SFCityBear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

We had five: But then, Vanover, Sueing and MacNeil all transferred. Do the math. Three is one more than two. with only two perimeter shooters, I don't seeCal winning one pac-12 game next year.

---

The "talent" Cal had last season netted a whopping 3 Pac-12 wins. As far as I'm concerned any "losses" in current "talent" just means more scholarships available to better players down the road. Nobody can convince me Cal had any meaningful talent to lose in the first place - the past two years have been entire teams of deadwood. The fact that some of that deadwood was comparatively better than other deadwood is irrelevant - the "best" player on that team wouldn't see the floor for an average Pac 12 team, and might not see the floor at a program like USF.

Hey, maybe Fox would magically "coach up" these players into a powerhouse team. But more likely than not, the best long-term move would be to replace every one of those players, the sooner the better.

I know that sounds harsh and it is. But the results speak for themselves - that is not Pac 12 talent.

---

Astoundingly bad take. If these players are so bad, why are other p5 teams recruiting them?

A coach coming in and coaching players up to competency obviously has never happened in the history of sports either. That 2001 football team that won 1 game must not have any talent when they went 7-5 the next year with the same guys.

---

Who are the players on last year's roster who are or were recruited by other P5 teams? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd just like to know.

---

Sueing is being recruited by Ohio State and appears to be about to commit there.

Uthaithani said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

We had five: But then, Vanover, Sueing and MacNeil all transferred. Do the math. Three is one more than two. with only two perimeter shooters, I don't seeCal winning one pac-12 game next year.

---

The "talent" Cal had last season netted a whopping 3 Pac-12 wins. As far as I'm concerned any "losses" in current "talent" just means more scholarships available to better players down the road. Nobody can convince me Cal had any meaningful talent to lose in the first place - the past two years have been entire teams of deadwood. The fact that some of that deadwood was comparatively better than other deadwood is irrelevant - the "best" player on that team wouldn't see the floor for an average Pac 12 team, and might not see the floor at a program like USF.

Hey, maybe Fox would magically "coach up" these players into a powerhouse team. But more likely than not, the best long-term move would be to replace every one of those players, the sooner the better.

I know that sounds harsh and it is. But the results speak for themselves - that is not Pac 12 talent.

---

This only makes sense if those scholarships are going to someone better. I'll just discuss Sueing. He is a solid starter as a sophomore. He has 2 years left on scholarship. The question is will Cal have 13 players on scholarship that are better than Sueing in the next two years, or 13 players who could get the scholarship who will be better than him at some point in the future. If the answer is no, Cal is a better team with Sueing and a worse team without. Frankly, I can't think of very many teams even when Cal was good that had 13 players better than Sueing. I think the answer is quite clearly no.

I'm not losing sleep over losing Sueing, but Cal is better off if he stays. They will not replace him with somebody better. In fact, for next year they will have empty scholarships, so they won't replace him at all.

I think your philosophy is misguided. It reminds me of the Tedford era when many people had the attitude that as soon as they determined we weren't going to the Rose Bowl, we should sit the seniors down because it didn't matter anyway. As for next years team, 4 wins would be better than 3. 6 would be better than 4. 8 would be better than 6. etc. Cal will recruit better with 8 wins than with 4. Sueing isn't going to get us to the tournament, but we will win more games with him. They aren't deadwood, and even if they were, better deadwood helps us recruit better players in the future. You don't magically go from deadwood to 4 and 5 stars.

oskirules said:

---

Bak Bak part deux?

And don't forget Bak Bak once had back to back buckets.

---

The mixtapes show mostly offense as always, but he clearly is much more athletic than Bak Bak, and seems to have more of a motor than I saw anywhere in last year's roster. I am very happy to have him, because he will likely play SF and compete with Gordon for minutes. I have no idea what to expect with Gordon this season, but if he is not all the way back from his injury, and all he can give us is 10 minutes, and be no more effective than last season, then it could be good to have Kuany. Kuany at 6-10 might be able to fill in at other positions up front, but his ball handling and style of play look like he is more of a SF, IMO. Hopefully, he will have learned some good fundamentals. Many of the Australians coming here have good fundamentals, footwork, defense, court awareness, can play right away, and some don't. If it is an American kid, you can almost be sure he will be lacking in some fundamentals.

SFCityBear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

We had five: But then, Vanover, Sueing and MacNeil all transferred. Do the math. Three is one more than two. with only two perimeter shooters, I don't seeCal winning one pac-12 game next year.

---

The "talent" Cal had last season netted a whopping 3 Pac-12 wins. As far as I'm concerned any "losses" in current "talent" just means more scholarships available to better players down the road. Nobody can convince me Cal had any meaningful talent to lose in the first place - the past two years have been entire teams of deadwood. The fact that some of that deadwood was comparatively better than other deadwood is irrelevant - the "best" player on that team wouldn't see the floor for an average Pac 12 team, and might not see the floor at a program like USF.

Hey, maybe Fox would magically "coach up" these players into a powerhouse team. But more likely than not, the best long-term move would be to replace every one of those players, the sooner the better.

I know that sounds harsh and it is. But the results speak for themselves - that is not Pac 12 talent.

