https://theathletic.com/1140168/2019/08/15/top-five-coaches-a-big-ten-deep-dive-and-the-best-guards-of-the-era-eamonn-brennans-college-basketball-mailbag-part-ii/

Quote:

---

Any thoughts on the long-term prospects for Mark Fox at Cal? Go Bears! Vernon L.

Solid enough. Decent. Unspectacular. That was more or less Mark Fox's modus operandi at Georgia, and it led to a quality tenure from a respected coach that never saw him get quite over the top. That might sound a little bit boring to a lot of college hoops fans, but to Cal fans coming off back to back eight-win seasons in which they were routinely the worst major conference program in college basketball that probably sounds amazing. "Solidly decent, you say? WOOOOO!!"

---

BearSD said:

---

https://theathletic.com/1140168/2019/08/15/top-five-coaches-a-big-ten-deep-dive-and-the-best-guards-of-the-era-eamonn-brennans-college-basketball-mailbag-part-ii/

Quote:

---

Any thoughts on the long-term prospects for Mark Fox at Cal? Go Bears! Vernon L.

Solid enough. Decent. Unspectacular. That was more or less Mark Fox's modus operandi at Georgia, and it led to a quality tenure from a respected coach that never saw him get quite over the top. That might sound a little bit boring to a lot of college hoops fans, but to Cal fans coming off back to back eight-win seasons in which they were routinely the worst major conference program in college basketball that probably sounds amazing. "Solidly decent, you say? WOOOOO!!"

---

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

From all accounts, Wyking was/is a decent person. Being 'decent" and $2.95 will not get you a cup of coffee at most restaurants. I prefer SOB's who can coach...Would you rather go 0-18 with a "decent" coach or 18-0 with a SOB??Think carefully before you answer.

Incomplete hypothetical.

Dear 79: Your lordship: I refuse to withdraw the question. Hypothetical our not, how you ( anyone) answers the question reveals whether, and to what extant, you value winning at all costs versus quite possibly losing albeit under the auspices of an admirable, decent coach who rarely, if ever, verbally or physically manhandles his charges. Think Bobby Knight. would you rather have Bobby Knight at Cal in his prime taking Cal to the NCAA every single year or would rather have a very sweet man who couldn't coach his Grandmother in a telephone booth leading his charges every single year??Personally, I would rather have Knight....but, that's just me. I believe the old cliche that, " winning cures everything." BTW, if Knight, or someone like him, was the coach, Haas would fill to the brim every game..in the other scenario, you are lucky to get 2,000 fans ( including dogs, cats, and thge tickets vendors) When I was in high school. we had a coach who was a lot more verbally and physically than Bobby ever was. He coached for about 35 years. No one died or had to see a therapist. There were no "safe places." Exams were not cancelled. No one cried or complained to his Mother. I will now hear from any dissenters. Respectfully, of course.

OK, you've clarified the question somewhat and although I would be fine with a Bobby Knight given the two choices there is something else to consider and that's the long term. A crappy coach is awful for the time being unless it results in a successor who turns things around. Think Holmoe --> Tedford and hopefully Jones --> Fox

On the other hand, a loose cannon, SOB coach is great for the short term, but if he gets the program into trouble with sanctions, etc. then it's a disaster.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

helltopay1 said:

---

From all accounts, Wyking was/is a decent person.

---

That is not how the sportswriter quoted above used the word decent. In the context of that article, decent means being decently competent as a head coach and producing decently satisfactory results. Wyking was neither of those.

Put the best coach in CBB history at the helm for Cal last two years. What would have been best case scenario in terms of W-L?

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Well ya, but it appears that unless Fox kind of reinvents himself (hopefully the year off and hanging out with Pops fits the narrative), he's trending downward with the glory days at Nevada behind him. Wilcox is trending upward with his D. Now I agree with you though he hasn't proven anything yet, esp. whether he is right in basically mortgaging his coaching career on an OC who basically single handedly lost many games for us last year with his decisions. I hope his trust in him in coming back strong is rewarded, but that remains to be seen.

GBear4Life said:

---

Put the best coach in CBB history at the helm for Cal last two years. What would have been best case scenario in terms of W-L?

---

Wyking Jones inherited a roster that had lost 4 of 5 starters and 6 of the top 8 rotation players. Only Okoroh and Coleman returned. Marcus Lee was able to join the team, but no new coach in modern Cal history ever inherited less talent than did Wyking Jones.

