rooting for him to.

---

? I can't believe I'm making a case for the guy, but didn't Fox do just that at Georgia before plateauing?

Take a chance on an up and coming great coach? Wouldn't an up and coming great coach have gotten to at least to the NIT in his 9-year career? There couldn't be many other hires that would have upset me more than the Fox hire, but Smith would have been one of them.

socaltownie said:

---

OK. Look. Bottom line is that Fox "fits" the vision that some (many?) have for Cal. It isn't binary but it is close - do you want a coach that wins or do you want a coach that plays within the rules and gets the kids to graduate? I am frankly sick and tired of Cal fans thinking that you can have both.

If the shoe scandal (and the North Carolina debacle) have proven anything it is that the MODERN era (aka if I hear about Pete Newel's 1960 team I may throw my laptop through the wall) most of the kids that get you over the hump don't really CARE about a Bachelors degree. Some of the most important parts of the machine don't really want to be in college ANYWAY - forced to be there for the NCAA rule.

And honestly we know that (or you should) because of what Coach K. has done. For a WHILE he rejected the idea of one and dones. He was going to "do it the Duke way." But because he is a lot smarter about basketball than any of us he understood the talent vs. coached up dynamic as well as what these kids really wanted. Ergo Duke becoming, along with Kentucky, a one and done machine.

Now honestly am not sure where I come down on this spectrum. As a "townie" I am not emotionally invested as some of you in the ideal vision of Cal as a pristine bastion in a world of corruption. But I get that if you want a program that will not cheat and get the kids through school and likely finish 7 and 11 every year in conference Fox is your man.

#teamhope

---

Socaltownie,

You are one of our best posters, so I hate seeing you start to go all cynical about basketball and Cal basketball. I understand it. The game itself has (IMO) been greatly affected by the money which can be generated off the names of players and hoopla of the NCAA. Coaching contracts and sports equipment contracts, and more all leads toward more schools chasing the players who can bring them dollars.

But you have lived long enough to know that most things in life are not night and day, or black and white, with only two possible choices. Much of basketball is not an either/or choice either you go all in for one and dones, or you accept mediocrity and go more for coaching players to get better and put a decent product on the floor, while (in Cal's case) maintaining a stellar academic reputation, with an eye to student athletes being held to an academic standard. Recruiting violations not tolerated.

The area in between these two approaches is gray. Several different shades of gray. And that is where most teams find themselves. There would be many Cal fans who insist that Mark Fox is at the low end of gray. The question is: Can coaches and programs from the gray area win? I think you just saw it last month: Two teams who are not Duke or Kentucky teed it up for the National Championship. Neither team had even ONE single one-and-done player on their roster. Each team had only one freshman who got major minutes during the season. Tech had Kyler Edwards, a frosh who was 7th man, in terms of minutes. Tech had only two top 100 ranked recruits, one who did not play and Brandone Francis #32 who was their 6th man, in terms of minutes, and did not start.

Virginia had 5 top 100 rated recruits, but none was rated higher than #30, and none was a freshman. Only one freshman, Kihei Clark a 3-star recruit, ranked #324 by 247 Sports, did get major minutes, and an argument could be made that he was their best player. (By the way, where was Wyking Jones on this kid, who was from SoCal? Clark did not receive a single offer from the PAC12!) Yes, a number of Virginia players have declared for the draft, but none were freshman one-and-dones.

And just how good were Kentucky and Duke, with all their one-and-dones? In the last 20 years, Duke made the NCAA Final only 3 times, winning all 3. Kentucky made the final only 2 times, winning one title. That is a lot of investment and a lot of one-and-dones for not a great result. Most of the time, these teams get into the tournament, win a few games, and go home. Most of the time, you get to see your one-and-done players play for you, but you don't win a championship, which for me is what basketball is, or should be all about. Players playing together to win a championship. The only thing that counts for me is the NCAA title, the PAC12 regular season title, and the PAC12 tournament title, in that order. Everything short of that is a loss of some kind. I would much rather see Cal coach and play like Tony Bennett's or Chris Beard's teams, emphasize defense, recruit top 100 players like they do, with an eye to finding 4-star and 3-stars like Kihei Clark, than I would see Cal invest a ton in a coach who focuses on offense and chasing one-and-dones on the recruiting trail. Something about underdogs I like, and the way basketball is going now, I'm not sure Virginia and Texas Tech and more like them are not the wave of the future.

