Pretty fair assessment.


https://watchstadium.com/news/pac-12-basketball-coaches-rank-the-best-jobs-in-the-conference-06-27-2019/

Can't disagree. The lack of a practice facility puts us in the bottom half by default. Then, you add the lack of support from the administration. Fans will come root for a consistently winning program. Monty had Maples packed when he was at Furd. For Cal, it seems like we've had moments with several different coaches, but just could never turn the corner and get into that next tier and keep progressing.

Cal and USC's positions relfect the opposite directions of both programs. Five years ago, those two would probably be switched. Others are pretty consistent (Utah's success under Majerus was pre Pac-12 and hasn't been matched by K).

tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Can't disagree. The lack of a practice facility puts us in the bottom half by default. Then, you add the lack of support from the administration. Fans will come root for a consistently winning program. Monty had Maples packed when he was at Furd. For Cal, it seems like we've had moments with several different coaches, but just could never turn the corner and get into that next tier and keep progressing.

---

Agree, and it's not just facilities. Overall budget to support the programs is not keeping up with the conference. I get we don't have money for a practice facility yet, but we should try to make up for it in other less big budget ways

I was watching some highlights from past seasons on YouTube, and it reminded me how good the atmosphere was just a few years ago with lots of students and fans. We did it then, so winning fixes a lot, but we need to help this team more

Given our collective morale as a result of the last 2 1/2 seasons, I was surprised we weren't even lower.

Those criteria where we scored in "double digits", we need to shore those up.... and we can. All I'm asking is for us to have a fighting chance to compete.

Interesting that academics is a plus for the furd and a negative for Cal.

Civil Bear said:

---

Interesting that academics is a plus for the furd and a negative for Cal.

---

That's because although both schools are outstanding academically, once you get into Stanfurd you're basically guaranteed graduation. At Cal, on the other hand, you actually have to work hard to get a degree, and nothing is guaranteed.

Golden One said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Interesting that academics is a plus for the furd and a negative for Cal.

---

That's because although both schools are outstanding academically, once you get into Stanfurd you're basically guaranteed graduation. At Cal, on the other hand, you actually have to work hard to get a degree, and nothing is guaranteed.

---

All you need to know about Stanford grading is that John Elway graduated with a 3.4 GPA.

BearSD said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Interesting that academics is a plus for the furd and a negative for Cal.

---

That's because although both schools are outstanding academically, once you get into Stanfurd you're basically guaranteed graduation. At Cal, on the other hand, you actually have to work hard to get a degree, and nothing is guaranteed.

---

All you need to know about Stanford grading is that John Elway graduated with a 3.4 GPA.

---

LMAO.

Golden One said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Interesting that academics is a plus for the furd and a negative for Cal.

---

That's because although both schools are outstanding academically, once you get into Stanfurd you're basically guaranteed graduation. At Cal, on the other hand, you actually have to work hard to get a degree, and nothing is guaranteed.

---

Did John Brodie ever graduate? I seem to remember him getting caught cheating in movie appreciation class, and denied a degree. You are right about Stanford. I think there was a period where they did not give grades to students. To be fair, I don't think Jason Kidd or Chuck Muncie worked hard at studying. Athletes are coddled, often do not major in difficult subjects requiring a lot of hard work, and have all the tutoring they need, don't they?

SFCityBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Interesting that academics is a plus for the furd and a negative for Cal.

---

That's because although both schools are outstanding academically, once you get into Stanfurd you're basically guaranteed graduation. At Cal, on the other hand, you actually have to work hard to get a degree, and nothing is guaranteed.

---

Did John Brodie ever graduate? I seem to remember him getting caught cheating in movie appreciation class, and denied a degree. You are right about Stanford. I think there was a period where they did not give grades to students. To be fair, I don't think Jason Kidd or Chuck Muncie worked hard at studying. Athletes are coddled, often do not major in difficult subjects requiring a lot of hard work, and have all the tutoring they need, don't they?

---

I'm not sure about Brodie graduating. Jason Kidd did not get a Cal degree, but Chuck Muncie did. It's true that athletes are coddled, get a lot of tutoring help, and often don't major in difficult subjects. But at least at Cal they have to put in some work if they want to get a degree; not so at Stanfurd.

my dentist told me that he worked harder than at any time in his life to get a B+ in a Chemistry class at UCLA. Sidney Wicks and Marques Johnson were in his class and both received A's even though neither one ever went to class the entire semester. I'm sure John Wooden knew nothing about this arrangement. he is not called saint John for nothing. Most athletes want to be coddled, and, as a result, Cal will always have a hard time getting their fair share. My Mother told me that she worked hard for a C in her typing class at Galileo . Her future husband, star athlete and class president, never took the cover off the typewriter and got an A. Many things never change.

HTP,

Glad to have you back with some positive informative posts. Following up on your paragraph, here is an old joke (which has a lot of truth in it):

How many USC Football players does it take to change a light bulb?

20!

One to change the light bulb and 19 to get credit for it!!

Go Bears!

helltopay1 said:

---

my dentist told me that he worked harder than at any time in his life to get a B+ in a Chemistry class at UCLA. Sidney Wicks and Marques Johnson were in his class and both received A's even though neither one ever went to class the entire semester. I'm sure John Wooden knew nothing about this arrangement. he is not called saint John for nothing. .......