In his first year as a head coach at Army, Bob Knight took over 21-8 team that had lost 3 starters, and finished 18-8, and 13-8 in his 2nd season.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana, Bob Knight took over a 17-7 team that had lost George McGinnis, and finished 17-8. In year two, he won the Big Ten championship. He would not win an NCAA title until 1976, his 11th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana State, John Wooden took over a team that was 21-7, and he finished 17-8. In his second year, his team was 27-7.

In his first season as head coach at UCLA, John Wooden took over a team that was 12-13, and his team finished 22-7 and won the championship of the PCC Southern division. In his second season, Wooden's team finished 24-7 and again won the PCC Southern Division. He would not win an NCAA title until 1964, his 18th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at USF, Pete Newell took over a 9-12 team, and finished 13-14. In the following season his team finished 13-11, and in his third season, Newell's USF team finished 25-5 and won a National Championship, the NIT, at the time more highly regarded than winning the NCAA.

In his first year as head coach at Michigan State, Newell inherited a team that was 4-18, and he finished 10-11 that year. The following season, his MSU team finished 13-9.

In his first year as head coach at Cal, Newell inherited a team which had finished 17-7, and had lost former All-American Bob Matheny, but still had All-American Bob McKeen, and added future All-American Larry Friend. His team finished 9-16, IMO the worst season ever for a Cal team, considering the fine talent on the roster. In his second season, Cal would finish 17-8, and in his 3 season Cal would reach the Elite 8 in the NCAA, followed by another Elite 8, a NCAA title, and a runner up finsh, for 4 straight years of glory.

What does all this mean? Nothing much. The only coach here who had a similar challenge to the one Wyking Jones faced was Newell at USF. Newell had never been a head coach before, just like Wyking, never been an assistant coach. The coach at USF knew Newell and convinced USF to hire Pete as basketball and golf coach (maybe baseball too, I don't remember). In that case, he turned a losing team into a winning team pretty fast. At Michigan State, he did a similar thing, but it took two years, and he had already won a lot of high pressure games against the best teams in the country and the NIT. He was more of a neophyte at USF than Wyking was at Cal, because Wyking at least had been an assistant for some years.

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Fox spent 9 years coaching an SEC team located in perhaps the best recruiting territory in the country and never won a single post season game. Even after recruiting future NBA talent. His offense makes Braun's look exciting. People here complained about Cuonzo's offense. I don't think we aspire to .500 basketball, even if that is better than the last two years. Mediocrity is more dangerous than pure incompetence (Dykes was similarly mediocre, so I am glad we moved on). I think Knowlton made a bad choice, potentially a huge, $multimillion multiyear mistake. Hopefully, Fox proves me wrong and makes him look smart.

Wilcox is a young head coach still learning on the job. As a defensive coach he needed to learn how to hire and manage an OC, make sure that enough scholarships are allocated to the offense and devote time and energy to recruiting that side of the ball. I think he is still learning that. Again, I hope Baldwin proves me wrong and makes Wilcox look smart. However, if Wilcox can figure that out he is potentially a very good, maybe great coach.

In any case, I am glad we hired Wilcox who may become great rather than hiring an older guy who coached boring .500 football at a potential powerhouse for 9 years.

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

SFCityBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Put the best coach in CBB history at the helm for Cal last two years. What would have been best case scenario in terms of W-L?

---

Wyking Jones inherited a roster that had lost 4 of 5 starters and 6 of the top 8 rotation players. Only Okoroh and Coleman returned. Marcus Lee was able to join the team, but no new coach in modern Cal history ever inherited less talent than did Wyking Jones.

In his first year as a head coach at Army, Bob Knight took over 21-8 team that had lost 3 starters, and finished 18-8, and 13-8 in his 2nd season.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana, Bob Knight took over a 17-7 team that had lost George McGinnis, and finished 17-8. In year two, he won the Big Ten championship. He would not win an NCAA title until 1976, his 11th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana State, John Wooden took over a team that was 21-7, and he finished 17-8. In his second year, his team was 27-7.

In his first season as head coach at UCLA, John Wooden took over a team that was 12-13, and his team finished 22-7 and won the championship of the PCC Southern division. In his second season, Wooden's team finished 24-7 and again won the PCC Southern Division. He would not win an NCAA title until 1964, his 18th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at USF, Pete Newell took over a 9-12 team, and finished 13-14. In the following season his team finished 13-11, and in his third season, Newell's USF team finished 25-5 and won a National Championship, the NIT, at the time more highly regarded than winning the NCAA.