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Not saying Smith is going to succeed at Wazzu (it's a coaches graveyard for almost everyone...which goes to show you how special Tony Bennett is), but he's a reasonably good hire for them.

Since USF started up their program again in the '80's, no one was been able to have much success there. Jim Brovelli, Phil Mathews, Jessie Evans, Rex Walters...all of them failed. Remember, USF has a great basketball history prior to the early '80's, when they self-imposed the Dealth Penalty on their program. They had gone to 8 NCAA's in 11 seasons prior to shutting down. And Smith winning 20 games 3 seasons in a row is no small feat, especially with the WCC as strong as it has ever been.

And at Columbia, Smith had been their most successful coach in a long time. They've only won more than 20 games in a season twice since 1970, and both of them were under Smith.

So while lot has to go right for him to succeed at Wazzu, I think he's a comparatively better hire for them than Fox is for us.

Civil Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Robocheme said:

---

I believe we ended up in the *** category

https://www.si.com/college-basketball

---

Thanks for sharing. Every single hire on that listed sounded better than ours.

---

Well other than Kyle Smith to Wasu. He's an up & comer because he beat Stanfurd? Heck, Jones beat Stanfurd...at Stanfurd...twice!

---

---

Smith is a program builder. Columbia (my other alma mater) was horrible forever. USF has been since they revived the basketball program from self imposed death. He is a great tactician and motivator. He has not yet had the chance to coach at a Cal or a Georgia, so you cannot make an apples to apples comparison. However there is nothing in Fox's resume that suggests he can take over a team at the bottom of the conference and get them to the top half of the conference.

I'd rather take a chance on an up and coming possible great coach than settle for a coach that has so far given a lot of evidence over many years he is not. However, there is still s chance he will exceed his past. I will be rooting for him to.

---

? I can't believe I'm making a case for the guy, but didn't Fox do just that at Georgia before plateauing?

Take a chance on an up and coming great coach? Wouldn't an up and coming great coach have gotten to at least to the NIT in his 9-year career? There couldn't be many other hires that would have upset me more than the Fox hire, but Smith would have been one of them.

---

I like Kyle Smith because he is a smart, innovative basketball coach. He is a numbers nerd, and yes, so am I, so maybe I'm biased. I think a coach at Cal needs to be flexible and open minded, able to think outside the box, "Moneyball" as applied to college sports. His approach to motivating his team is 21st century, rather than 19th century, and that is my approach as a manager, so again, maybe I'm biased.
Here is an article that captures some of what Smith is about:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cougcenter.com/platform/amp/2019/3/27/18283580/kyle-smith-wsu-cougars-basketball-ernie-kent-washington-state

I really liked what I saw at Columbia, making something out of nothing there. I've been away from the Bay while he was at USF so I never saw them play, but it sounds like he had them on an upward trajectory. It will remain to be seen how his philosophy plays out at WSU, but it is an approach that makes sense to me.

Fox in the past, and in his opening remarks to the team, Is more old school. But in the right circumstances that can work, and people can always change too. We will see how it plays out and no matter what, Go Bears!

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

OK. Look. Bottom line is that Fox "fits" the vision that some (many?) have for Cal. It isn't binary but it is close - do you want a coach that wins or do you want a coach that plays within the rules and gets the kids to graduate? I am frankly sick and tired of Cal fans thinking that you can have both.

If the shoe scandal (and the North Carolina debacle) have proven anything it is that the MODERN era (aka if I hear about Pete Newel's 1960 team I may throw my laptop through the wall) most of the kids that get you over the hump don't really CARE about a Bachelors degree. Some of the most important parts of the machine don't really want to be in college ANYWAY - forced to be there for the NCAA rule.