---

Astoundingly bad take. If these players are so bad, why are other p5 teams recruiting them?

A coach coming in and coaching players up to competency obviously has never happened in the history of sports either. That 2001 football team that won 1 game must not have any talent when they went 7-5 the next year with the same guys.

---

Who are the players on last year's roster who are or were recruited by other P5 teams? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd just like to know.

---

Justice Sueing is probably headed to Ohio State. Vanover is visiting Vanderbilt and Arkansas. I believe McNeil was being courted by TCU, and also a bunch of mid majors that are better than us right now.

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

247 has an article quoting Kuany: "I'm going to California" "I feel like I fit in there and Mark Fox is a really good coach."

---

Wait... Wut... Better than Smith?

---

Ha. "I fit in there" = Berkeley over the Palouse every day AND "Fox is a really good coach." He did not say "better"

---

One of the last times I was in Berkeley at night, I was walking down Haste St to my car, and heard two shots ring out. I turned around in time to see the guy drop. Don't know if he died. I'll take the Palouse any day.

Violent Crime Index based on FBI stats

Berkeley: 28.5
USA: 22.7
Palouse: 6.0

Property Crime Index

Berkeley: 64.6
USA: 35.4
Palouse: 11.2

concernedparent said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

We had five: But then, Vanover, Sueing and MacNeil all transferred. Do the math. Three is one more than two. with only two perimeter shooters, I don't seeCal winning one pac-12 game next year.

---

The "talent" Cal had last season netted a whopping 3 Pac-12 wins. As far as I'm concerned any "losses" in current "talent" just means more scholarships available to better players down the road. Nobody can convince me Cal had any meaningful talent to lose in the first place - the past two years have been entire teams of deadwood. The fact that some of that deadwood was comparatively better than other deadwood is irrelevant - the "best" player on that team wouldn't see the floor for an average Pac 12 team, and might not see the floor at a program like USF.

Hey, maybe Fox would magically "coach up" these players into a powerhouse team. But more likely than not, the best long-term move would be to replace every one of those players, the sooner the better.

I know that sounds harsh and it is. But the results speak for themselves - that is not Pac 12 talent.

---

Astoundingly bad take. If these players are so bad, why are other p5 teams recruiting them?

A coach coming in and coaching players up to competency obviously has never happened in the history of sports either. That 2001 football team that won 1 game must not have any talent when they went 7-5 the next year with the same guys.

---

Who are the players on last year's roster who are or were recruited by other P5 teams? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd just like to know.

---

Justice Sueing is probably headed to Ohio State. Vanover is visiting Vanderbilt and Arkansas. I believe McNeil was being courted by TCU, and also a bunch of mid majors that are better than us right now.

---

Thanks

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

247 has an article quoting Kuany: "I'm going to California" "I feel like I fit in there and Mark Fox is a really good coach."

---

Wait... Wut... Better than Smith?

---

Ha. "I fit in there" = Berkeley over the Palouse every day AND "Fox is a really good coach." He did not say "better"

---

One of the last times I was in Berkeley at night, I was walking down Haste St to my car, and heard two shots ring out. I turned around in time to see the guy drop. Don't know if he died. I'll take the Palouse any day.

Violent Crime Index based on FBI stats

Berkeley: 28.5
USA: 22.7
Palouse: 6.0

Property Crime Index

Berkeley: 64.6
USA: 35.4
Palouse: 11.2

---

As a long time East Bay resident and UC BERKELEY alum on a UC BERKELEY fan site I say feel free to"take the Palouse" by moving there. If crime rate is your only criteria for a good life, I feel sorry for you. Berkeley is one of the most desirable places to live around.

Living with people means living with crime. But most people choose to live a vibrant life around people and take the drawbacks in exchange for the good things that come with it.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

247 has an article quoting Kuany: "I'm going to California" "I feel like I fit in there and Mark Fox is a really good coach."

---

Wait... Wut... Better than Smith?

---

Ha. "I fit in there" = Berkeley over the Palouse every day AND "Fox is a really good coach." He did not say "better"

---

One of the last times I was in Berkeley at night, I was walking down Haste St to my car, and heard two shots ring out. I turned around in time to see the guy drop. Don't know if he died. I'll take the Palouse any day.

Violent Crime Index based on FBI stats

Berkeley: 28.5
USA: 22.7
Palouse: 6.0

Property Crime Index

Berkeley: 64.6
USA: 35.4
Palouse: 11.2

---

As a long time East Bay resident and UC BERKELEY alum on a UC BERKELEY fan site I say feel free to"take the Palouse" by moving there. If crime rate is your only criteria for a good life, I feel sorry for you. Berkeley is one of the most desirable places to live around.

Living with people means living with crime. But most people choose to live a vibrant life around people and take the drawbacks in exchange for the good things that come with it.

---

The median housing price in Berkeley is more than 4 times as high as in Pullman (>1.2 mil vs <300k, see zillow). So the people have voted, and Berkeley wins. I once spent two days in Pullman at a conference. It felt like about a month. I think I would develop a meth problem if I lived there, and I don't do recreational drugs. I also feel sorry for someone so dead inside that they would prefer Pullman.