In his first year as head coach at Michigan State, Newell inherited a team that was 4-18, and he finished 10-11 that year. The following season, his MSU team finished 13-9.

In his first year as head coach at Cal, Newell inherited a team which had finished 17-7, and had lost former All-American Bob Matheny, but still had All-American Bob McKeen, and added future All-American Larry Friend. His team finished 9-16, IMO the worst season ever for a Cal team, considering the fine talent on the roster. In his second season, Cal would finish 17-8, and in his 3 season Cal would reach the Elite 8 in the NCAA, followed by another Elite 8, a NCAA title, and a runner up finsh, for 4 straight years of glory.

What does all this mean? Nothing much. The only coach here who had a similar challenge to the one Wyking Jones faced was Newell at USF. Newell had never been a head coach before, just like Wyking, never been an assistant coach. The coach at USF knew Newell and convinced USF to hire Pete as basketball and golf coach (maybe baseball too, I don't remember). In that case, he turned a losing team into a winning team pretty fast. At Michigan State, he did a similar thing, but it took two years, and he had already won a lot of high pressure games against the best teams in the country and the NIT. He was more of a neophyte at USF than Wyking was at Cal, because Wyking at least had been an assistant for some years.

---

Never mind.

ncbears said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Put the best coach in CBB history at the helm for Cal last two years. What would have been best case scenario in terms of W-L?

---

Wyking Jones inherited a roster that had lost 4 of 5 starters and 6 of the top 8 rotation players. Only Okoroh and Coleman returned. Marcus Lee was able to join the team, but no new coach in modern Cal history ever inherited less talent than did Wyking Jones.

In his first year as a head coach at Army, Bob Knight took over 21-8 team that had lost 3 starters, and finished 18-8, and 13-8 in his 2nd season.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana, Bob Knight took over a 17-7 team that had lost George McGinnis, and finished 17-8. In year two, he won the Big Ten championship. He would not win an NCAA title until 1976, his 11th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana State, John Wooden took over a team that was 21-7, and he finished 17-8. In his second year, his team was 27-7.

In his first season as head coach at UCLA, John Wooden took over a team that was 12-13, and his team finished 22-7 and won the championship of the PCC Southern division. In his second season, Wooden's team finished 24-7 and again won the PCC Southern Division. He would not win an NCAA title until 1964, his 18th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at USF, Pete Newell took over a 9-12 team, and finished 13-14. In the following season his team finished 13-11, and in his third season, Newell's USF team finished 25-5 and won a National Championship, the NIT, at the time more highly regarded than winning the NCAA.

In his first year as head coach at Michigan State, Newell inherited a team that was 4-18, and he finished 10-11 that year. The following season, his MSU team finished 13-9.

In his first year as head coach at Cal, Newell inherited a team which had finished 17-7, and had lost former All-American Bob Matheny, but still had All-American Bob McKeen, and added future All-American Larry Friend. His team finished 9-16, IMO the worst season ever for a Cal team, considering the fine talent on the roster. In his second season, Cal would finish 17-8, and in his 3 season Cal would reach the Elite 8 in the NCAA, followed by another Elite 8, a NCAA title, and a runner up finsh, for 4 straight years of glory.

What does all this mean? Nothing much. The only coach here who had a similar challenge to the one Wyking Jones faced was Newell at USF. Newell had never been a head coach before, just like Wyking, never been an assistant coach. The coach at USF knew Newell and convinced USF to hire Pete as basketball and golf coach (maybe baseball too, I don't remember). In that case, he turned a losing team into a winning team pretty fast. At Michigan State, he did a similar thing, but it took two years, and he had already won a lot of high pressure games against the best teams in the country and the NIT. He was more of a neophyte at USF than Wyking was at Cal, because Wyking at least had been an assistant for some years.

---

Never mind.

---

You had to edit this comment?

SFCityBear said:

---

ncbears said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Put the best coach in CBB history at the helm for Cal last two years. What would have been best case scenario in terms of W-L?

---

Wyking Jones inherited a roster that had lost 4 of 5 starters and 6 of the top 8 rotation players. Only Okoroh and Coleman returned. Marcus Lee was able to join the team, but no new coach in modern Cal history ever inherited less talent than did Wyking Jones.