And honestly we know that (or you should) because of what Coach K. has done. For a WHILE he rejected the idea of one and dones. He was going to "do it the Duke way." But because he is a lot smarter about basketball than any of us he understood the talent vs. coached up dynamic as well as what these kids really wanted. Ergo Duke becoming, along with Kentucky, a one and done machine.

Now honestly am not sure where I come down on this spectrum. As a "townie" I am not emotionally invested as some of you in the ideal vision of Cal as a pristine bastion in a world of corruption. But I get that if you want a program that will not cheat and get the kids through school and likely finish 7 and 11 every year in conference Fox is your man.

#teamhope

---

Socaltownie,

You are one of our best posters, so I hate seeing you start to go all cynical about basketball and Cal basketball. I understand it. The game itself has (IMO) been greatly affected by the money which can be generated off the names of players and hoopla of the NCAA. Coaching contracts and sports equipment contracts, and more all leads toward more schools chasing the players who can bring them dollars.

But you have lived long enough to know that most things in life are not night and day, or black and white, with only two possible choices. Much of basketball is not an either/or choice either you go all in for one and dones, or you accept mediocrity and go more for coaching players to get better and put a decent product on the floor, while (in Cal's case) maintaining a stellar academic reputation, with an eye to student athletes being held to an academic standard. Recruiting violations not tolerated.

The area in between these two approaches is gray. Several different shades of gray. And that is where most teams find themselves. There would be many Cal fans who insist that Mark Fox is at the low end of gray. The question is: Can coaches and programs from the gray area win? I think you just saw it last month: Two teams who are not Duke or Kentucky teed it up for the National Championship. Neither team had even ONE single one-and-done player on their roster. Each team had only one freshman who got major minutes during the season. Tech had Kyler Edwards, a frosh who was 7th man, in terms of minutes. Tech had only two top 100 ranked recruits, one who did not play and Brandone Francis #32 who was their 6th man, in terms of minutes, and did not start.

Virginia had 5 top 100 rated recruits, but none was rated higher than #30, and none was a freshman. Only one freshman, Kihei Clark a 3-star recruit, ranked #324 by 247 Sports, did get major minutes, and an argument could be made that he was their best player. (By the way, where was Wyking Jones on this kid, who was from SoCal? Clark did not receive a single offer from the PAC12!) Yes, a number of Virginia players have declared for the draft, but none were freshman one-and-dones.

And just how good were Kentucky and Duke, with all their one-and-dones? In the last 20 years, Duke made the NCAA Final only 3 times, winning all 3. Kentucky made the final only 2 times, winning one title. That is a lot of investment and a lot of one-and-dones for not a great result. Most of the time, these teams get into the tournament, win a few games, and go home. Most of the time, you get to see your one-and-done players play for you, but you don't win a championship, which for me is what basketball is, or should be all about. Players playing together to win a championship. The only thing that counts for me is the NCAA title, the PAC12 regular season title, and the PAC12 tournament title, in that order. Everything short of that is a loss of some kind. I would much rather see Cal coach and play like Tony Bennett's or Chris Beard's teams, emphasize defense, recruit top 100 players like they do, with an eye to finding 4-star and 3-stars like Kihei Clark, than I would see Cal invest a ton in a coach who focuses on offense and chasing one-and-dones on the recruiting trail. Something about underdogs I like, and the way basketball is going now, I'm not sure Virginia and Texas Tech and more like them are not the wave of the future.

---

Here is why I think this fails the logic test.

Assumption: Duke can build its program anyway it wants to
Assumption: Coach K is smarter than either you or me when it comes to Basketball
Observation: Coach K has decided to go "one and dones" sprinkled with a few senior leaders
Conclusion: The best way to succeed in the modern environment is with one and dones.

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

OK. Look. Bottom line is that Fox "fits" the vision that some (many?) have for Cal. It isn't binary but it is close - do you want a coach that wins or do you want a coach that plays within the rules and gets the kids to graduate? I am frankly sick and tired of Cal fans thinking that you can have both.