Sluggo

Northside91 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

247 has an article quoting Kuany: "I'm going to California" "I feel like I fit in there and Mark Fox is a really good coach."

---

Wait... Wut... Better than Smith?

---

Ha. "I fit in there" = Berkeley over the Palouse every day AND "Fox is a really good coach." He did not say "better"

---

One of the last times I was in Berkeley at night, I was walking down Haste St to my car, and heard two shots ring out. I turned around in time to see the guy drop. Don't know if he died. I'll take the Palouse any day.

Violent Crime Index based on FBI stats

Berkeley: 28.5
USA: 22.7
Palouse: 6.0

Property Crime Index

Berkeley: 64.6
USA: 35.4
Palouse: 11.2

---

As a long time East Bay resident and UC BERKELEY alum on a UC BERKELEY fan site I say feel free to"take the Palouse" by moving there. If crime rate is your only criteria for a good life, I feel sorry for you. Berkeley is one of the most desirable places to live around.

Living with people means living with crime. But most people choose to live a vibrant life around people and take the drawbacks in exchange for the good things that come with it.

---

The median housing price in Berkeley is more than 4 times as high as in Pullman (>1.2 mil vs <300k, see zillow). So the people have voted, and Berkeley wins. I once spent two days in Pullman at a conference. It felt like about a month. I think I would develop a meth problem if I lived there, and I don't do recreational drugs. I also feel sorry for someone so dead inside that they would prefer Pullman.

Sluggo

---

Do we really have to do this with everything? People who prefer living in Pulllan are dead inside? Really? You need to validate your preferences by shytting all over people who want something entirely different?

I lived on Virginia for several years and off and on near the Rose Garden during grad school. Loved it and wouldn't have wanted it any other way. I live in a similar setting now but am in no way threatened by someone who wants to hunt and fish and live life at a different pace. Why the f*** should that incur anyone's wrath?

---

Oh cmon. I am only like 25% serious. Pullman does suck. But whatever, to each his own.

Sluggo

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Have we ever signed a two star or a one star? What was McCullough or Winston?

---

Jorge

---

He was unranked. After Montgomery signed him, he received a ranking.

---

Nope

---

I recall Jorge being a solid 3-star at time of recruitmentment. I read he was arguably the best uncommitted prospect in that class at the time.

concernedparent said:

---

Astoundingly bad take. If these players are so bad, why are other p5 teams recruiting them?

A coach coming in and coaching players up to competency obviously has never happened in the history of sports either. That 2001 football team that won 1 game must not have any talent when they went 7-5 the next year with the same guys.

---

In a program rebuild, may as well stack scholarships that you can get guys that fit or are better than departing players. None of these guys departing are going to be impact guys on a winning program.

OaktownBear said:

---

As a long time East Bay resident and UC BERKELEY alum on a UC BERKELEY fan site I say feel free to"take the Palouse" by moving there. If crime rate is your only criteria for a good life, I feel sorry for you. Berkeley is one of the most desirable places to live around.

Living with people means living with crime. But most people choose to live a vibrant life around people and take the drawbacks in exchange for the good things that come with it.

---

East bay sucks. Overpriced suburbia anytown USA with pockets of beauty, a myth of diversity and 'culture' disguising extreme inequality (which is what correlates with high crime). I find people of tend to reference "vibrant" like it's unique to one pocket of the country, and to excuse filthy streets and neighborhoods. It's like people on House Hunters looking for "charm" when they're really saying old and inexpensive.

I wouldn't live in the East Bay if my Net worth rivaled Bill Gates. But to each their own.

Pinole is nice.

All these guys on the board touting the Palouse when they did not choose it for college, or live there now, even though it is far more affordable than where they are living.

A lot of presumably old white guys on this board like Eastern Washington/Idaho for the "lack of crime."

Things might look a lot different if you are an 18 year old African American who grew up in the East Bay or LA:

https://mynorthwest.com/1185009/hate-crimes-rise-washington-2017/

Now blacks should be worried about the Pacific NW? Come on.

I wonder what percentage of the black population are killed in the east bay compared to PAC NW

GBear4Life said:

---

Now blacks should be worried about the Pacific NW? Come on.

I wonder what percentage of the black population are killed in the east bay compared to PAC NW

---

Eastern Washington and Idaho are not Seattle and Portland. Pullman, is a college town, so it is different, even though it's African American population is only 2% (which is high for the region).

What percentage of the large African American community is attacked or harassed by white supremicists in the East Bay? 20 years ago there was an attack in Walnut Creek, if that counts. Anything you can think of? Eastern Washington and Idaho are a known center of hate groups. Hundreds of attacks each year. What percentage of the very small African American population in that region makes up their victims?

If you are in a gang or in the drug trade in West Oakland, your chances of getting killed are very high. So you can avoid that by not being in a gang or in the drug trade. The only way you can try to avoid being a victim of a hate attack is to stay away from places that are know to have haters.

Talk to an African American kid from the East Bay or LA who has been to Eastern Washington about which place he feels more comfortable. Kids will go there for the education and sports opportunity, but for the vast majority, Berkeley has Pullman beat, hands down. Really, for most 18 year old males from urban areas. Why are we even debating this?