In his first year as a head coach at Army, Bob Knight took over 21-8 team that had lost 3 starters, and finished 18-8, and 13-8 in his 2nd season.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana, Bob Knight took over a 17-7 team that had lost George McGinnis, and finished 17-8. In year two, he won the Big Ten championship. He would not win an NCAA title until 1976, his 11th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana State, John Wooden took over a team that was 21-7, and he finished 17-8. In his second year, his team was 27-7.

In his first season as head coach at UCLA, John Wooden took over a team that was 12-13, and his team finished 22-7 and won the championship of the PCC Southern division. In his second season, Wooden's team finished 24-7 and again won the PCC Southern Division. He would not win an NCAA title until 1964, his 18th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at USF, Pete Newell took over a 9-12 team, and finished 13-14. In the following season his team finished 13-11, and in his third season, Newell's USF team finished 25-5 and won a National Championship, the NIT, at the time more highly regarded than winning the NCAA.

In his first year as head coach at Michigan State, Newell inherited a team that was 4-18, and he finished 10-11 that year. The following season, his MSU team finished 13-9.

In his first year as head coach at Cal, Newell inherited a team which had finished 17-7, and had lost former All-American Bob Matheny, but still had All-American Bob McKeen, and added future All-American Larry Friend. His team finished 9-16, IMO the worst season ever for a Cal team, considering the fine talent on the roster. In his second season, Cal would finish 17-8, and in his 3 season Cal would reach the Elite 8 in the NCAA, followed by another Elite 8, a NCAA title, and a runner up finsh, for 4 straight years of glory.

What does all this mean? Nothing much. The only coach here who had a similar challenge to the one Wyking Jones faced was Newell at USF. Newell had never been a head coach before, just like Wyking, never been an assistant coach. The coach at USF knew Newell and convinced USF to hire Pete as basketball and golf coach (maybe baseball too, I don't remember). In that case, he turned a losing team into a winning team pretty fast. At Michigan State, he did a similar thing, but it took two years, and he had already won a lot of high pressure games against the best teams in the country and the NIT. He was more of a neophyte at USF than Wyking was at Cal, because Wyking at least had been an assistant for some years.

---

Never mind.

---

You had to edit this comment?

---

I deleted what I had written.

ncbears said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ncbears said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Put the best coach in CBB history at the helm for Cal last two years. What would have been best case scenario in terms of W-L?

---

Wyking Jones inherited a roster that had lost 4 of 5 starters and 6 of the top 8 rotation players. Only Okoroh and Coleman returned. Marcus Lee was able to join the team, but no new coach in modern Cal history ever inherited less talent than did Wyking Jones.

In his first year as a head coach at Army, Bob Knight took over 21-8 team that had lost 3 starters, and finished 18-8, and 13-8 in his 2nd season.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana, Bob Knight took over a 17-7 team that had lost George McGinnis, and finished 17-8. In year two, he won the Big Ten championship. He would not win an NCAA title until 1976, his 11th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at Indiana State, John Wooden took over a team that was 21-7, and he finished 17-8. In his second year, his team was 27-7.

In his first season as head coach at UCLA, John Wooden took over a team that was 12-13, and his team finished 22-7 and won the championship of the PCC Southern division. In his second season, Wooden's team finished 24-7 and again won the PCC Southern Division. He would not win an NCAA title until 1964, his 18th year as a head coach.

In his first year as head coach at USF, Pete Newell took over a 9-12 team, and finished 13-14. In the following season his team finished 13-11, and in his third season, Newell's USF team finished 25-5 and won a National Championship, the NIT, at the time more highly regarded than winning the NCAA.

In his first year as head coach at Michigan State, Newell inherited a team that was 4-18, and he finished 10-11 that year. The following season, his MSU team finished 13-9.

In his first year as head coach at Cal, Newell inherited a team which had finished 17-7, and had lost former All-American Bob Matheny, but still had All-American Bob McKeen, and added future All-American Larry Friend. His team finished 9-16, IMO the worst season ever for a Cal team, considering the fine talent on the roster. In his second season, Cal would finish 17-8, and in his 3 season Cal would reach the Elite 8 in the NCAA, followed by another Elite 8, a NCAA title, and a runner up finsh, for 4 straight years of glory.