If the shoe scandal (and the North Carolina debacle) have proven anything it is that the MODERN era (aka if I hear about Pete Newel's 1960 team I may throw my laptop through the wall) most of the kids that get you over the hump don't really CARE about a Bachelors degree. Some of the most important parts of the machine don't really want to be in college ANYWAY - forced to be there for the NCAA rule.

And honestly we know that (or you should) because of what Coach K. has done. For a WHILE he rejected the idea of one and dones. He was going to "do it the Duke way." But because he is a lot smarter about basketball than any of us he understood the talent vs. coached up dynamic as well as what these kids really wanted. Ergo Duke becoming, along with Kentucky, a one and done machine.

Now honestly am not sure where I come down on this spectrum. As a "townie" I am not emotionally invested as some of you in the ideal vision of Cal as a pristine bastion in a world of corruption. But I get that if you want a program that will not cheat and get the kids through school and likely finish 7 and 11 every year in conference Fox is your man.

#teamhope

---

Socaltownie,

You are one of our best posters, so I hate seeing you start to go all cynical about basketball and Cal basketball. I understand it. The game itself has (IMO) been greatly affected by the money which can be generated off the names of players and hoopla of the NCAA. Coaching contracts and sports equipment contracts, and more all leads toward more schools chasing the players who can bring them dollars.

But you have lived long enough to know that most things in life are not night and day, or black and white, with only two possible choices. Much of basketball is not an either/or choice either you go all in for one and dones, or you accept mediocrity and go more for coaching players to get better and put a decent product on the floor, while (in Cal's case) maintaining a stellar academic reputation, with an eye to student athletes being held to an academic standard. Recruiting violations not tolerated.

The area in between these two approaches is gray. Several different shades of gray. And that is where most teams find themselves. There would be many Cal fans who insist that Mark Fox is at the low end of gray. The question is: Can coaches and programs from the gray area win? I think you just saw it last month: Two teams who are not Duke or Kentucky teed it up for the National Championship. Neither team had even ONE single one-and-done player on their roster. Each team had only one freshman who got major minutes during the season. Tech had Kyler Edwards, a frosh who was 7th man, in terms of minutes. Tech had only two top 100 ranked recruits, one who did not play and Brandone Francis #32 who was their 6th man, in terms of minutes, and did not start.

Virginia had 5 top 100 rated recruits, but none was rated higher than #30, and none was a freshman. Only one freshman, Kihei Clark a 3-star recruit, ranked #324 by 247 Sports, did get major minutes, and an argument could be made that he was their best player. (By the way, where was Wyking Jones on this kid, who was from SoCal? Clark did not receive a single offer from the PAC12!) Yes, a number of Virginia players have declared for the draft, but none were freshman one-and-dones.

And just how good were Kentucky and Duke, with all their one-and-dones? In the last 20 years, Duke made the NCAA Final only 3 times, winning all 3. Kentucky made the final only 2 times, winning one title. That is a lot of investment and a lot of one-and-dones for not a great result. Most of the time, these teams get into the tournament, win a few games, and go home. Most of the time, you get to see your one-and-done players play for you, but you don't win a championship, which for me is what basketball is, or should be all about. Players playing together to win a championship. The only thing that counts for me is the NCAA title, the PAC12 regular season title, and the PAC12 tournament title, in that order. Everything short of that is a loss of some kind. I would much rather see Cal coach and play like Tony Bennett's or Chris Beard's teams, emphasize defense, recruit top 100 players like they do, with an eye to finding 4-star and 3-stars like Kihei Clark, than I would see Cal invest a ton in a coach who focuses on offense and chasing one-and-dones on the recruiting trail. Something about underdogs I like, and the way basketball is going now, I'm not sure Virginia and Texas Tech and more like them are not the wave of the future.

---

Here is why I think this fails the logic test.

Assumption: Duke can build its program anyway it wants to
Assumption: Coach K is smarter than either you or me when it comes to Basketball
Observation: Coach K has decided to go "one and dones" sprinkled with a few senior leaders
Conclusion: The best way to succeed in the modern environment is with one and dones.