Location is a MAJOR advantage for Cal and the LA schools, not only over our PAC-12 rivals but over almost any school in the country.

Unfortunately location is a small factor. Most top recruits are looking at the basketball experience and furthering their professional ambitions as the #1 priority.

Blacks being less comfortable around majority white is different than what they are actually a greater risk to.

Don't need to be a gangbanger to get shot in Oakland. Blacks (or anybody) are more likely to be the victim of crime in the diversity mecca that is the SF/Bay area than in Eastern Wash.

I certainly understand why a place like Berkeley is more appealing to the average minority, I"m not disputing that or find it unreasonable at all.

GBear4Life said:

---

Blacks being less comfortable around majority white is different than what they are actually a greater risk to.

Don't need to be a gangbanger to get shot in Oakland. Blacks (or anybody) are more likely to be the victim of crime in the diversity mecca that is the SF/Bay area than in Eastern Wash.

I certainly understand why a place like Berkeley is more appealing to the average minority, I"m not disputing that or find it unreasonable at all.

---

I did not introduce crime into the discussion.

Some crimes have bigger psychological impacts than others. Just based on the numbers, we as Americans should not be worried about Islamic terrorists at all. Yet, we have spent $trillions fighting them, and lost more American lives in battle on their soil than from terrorism our soil (or air). Why? Psychologically, the idea that someone out there wants to kill you just because of who you are is very scary.

You seem to agree with me on it being more dangerous for a black man in many east bay/bay area cities than it is in any part of rural eastern wash, but you also seem to be condoning irrational fear.

Look, it's safer for a black man in Pullman than Oakland. It's irrational to believe otherwise, whether you're black or not. However, it is perfectly reasonable, despite that reality, for a black person to prefer living in the Bay.

calumnus said:

---

All these guys on the board touting the Palouse when they did not choose it for college, or live there now, even though it is far more affordable than where they are living.

A lot of presumably old white guys on this board like Eastern Washington/Idaho for the "lack of crime."

Things might look a lot different if you are an 18 year old African American who grew up in the East Bay or LA:

https://mynorthwest.com/1185009/hate-crimes-rise-washington-2017/

---

Oh, now we are going to play the race card and the old card, are we? It's Berkeley, so that had to be said sooner or later. Surprised it took so long.

Beardog26 said:

---

This. The guy is both a hypocrite and overly sensitive. Too bad, because he has some good things to say as well.

---

What is overly sensitive for one person may be overly offensive for another. Calling me a hypocrite for Civil is like the pot calling the kettle black. Everything he writes to me or about me is just one big never ending personal ad hominem attack. Somewhere, way back, I must have offended him personally. If I do so, I usually apologize. I did with him, but it did not matter. He persists. I ignore, as much as I can.

SFCityBear said:

---

What is overly sensitive for one person may be overly offensive for another. Calling me a hypocrite for Civil is like the pot calling the kettle black. Everything he writes to me or about me is just one big never ending personal ad hominem attack. Somewhere, way back, I must have offended him personally. If I do so, I usually apologize. I did with him, but it did not matter. He persists. I ignore, as much as I can.

---

This post is just another glaring example of your disingenuousness. Back-to-back you stated:

A) "Somewhere, way back, I must have offended him personally." - indicating if you have offended me you do not recall it.

and,

B) "If I do so, I usually apologize. I did with him, but it did not matter." - indicating you do recall offending me in the past.

Maybe cal8285 is correct after all. Maybe you aren't just being disingenuous but actually don't realize how you continuously contradict yourself due to a departure to reality. Maybe you are actually senile. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize.

Yogi Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

oskirules said:

---

Bak Bak part deux?

And don't forget Bak Bak once had back to back buckets.

---

From the video I've seen, he's better than Bak Bak. He's obviously still pretty raw but he moves better than Bak, is obviously a little taller/longer and shows signs of a jumper that Bak never had. Tough to tell for sure with the small amount of available video, but I think he'll show more than Bak.

---

You must have missed Bak Bak's HS tape showing him draining threes and taking it to the rack. One source said he was Kevin Garnett with a jump shot.

---

Yeah. I think we got all the jumpers he ever made on that highlight film.

---

You guys just love to rag on a Cal player who didn't live up to your expectations or dreams. I wish you all would cut it out.

---

I wish one day you would follow through on your many threats to leave the board. Your holier than thou act is beyond old.

---

You mean leave, and then leave you alone to continue to spread your mean-spirited contempt for Cal teams, coaches, players, and fans? Not on your life.

You bear no resemblance to that warm lovable and funny cartoon character at all.

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

All these guys on the board touting the Palouse when they did not choose it for college, or live there now, even though it is far more affordable than where they are living.

A lot of presumably old white guys on this board like Eastern Washington/Idaho for the "lack of crime."

Things might look a lot different if you are an 18 year old African American who grew up in the East Bay or LA:

https://mynorthwest.com/1185009/hate-crimes-rise-washington-2017/

---

Oh, now we are going to play the race card and the old card, are we? It's Berkeley, so that had to be said sooner or later. Surprised it took so long.