---

I'm not saying the story isn't true. But how does your dentist know what grades Wicks and Johnson received for that UCLA chemistry class?

Dear BGG: He related the story with certainty: My dentist is a straight-shooter and wouldn't have told that story otherwise. Stuff like that gets around fast. Old saying: Three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead. In those days many athletes bragged about getting good grades whether they were deserved or not..BTW, was your question sincere or rhetorical??

Dear CalBear80: Nice joke--only a slight exaggeration but the sentiment is accurate.

How in the world did U$C rank above Cal in BB. Yes, they have inconsistently gotten in the the tourney so I give it to them for that, but no one even goes to their games, nor is interested in the least. Even the SoCal newspapers recognize it is U$C for FG and UCLA for BB. Cal's experience in the distant past was much better than it is now, but it is certainly still overall better than U$Cs?

Dear BGG: Saint John (Wooden) always maintained he never knew that his star players at UCLA received money, apartments, girl friends cars, and, when necessary, good grades. right!!!!!!!!And, next weekend, I'll be scaling Mt. Everest with no training whatsoever. Moral of the story????People believe what they need and want to believe.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. I see it more in terms of tiers though. UCLA and Arizona are clearly in a tier of their own. Oregon State and Wazzu are also in a tier of their own at the other end of the spectrum. I'd put the 4 through 10 teams in a group as well with a lot of ebbing and flowing over the years but roughly comparable. Oregon is a tick below Arizona/UCLA and a tick above the bigger group.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear BGG: He related the story with certainty: My dentist is a straight-shooter and wouldn't have told that story otherwise. Stuff like that gets around fast. Old saying: Three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead. In those days many athletes bragged about getting good grades whether they were deserved or not..BTW, was your question sincere or rhetorical??

---

Sidney Wicks and Marques Johnson were at least three years apart, maybe more. I doubt they took any classes together. Maybe it was Curtis Rowe, instead of Johnson? (Wicks and Rowe were "bookend" AA forwards for UCLA, in the same class.)

Big C said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear BGG: He related the story with certainty: My dentist is a straight-shooter and wouldn't have told that story otherwise. Stuff like that gets around fast. Old saying: Three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead. In those days many athletes bragged about getting good grades whether they were deserved or not..BTW, was your question sincere or rhetorical??

---

Sidney Wicks and Marques Johnson were at least three years apart, maybe more. I doubt they took any classes together. Maybe it was Curtis Rowe, instead of Johnson? (Wicks and Rowe were "bookend" AA forwards for UCLA, in the same class.)

---

Upon further research, Wicks was drafted into the NBA in 1971....Johnson graduated from High School in 1973....therefore, they never had a class together at UCLA (unless it was a night class which I sincerely doubt)....
Also, Johnson was a Theater Arts major which probably doesn't require a Chemistry course but it could have been one of his electives (which I also doubt).....

I'll check with my dentist. It probably was Curtis Rowe.

Always fun to point to the hypocrisy of the distant past, but the rankings are about today, and how recruits perceive the various Pac-12 schools.

So to me, the real question is what's the path to moving up the ladder to make it easier to recruit elite players. Obviously, job one is to win more games in conference, but is Cal better off going after a few superstars, or building a program over time that puts a bunch of very good seniors on the floor every few years?

The other issue is the potential elimination of one-and-done (or the continued move to turning pro right out of high school in the G League or Australia or wherever) and how that will impact the way programs are built.

I posed a similar question on the women's side, which comes down to this: What kind of players/team/program should Cal pursue in order to be as successful as possible? Great athletes? Smart players? Size? Quickness? Shooters?

It seems to me a clear vision of what kind of players/team/program you're aiming for is essential. Just recruiting the most talented players you can without a framework to put them in does not appear to me to be a winning strategy.

ClayK said:

---

Always fun to point to the hypocrisy of the distant past, but the rankings are about today, and how recruits perceive the various Pac-12 schools.

So to me, the real question is what's the path to moving up the ladder to make it easier to recruit elite players. Obviously, job one is to win more games in conference, but is Cal better off going after a few superstars, or building a program over time that puts a bunch of very good seniors on the floor every few years?

The other issue is the potential elimination of one-and-done (or the continued move to turning pro right out of high school in the G League or Australia or wherever) and how that will impact the way programs are built.

I posed a similar question on the women's side, which comes down to this: What kind of players/team/program should Cal pursue in order to be as successful as possible? Great athletes? Smart players? Size? Quickness? Shooters?

It seems to me a clear vision of what kind of players/team/program you're aiming for is essential. Just recruiting the most talented players you can without a framework to put them in does not appear to me to be a winning strategy.

---

Whether or not it will work, IIRC Fox is on record saying that he wants to lean heavily on international players as Bennett has done at Virginia. I think that will work to get back to respectability, but that it gets tougher once you're vying for the smaller number of international players good enough to be a key part of a Final Four team.

For that matter, recruiting US high school players will get tougher after one-and-done is gone, because when the one-and-done players are no longer there for Duke and Kentucky, they will turn their sights on the players who are very good but not NBA ready at age 18, like those on this year's Texas Tech team or last year's Villanova team.