---

Socal. I'm rapidly approaching 50. I was born into a Cal family and have followed Cal sports since before I was 5. All of my life, when we suck I have heard the "we can't compete with the big boys, they cheat, different priorities, blah, blah blah." Yet, on the rare occasion when the athletic department is not run by morons or the morons luck into hiring the right guy to run our football or basketball program, we succeed. Are we ever going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball? Almost assuredly not. Can we be Monty led Cal in basketball and Tedford led Cal in football? Undoubtedly yes. Many hoped that Tedford demonstrated that the right leadership could lead to success. They swore up and down that we would never go back to the old Cal way of thinking now that it was demonstrated we could succeed. Yet we hit some adversity and boom, back to same arguments from the 70's, 80's and 90's. They were bullshyte excuses then and they are bullshyte excuses now.

Fact is that Cal is not alone. If you look at the top 25 rankings in basketball and football over the last 40 years, something like 15 schools dominate in number of appearances. Fact is they could stop "cheating" today and their reputation will carry them. Okay, give it to them. But until Cal is the BEST CAL IT CAN BE, I don't want to hear the excuses. If someone wants to scream that we aren't going to final fours every year, okay they are being silly. But we can compete in our conference every year. It was a very short time ago that we were top third in conference almost every year. During the modern era.

When Cal hires a complete scrub with no experience to lead the program to 3-15, pays $2.5M a year for that privilege, and then hires a losing coach to replace him, I don't want to hear the "we expect to much we can't compete" excuse I've heard all of my life. Painting those critical of that massive level of incompetence as demanding Coach K like success is misrepresentation.

If Cal just wants to cash the conference checks and get pummeled because that is what they think is financially viable or what they think is appropriate, fine by me. If Cal wants to do that and then lie to the alumni and claim they are trying to win championships so that they can keep the money flowing, not fine. IMO they are incompetent or they are committing fraud. If they have the priorities you claim, it is fraud. If they want to state that and take the hit on donations and ticket sales, fine. As long as they claim publicly to want to compete at the highest level, they need to be held accountable for taking alums money and failing to do so.

SFCityBear said:

---

The only thing that counts for me is the NCAA title, the PAC12 regular season title, and the PAC12 tournament title, in that order. Everything short of that is a loss of some kind.

---

The only thing the media and most people care about are:
NCAA Title
making the NCAA Final Four
making the NCAA sweet 16
making the tournament at all

As Cal has experienced, winning the Pac-12 tournament has more cachet than winning the regular season title. Ever since they created the stupid conference tournament, no one gives a flying fig who won the regular season, because winning the tournament gives you the automatic bid to the NCAA tournament.

Cal has built-in recruiting advantages if the administration showed a modicum of interest or competence in running an athletic department. The collective idiocy would have to be off the charts for these kinds of things to be happening serially, with effort. No effort is being expended. The people who run the show don't share your POV, not even close. If you don't believe Cal has been bullshytting you and stealing your money for years, you're being intentionally blind to reality.

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

OK. Look. Bottom line is that Fox "fits" the vision that some (many?) have for Cal. It isn't binary but it is close - do you want a coach that wins or do you want a coach that plays within the rules and gets the kids to graduate? I am frankly sick and tired of Cal fans thinking that you can have both.

If the shoe scandal (and the North Carolina debacle) have proven anything it is that the MODERN era (aka if I hear about Pete Newel's 1960 team I may throw my laptop through the wall) most of the kids that get you over the hump don't really CARE about a Bachelors degree. Some of the most important parts of the machine don't really want to be in college ANYWAY - forced to be there for the NCAA rule.

And honestly we know that (or you should) because of what Coach K. has done. For a WHILE he rejected the idea of one and dones. He was going to "do it the Duke way." But because he is a lot smarter about basketball than any of us he understood the talent vs. coached up dynamic as well as what these kids really wanted. Ergo Duke becoming, along with Kentucky, a one and done machine.

Now honestly am not sure where I come down on this spectrum. As a "townie" I am not emotionally invested as some of you in the ideal vision of Cal as a pristine bastion in a world of corruption. But I get that if you want a program that will not cheat and get the kids through school and likely finish 7 and 11 every year in conference Fox is your man.