---

Playing the "playing the race card" card? You are not a victim here. If "old and white" is a label, it applies to me too.

All I am saying, is that people denigrating Berkeley and praising Eastern Washington are doing so from their perspective, not the perspective of most of the 18 year olds in question. Even kids who do not attend Cal flock to Berkeley to hang out. It is a fun place. It probably was when you attended too, even though people older than you complained how beatniks and then hippies ruined it. LeBron James loved the place as a teenager, and still visits when he is in town. Overall, Berkeley is a massive positive for us relative to the competition.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

stu said:

---

247 has an article quoting Kuany: "I'm going to California" "I feel like I fit in there and Mark Fox is a really good coach."

---

Wait... Wut... Better than Smith?

---

Ha. "I fit in there" = Berkeley over the Palouse every day AND "Fox is a really good coach." He did not say "better"

---

One of the last times I was in Berkeley at night, I was walking down Haste St to my car, and heard two shots ring out. I turned around in time to see the guy drop. Don't know if he died. I'll take the Palouse any day.

Violent Crime Index based on FBI stats

Berkeley: 28.5
USA: 22.7
Palouse: 6.0

Property Crime Index

Berkeley: 64.6
USA: 35.4
Palouse: 11.2

---

As a long time East Bay resident and UC BERKELEY alum on a UC BERKELEY fan site I say feel free to"take the Palouse" by moving there. If crime rate is your only criteria for a good life, I feel sorry for you. Berkeley is one of the most desirable places to live around.

Living with people means living with crime. But most people choose to live a vibrant life around people and take the drawbacks in exchange for the good things that come with it.

---

Paying attention to words is one thing, but discerning exaggeration and implication is a skill, just like not concealing the implication so much that readers can't get it is another skill. In this case, you missed my both my exaggeration and my implication altogether, and I'll take the blame for not keeping it simple for you.

First off, my post was in response to a statement by calumnus that was untrue. He wrote that Kuany's statement of "I feel like I fit in there" was in his opinion equal to him preferring Berkeley, the school, the town, the people, the weather, whatever. That may well be true, but it was NOT WHAT KUANY SAID. He said he "felt like he fit in there", and the only "there" he had referred to was obviously California the school, California the basketball program, California the team, which has an opening for a player with the size and skill set they need, and need desperately. He said nothing about Telegraph Avenue, or any thing else at Cal or in Berkeley to imply that they had much, if anything to do with why he came here. Calumnus' statement of what Kuany was saying was just not true. In fact, I felt calumnus said was ridiculous, and for me outrageous. I responded with a ridiculous and outrageous post of my own, but I stated only hard cold facts about Berkeley. I did see a guy shot. I still don't know if he was killed or not, because even though I was the only witness, the police refused to tell me if the victim had survived, even days later. It was not reported in the press. Swept under the rug, maybe.

I made the outrageous statement about how I would choose the Palouse as an area over Berkeley just to illustrate how ridiculous calumnus' statement was. You can't or you should not read things into an 18 year old or anyone's statements just to further your own agenda, twisting the kid's words in the process. Just as calumnus read positive things about Telegraph Avenue into Kuany's statement, you read that I would choose the Palouse over Berkeley based on crime statistics. I never said any such thing. I was making a ridiculous statement to counter calumnus' statement, and point out that it, too, was ridiculous. Berkeley is not Nirvana, or heaven, except for some counter culture types who might not fit in on Montgomery street or in suburbia, or a rural area, where average folks have to work for a living. Flyover country, for example. I am moving soon, and I will choose a place by evaluating several criteria. One thing I will say in favor of living in a low crime area, is that I am older than you.I used to be able to take care of myself in a fight, or a mugging, or whatever. I have been mugged, stabbed, shot at. Now my strength, speed, reflexes have all slowed to where I doubt I could take care of myself, except by trying to talk my way out of a dangerous situation. As a senior citizen, I am now more of a potential victim than a risk for any would-be criminal on the street. In that sense, the Palouse would be attractive. But I am spoiled. it would be too cold for me for health reasons, and it would be too far from my family and great friends, not to mention good Chinese food.

PS: "Living with people means living means living with crime." Are you really that cynical about people and life? The people living in the Palouse are living with people, with few crimes, aren't they? It also depends on where you live in Berkeley. You can live up in the hills where where crime rarely takes place, and come down to Telegraph in the daytime for fun, or you can live in the flat lands of West Berkeley, where crimes are a dime a dozen. It isn't all "vibrant" and it isn't all crime, and it isn't all peaceful. It is just Berkeley, no better or worse than a lot of places.

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Now blacks should be worried about the Pacific NW? Come on.

I wonder what percentage of the black population are killed in the east bay compared to PAC NW

---

Eastern Washington and Idaho are not Seattle and Portland. Pullman, is a college town, so it is different, even though it's African American population is only 2% (which is high for the region).

What percentage of the large African American community is attacked or harassed by white supremicists in the East Bay? 20 years ago there was an attack in Walnut Creek, if that counts. Anything you can think of? Eastern Washington and Idaho are a known center of hate groups. Hundreds of attacks each year. What percentage of the very small African American population in that region makes up their victims?

If you are in a gang or in the drug trade in West Oakland, your chances of getting killed are very high. So you can avoid that by not being in a gang or in the drug trade. The only way you can try to avoid being a victim of a hate attack is to stay away from places that are know to have haters.

Talk to an African American kid from the East Bay or LA who has been to Eastern Washington about which place he feels more comfortable. Kids will go there for the education and sports opportunity, but for the vast majority, Berkeley has Pullman beat, hands down. Really, for most 18 year old males from urban areas. Why are we even debating this?

Location is a MAJOR advantage for Cal and the LA schools, not only over our PAC-12 rivals but over almost any school in the country.

Unfortunately location is a small factor. Most top recruits are looking at the basketball experience and furthering their professional ambitions as the #1 priority.

---

calumnus,

You started this discussion with reading too much into Kuany's statement, "I feel like I fit in there". I believe he took signing with California mean with the basketball team, and not necessarily the city of Berkeley. I think you misinterpreted his statement.

I appreciate your love and loyalty to Cal and to Berkeley itself, but this was not about Berkeley. Berkeley has its warts and faults like all cities and areas. You make a big deal out of hate groups in Idaho and eastern Washington being a center for hate groups. There have been a lot of black and minority athletes who have competed for WSU, and I have not heard of any of them being the victim of a hate crime. Please provide evidence. I have a childhood friend who became an small college All American playing football for Whitworth college in Pullman. He is Hawaiian, but he could perhaps pass for Black. He loves the area so much that after 5 years in the NFL and several years coaching in SoCal, he returned to Pullman to teach math in a JC and raise his family there. He has retired now, loves to fish and hunt, and has moved to Wenatchee to be closer to the fishing and hunting. He's never been attacked by any hate group.

Do you think there are no hate groups in Berkeley? There is and always has been a fair amount of hate in Berkeley, at least in my lifetime. Ever hear of Antifa? You want to see hate in Berkeley, just go to Berkeley the next time you hear that a conservative has been invited to speak there. They say there is free speech for all on campus, but conservative speakers have had to cancel out of fear for their lives, and the University has had to cancel at least one of them, because they could not afford to hire enough security to keep the speaker safe from harm. Today there is real hate for Donald Trump in Berkeley, just as there was 50 some years ago for Lyndon Johnson in Berkeley.

And you think all you have to do in Oakland to avoid getting killed by a gang is to avoid being in a gang or in the drug trade? Isn't that a little naive? Tell that to all the families who have lost loved ones, often young children, who get hit by crossfire or ricochet bullets. I read about that happening in big cities mostly, all over America, not just Oakland, and it is tragic.

Looking at the WSU roster, it doesn't seem that black players are being turned off by the Palouse environment. They had 9 or 10 blacks on a 13 man roster last season, with only 1 or 2 white players getting appreciable minutes. In diverse Berkeley, the Cal roster had 9 blacks on a 14 man roster, with only one white getting appreciable minutes.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

All these guys on the board touting the Palouse when they did not choose it for college, or live there now, even though it is far more affordable than where they are living.

A lot of presumably old white guys on this board like Eastern Washington/Idaho for the "lack of crime."

Things might look a lot different if you are an 18 year old African American who grew up in the East Bay or LA:

https://mynorthwest.com/1185009/hate-crimes-rise-washington-2017/

---

Oh, now we are going to play the race card and the old card, are we? It's Berkeley, so that had to be said sooner or later. Surprised it took so long.

---

Playing the "playing the race card" card? You are not a victim here. If "old and white" is a label, it applies to me too.

All I am saying, is that people denigrating Berkeley and praising Eastern Washington are doing so from their perspective, not the perspective of most of the 18 year olds in question. Even kids who do not attend Cal flock to Berkeley to hang out. It is a fun place. It probably was when you attended too, even though people older than you complained how beatniks and then hippies ruined it. LeBron James loved the place as a teenager, and still visits when he is in town. Overall, Berkeley is a massive positive for us relative to the competition.

---

I think Berkeley might be a fun place for many kids, but I think it better to tout the basketball program and the academic reputation. College is fun for many kids, but at Cal the student needs to be more serious than at many other schools, even to pass the pipe courses.

Berkeley was not particularly a fun town when I attended. Telegraph avenue when I attended was Vaughn's clothiers at Sather Gate where you could by a nice suit and tie, dress shirts, or sportcoat and slacks. There were banks and college bookstores, and restaurants, including the upscale Black Sheep around the corner on Bancroft, with a boutique or two for ladies' clothes. The non-textbook bookstores like Moe's and Shakespeare, and later Cody's were wonderful to browse and get exposed to many ideas. One church had a reading room, where you could go to read the Bible and some magazines in peace The counter culture was small, and lightly populated. It consisted of the Cafe Mediteraneum where every sort of Communist held court. Bolsheviks, Trotskyites, Stalinists, Leninists, and Chairman Mao supporters. All dishing out the propaganda. There was a theatre playing Godard, Truffault and Antonioni movies. All cool elitist Left wing stuff.