#teamhope

---

Socaltownie,

You are one of our best posters, so I hate seeing you start to go all cynical about basketball and Cal basketball. I understand it. The game itself has (IMO) been greatly affected by the money which can be generated off the names of players and hoopla of the NCAA. Coaching contracts and sports equipment contracts, and more all leads toward more schools chasing the players who can bring them dollars.

But you have lived long enough to know that most things in life are not night and day, or black and white, with only two possible choices. Much of basketball is not an either/or choice either you go all in for one and dones, or you accept mediocrity and go more for coaching players to get better and put a decent product on the floor, while (in Cal's case) maintaining a stellar academic reputation, with an eye to student athletes being held to an academic standard. Recruiting violations not tolerated.

The area in between these two approaches is gray. Several different shades of gray. And that is where most teams find themselves. There would be many Cal fans who insist that Mark Fox is at the low end of gray. The question is: Can coaches and programs from the gray area win? I think you just saw it last month: Two teams who are not Duke or Kentucky teed it up for the National Championship. Neither team had even ONE single one-and-done player on their roster. Each team had only one freshman who got major minutes during the season. Tech had Kyler Edwards, a frosh who was 7th man, in terms of minutes. Tech had only two top 100 ranked recruits, one who did not play and Brandone Francis #32 who was their 6th man, in terms of minutes, and did not start.

Virginia had 5 top 100 rated recruits, but none was rated higher than #30, and none was a freshman. Only one freshman, Kihei Clark a 3-star recruit, ranked #324 by 247 Sports, did get major minutes, and an argument could be made that he was their best player. (By the way, where was Wyking Jones on this kid, who was from SoCal? Clark did not receive a single offer from the PAC12!) Yes, a number of Virginia players have declared for the draft, but none were freshman one-and-dones.

And just how good were Kentucky and Duke, with all their one-and-dones? In the last 20 years, Duke made the NCAA Final only 3 times, winning all 3. Kentucky made the final only 2 times, winning one title. That is a lot of investment and a lot of one-and-dones for not a great result. Most of the time, these teams get into the tournament, win a few games, and go home. Most of the time, you get to see your one-and-done players play for you, but you don't win a championship, which for me is what basketball is, or should be all about. Players playing together to win a championship. The only thing that counts for me is the NCAA title, the PAC12 regular season title, and the PAC12 tournament title, in that order. Everything short of that is a loss of some kind. I would much rather see Cal coach and play like Tony Bennett's or Chris Beard's teams, emphasize defense, recruit top 100 players like they do, with an eye to finding 4-star and 3-stars like Kihei Clark, than I would see Cal invest a ton in a coach who focuses on offense and chasing one-and-dones on the recruiting trail. Something about underdogs I like, and the way basketball is going now, I'm not sure Virginia and Texas Tech and more like them are not the wave of the future.

---

Here is why I think this fails the logic test.

Assumption: Duke can build its program anyway it wants to
Assumption: Coach K is smarter than either you or me when it comes to Basketball
Observation: Coach K has decided to go "one and dones" sprinkled with a few senior leaders
Conclusion: The best way to succeed in the modern environment is with one and dones.

---

Your definition of logic leaves out much, and you leave out assumptions that don't fit your conclusion.

First of all, while Coach K has had a long and storied career, his best days seem to be behind him. Duke is still a national power, and a force in the ACC, but Duke is no longer dominant in the ACC or the NCAA's. Duke has not won an ACC title outright since 2006. They have not tied for the ACC title since 2010. They are still a force in the ACC Tournament, but not as much as they used to be.

The dominant teams in the ACC today are North Carolina and Virginia. Since Tony Bennett's Virginia teams began to become competitive in the ACC, say in 2012, his 3rd season at UVA, Virginia has won the ACC title outright 3 times, and tied for one title with UNC. UNC in the same period also won 3 ACC titles outright, and tied for one title with Virginia. The only other championship in those years was in 2013, won by Miami. The last NCAA title won by Duke was in 2015. For the same period, Virginia has won two ACC Tournaments, and Duke has also won two. And in head-to-head matchups over the same period, Duke has the edge over Virginia 7-3.