When Vietnam hit the scene, and the FSM and the Vietnam war helped to form the New Left, that dominated the street. People's Park came later with the riots, and the street turned violent with the anarchists vs the police and the University. Those days were not fun, just something to be avoided, for me at least. The hippies came, and there went coats and ties, sexual mores, marriage, and basic hygiene to boot. Hard liquor was out, and wine and beer were in. The first drug was pot, but LSD became the drug of the day. Then the hard drugs followed and that was when the drug dealers and crime held some sway over the street. I have no idea what is is now. The counter culture, the Left, succeeded in destroying many of society's institutions in Berkeley at least, establishing a secular society, and a looney city government, where a mayoral candidate swiped most of the copies of the Daily Cal to squash an unfavorable article. The voters knew about it. but elected him anyway. A government that gave us concrete barricades in every other intersection to make driving a car across town a nightmare.

As for Berkeley being something to tout to young black recruits, it might work for some but not others. Not all black recruits come from East Oakland, and not all come from one or no parent families, and almost none of them these days come from a town like Berkeley. There is no town like Berkeley, it is an enigma. It might work for some kids. Personally, I felt Telegraph avenue was a major distraction, an easy thing to get addicted to. It could wreck some kids' lives, or at least affect his GPA adversely, and has. Whether it was Communism, or the hippie thing, or drugs, or anarchy, it was all designed to destroy institutions of society, not improve them.

I think a coach should be careful to listen to and know his recruits, and his parents and what they want for their son. You don't necessarily want to approach a kid like Allen Crabbe with a strong family tradition of religion and its values with a spiel touting the virtues of the counter culture of Telegraph Avenue. That may be fine for a hippie like Bill Walton or for a Labron James, but it won't win every parent over. BTW, if Berkeley is such a great location, how come Walton and Labron did not come play for Cal?

SFCityBear said:

---

I think Berkeley might be a fun place for many kids, but I think it better to tout the basketball program and the academic reputation.

---

In my time (1970 grad) Berkeley was, if not to everyone's taste, certainly stimulating. For me Berkeley was a life-changing experience after an excruciatingly dull and sheltered suburban childhood.

I think Berkeley is a lot more than Telegraph Ave and People's Park. Diverse, still stimulating, with very nice areas within walking distance of the campus. Also more churches than I can count. I suppose some young people will find the place as attractive as I did. If they're grossed out they'll probably be happier somewhere else. Something to consider in recruiting.

SFCityBear said:

---

You don't necessarily want to approach a kid like Allen Crabbe with a strong family tradition of religion and its values with a spiel touting the virtues of the counter culture of Telegraph Avenue.

---

I don't think any Cal coach would ever cite that in their recruiting pitch. I think their focus is on the Cal campus, academics, facilities, and the metropolitan and diverse bay area.

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

All these guys on the board touting the Palouse when they did not choose it for college, or live there now, even though it is far more affordable than where they are living.

A lot of presumably old white guys on this board like Eastern Washington/Idaho for the "lack of crime."

Things might look a lot different if you are an 18 year old African American who grew up in the East Bay or LA:

https://mynorthwest.com/1185009/hate-crimes-rise-washington-2017/

---

Oh, now we are going to play the race card and the old card, are we? It's Berkeley, so that had to be said sooner or later. Surprised it took so long.

---

Playing the "playing the race card" card? You are not a victim here. If "old and white" is a label, it applies to me too.

All I am saying, is that people denigrating Berkeley and praising Eastern Washington are doing so from their perspective, not the perspective of most of the 18 year olds in question. Even kids who do not attend Cal flock to Berkeley to hang out. It is a fun place. It probably was when you attended too, even though people older than you complained how beatniks and then hippies ruined it. LeBron James loved the place as a teenager, and still visits when he is in town. Overall, Berkeley is a massive positive for us relative to the competition.

---

I think Berkeley might be a fun place for many kids, but I think it better to tout the basketball program and the academic reputation. College is fun for many kids, but at Cal the student needs to be more serious than at many other schools, even to pass the pipe courses.

Berkeley was not particularly a fun town when I attended. Telegraph avenue when I attended was Vaughn's clothiers at Sather Gate where you could by a nice suit and tie, dress shirts, or sportcoat and slacks. There were banks and college bookstores, and restaurants, including the upscale Black Sheep around the corner on Bancroft, with a boutique or two for ladies' clothes. The non-textbook bookstores like Moe's and Shakespeare, and later Cody's were wonderful to browse and get exposed to many ideas. One church had a reading room, where you could go to read the Bible and some magazines in peace The counter culture was small, and lightly populated. It consisted of the Cafe Mediteraneum where every sort of Communist held court. Bolsheviks, Trotskyites, Stalinists, Leninists, and Chairman Mao supporters. All dishing out the propaganda. There was a theatre playing Godard, Truffault and Antonioni movies. All cool elitist Left wing stuff.

When Vietnam hit the scene, and the FSM and the Vietnam war helped to form the New Left, that dominated the street. People's Park came later with the riots, and the street turned violent with the anarchists vs the police and the University. Those days were not fun, just something to be avoided, for me at least. The hippies came, and there went coats and ties, sexual mores, marriage, and basic hygiene to boot. Hard liquor was out, and wine and beer were in. The first drug was pot, but LSD became the drug of the day. Then the hard drugs followed and that was when the drug dealers and crime held some sway over the street. I have no idea what is is now. The counter culture, the Left, succeeded in destroying many of society's institutions in Berkeley at least, establishing a secular society, and a looney city government, where a mayoral candidate swiped most of the copies of the Daily Cal to squash an unfavorable article. The voters knew about it. but elected him anyway. A government that gave us concrete barricades in every other intersection to make driving a car across town a nightmare.

As for Berkeley being something to tout to young black recruits, it might work for some but not others. Not all black recruits come from East Oakland, and not all come from one or no parent families, and almost none of them these days come from a town like Berkeley. There is no town like Berkeley, it is an enigma. It might work for some kids. Personally, I felt Telegraph avenue was a major distraction, an easy thing to get addicted to. It could wreck some kids' lives, or at least affect his GPA adversely, and has. Whether it was Communism, or the hippie thing, or drugs, or anarchy, it was all designed to destroy institutions of society, not improve them.

I think a coach should be careful to listen to and know his recruits, and his parents and what they want for their son. You don't necessarily want to approach a kid like Allen Crabbe with a strong family tradition of religion and its values with a spiel touting the virtues of the counter culture of Telegraph Avenue. That may be fine for a hippie like Bill Walton or for a Labron James, but it won't win every parent over. BTW, if Berkeley is such a great location, how come Walton and Labron did not come play for Cal?

---

Berkeley and the whole East Bay has a very high concentration of churches. There is plenty there for a kid "like Allen Crabbe". You are going to be hard pressed to find a university with more African American churches within easy driving distance.

I have zero idea why you think Berkeley would only appeal to Blacks who come from one or no parent families or why you would even say that. Oakland is the center of Black culture on the west coast. It has many wealthy and middle class and poor Black families of all types and configurations. You aren't going to find a more varied and rich center of Black culture within 1000 miles and it is a couple miles from campus.

Don't know why Walton didn't come to Berkeley. I'd guess Sam Gilbert had a lot to do with it.

"Labron" expressed interest in playing at Cal with Leon Powe. I never took it seriously because it was clear he was going to go straight to the NBA. I have no idea if he would have taken Cal seriously if he was going to play in college. But the reason "Labron" didn't come play for Cal is he was the first pick in the NBA draft immediately after high school.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

What is overly sensitive for one person may be overly offensive for another. Calling me a hypocrite for Civil is like the pot calling the kettle black. Everything he writes to me or about me is just one big never ending personal ad hominem attack. Somewhere, way back, I must have offended him personally. If I do so, I usually apologize. I did with him, but it did not matter. He persists. I ignore, as much as I can.

---

This post is just another glaring example of your disingenuousness. Back-to-back you stated:

A) "Somewhere, way back, I must have offended him personally." - indicating if you have offended me you do not recall it.

and,

B) "If I do so, I usually apologize. I did with him, but it did not matter." - indicating you do recall offending me in the past.

Maybe cal8285 is correct after all. Maybe you aren't just being disingenuous but actually don't realize how you continuously contradict yourself due to a departure to reality. Maybe you are actually senile. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize.

---

In answer to your post, I honestly do not remember how I offended you because you never specifically told me what it was. Long ago, you wrote complicated argumentative posts in response to my posts, which quite frankly, I could not follow, in data or in logic. I guess I was not smart enough to understand them. When I did not understand, and did not want to respond any more, you began the personal attacks, the name-calling. I tried to get you to stop this line of attack by making a general apology, just to try and be kind to you and show I meant you no harm. I apologized for offending you, not knowing how or when I had offended you, and I still don't know.

If you spent anywhere near as much time thinking about Cal basketball and how to make it better as you do on meticulously taking apart words I have written or stats I have found, to find reasons to denigrate me as a person and call me derogatory names for all to see, you might have more interesting things to say and be more of an informative read than you are. You greatly limit yourself as a person and a believable Cal fan when you slip off into these personal attacks, filled with hate.

When I arrived here on this board, you already had many thousands of posts. You must have had a foil before me, because today you have very little to say about Cal sports other than to express hatred for another Cal fan. Who was my predecessor? Did you force him off the board, or drive him to genuflect at your altar? Your intent is obviously to be hurtful to me, by ridiculing me publicly. Can I suggest that you just send these messages of personal hate directly to me as a private message instead of posting on a forum for all to see? I'll bet you won't do that. It wouldn't be mean-spirited enough.

I understand that I float your boat. The problem is you don't understand it. Hatred is a powerful emotion. It can keep you going, or it can destroy you. As you are concerned that I might be senile, I am concerned for your health, mental and physical, because of what uncontrolled hate can do to a person. No kidding. I really am concerned for you. I have love for everyone on this board, including those who disagree with me. I have never encountered hate personally in life, and I need to have more love for you. I'll work on it.

Just think that if you stopped hating me, or stopped reading what I write, you could have a life. Continuous unmitigated hate for another person is no way to spend your time on earth, is it? Lighten up. You'll feel better.