Bennett has succeeded in building a competitive team in the ACC, and now in the NCAA, currently as good as Duke, and arguably a little better, IMO, and even if you won't accept that, he is darn close, and he has done it by his fifth season, and DONE IT ALL WITHOUT A SINGLE ONE AND DONE RECRUIT, or none that I could find.

The three top teams in the ACC are UNC, UVA, and Duke. I assume that UNC also loads up with one and dones, but don't have time to check on this. Suffice it to say that Bennett has made Virginia into a power house without them, so this says to me that it can be done without them.

Chris Beard's rise to stardom has been faster, and his record much shorter than Bennett, but still his Texas Tech team became competitive in a very tough conference, the Big12, which is usually dominated by Kansas, but includes traditionally good programs like West Virginia, Baylor, Iowa State, Texas, Oklahoma, K-State, and again, Beard DID IT ALL WITH NO ONE AND DONES.

My point is that it can be done, has been done, and I predict we might see more of this. I like it, because it exposes a school less to NCAA suspensions for breaking rules, and you don't get a steady stream of one and dones without skirting a few rules. I also like it, because this is college, amateur sports, and it offers the opportunity to teach players the values of sportsmanship, fair play, and ethics, rather than introduce them to the world of avarice, greed and money to the near exclusion of the former values. I want players who are still interested in school, in team play, and being kids. Only one in a few thousand ever make a living out of playing basketball, and they need to prepare for life without it, in the real world. A degree from a school like Cal is your entry ticket. And finally, my impression of most one and dones is that they are one on ones also. This is a team game, and we are fortunate that it still is, and that there are coaches like Bennett and Beard around who can coach it, and give the Coach K's and the one and dones all they can handle on the court. Cal's problem is not that we don't focus on one and dones, but that we don't do a good job of locating the Tony Bennetts and Chris Beards and hire them before someone else does.

SFCityBear said:

---

Cal's problem is not that we don't focus on one and dones, but that we don't do a good job of locating the Tony Bennetts and Chris Beards and hire them before someone else does.

---

I would argue as well that one of our problems is that we can't seem to make up our mind whether we should pursue the one and dones.

When Brown and Rabb (even if he ended up staying a second year, the projection was one and done) were coming available, it appears that a decision was made to get a coach who could convince them to come to Cal, but at the risk of establishing a strong foundation.

Best would be to have a balance with a focus on building the type of program that Bennett has built that can attract the local top recruit with high expectations academically and the national top recruit who wants to make academics and appreciates the uniqueness of Berkeley...be it political activism (waning, but certainly not gone), intellectual stimulation (challenged on every point everywhere you go) with great food and amenities within walking distance and a short hop to the east bay parks, Oakland, the waterfronts, San Francisco and Silicon Valley.

My sense is that Monty had us on this track and his hand picked successor would have us on the trajectory albeit without the star power of 4 years ago.

There is a lot to build on...now to get the admin, the AD and a coaching staff on the same page for long enough to build it again.

I clicked on the SI link and another link in the article and saw this:

Replying to @johncanzanobft
Uc Irvine players confronted coach Turner this morning in the team hotel on the news he was a candidate for the opening at Cal. He responded "you think I'd leave Irvine for a crap hole like Berkeley?" Everyone laughed. A source tells Husky Sports Blog
4:13 PM - 24 Mar 2019

Maybe some coaches just don't like Berkeley.

SonomanA1 said:

---

I clicked on the SI link and another link in the article and saw this:

Replying to @johncanzanobft
Uc Irvine players confronted coach Turner this morning in the team hotel on the news he was a candidate for the opening at Cal. He responded "you think I'd leave Irvine for a crap hole like Berkeley?" Everyone laughed. A source tells Husky Sports Blog
4:13 PM - 24 Mar 2019

Maybe some coaches just don't like Berkeley.

---

Dude is a loose cannon. I still think Eran Ganot is a better coach than him. He just has a disadvantage in recruiting kids to Hawaii.