What does all this mean? Nothing much. The only coach here who had a similar challenge to the one Wyking Jones faced was Newell at USF. Newell had never been a head coach before, just like Wyking, never been an assistant coach. The coach at USF knew Newell and convinced USF to hire Pete as basketball and golf coach (maybe baseball too, I don't remember). In that case, he turned a losing team into a winning team pretty fast. At Michigan State, he did a similar thing, but it took two years, and he had already won a lot of high pressure games against the best teams in the country and the NIT. He was more of a neophyte at USF than Wyking was at Cal, because Wyking at least had been an assistant for some years.

---

Never mind.

---

You had to edit this comment?

---

I deleted what I had written, dumbarse.

---

FIFY

tequila4kapp said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

---

put Wilcox next to Fox, let us know how it shakes out. You'd have to leave out the "I feel really good about Wilcox" since that is not a tangible record of note.

GBear4Life said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

---

put Wilcox next to Fox, let us know how it shakes out. You'd have to leave out the "I feel really good about Wilcox" since that is not a tangible record of note.

---

A coach who is in Year 3 of his HC career "not having achieved anything YET" is different than a HC who spent the last 9 years not achieving anything.

Im rooting for both of them, but if I'm betting, my money is on Wilcox winning a post season game at Cal long before Fox does.

dear calalum: A winning season in football must be defined. if you go 7-5 but have three creampuffs on your schedule, that is a "winning season" with an asterisk . Thge only true gauge is the won-lost record in conference play. Here, percentages come into play because more games are played in basketball. Again, because there are so few games played in football, no analysis can be made until you have 3-5 seasons under your belt.

helltopay1 said:

---

dear calalum: A winning season in football must be defined. if you go 7-5 but have three creampuffs on your schedule, that is a "winning season" with an asterisk . Thge only true gauge is the won-lost record in conference play. Here, percentages come into play because more games are played in basketball. Again, because there are so few games played in football, no analysis can be made until you have 3-5 seasons under your belt.

---

My measure was a win in the post season. Fox did not get one in 9 years at Georgia.

Between the NCAA, the NIT and the CIT, 120 teams play in the postseason in basketball.

76 football teams get bowl invites. The criteria for either is a winning record, including creampuffs.

Maybe first to have a winning record in conference? Wilcox has a head start, but 5 of 9 conference games this year are against teams in the preseason Top 25 and that does not include the 2 games against UCLA and USC. A winning conference record in basketball is not an amazing accomplishment as the PAC-12 has only 2 teams in most pre-season Top 25s.

When is the last time we had a winning record in the conference? Thats all I care about. Getting tired of paying almost $1000 per ticket for six games on the 20;yard line, especially since I can buy tickets for a fraction of the cost at Stub hub while avoiding night games. Metal detectors, alcohol in the stadium. We will see how fans react. Following Cal since 1968. Never a conference championship, never a rosebowl. Other teams do it but we make it harder with a 3.0 gpa requirement.

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

---

put Wilcox next to Fox, let us know how it shakes out. You'd have to leave out the "I feel really good about Wilcox" since that is not a tangible record of note.

---

A coach who is in Year 3 of his HC career "not having achieved anything YET" is different than a HC who spent the last 9 years not achieving anything.

Im rooting for both of them, but if I'm betting, my money is on Wilcox winning a post season game at Cal long before Fox does.

---

Cool. That's really cool speculation. The question isn't prospecting the future based on first two years (though I'm not sure what you can point to that demonstrably points to a better future career than Fox)

If we're comparing first two seasons:

Mark Fox

Year 1: 25-7; NCAA tourney
Year 2: 27-6; conf champ; NCAA tourney

Winning %: 80%

Justin Wilcox

Year 1: 5-7; 9th in conference
Year 2: 7-6; 6th in conference

GBear4Life said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

---

put Wilcox next to Fox, let us know how it shakes out. You'd have to leave out the "I feel really good about Wilcox" since that is not a tangible record of note.

---

A coach who is in Year 3 of his HC career "not having achieved anything YET" is different than a HC who spent the last 9 years not achieving anything.

Im rooting for both of them, but if I'm betting, my money is on Wilcox winning a post season game at Cal long before Fox does.

---

Cool. That's really cool speculation. The question isn't prospecting the future based on first two years (though I'm not sure what you can point to that demonstrably points to a better future career than Fox)

If we're comparing first two seasons:

Mark Fox

Year 1: 25-7; NCAA tourney
Year 2: 27-6; conf champ; NCAA tourney

Winning %: 80%

Justin Wilcox

Year 1: 5-7; 9th in conference
Year 2: 7-6; 6th in conference

---

Mark Fox took over a top rated Nevada team with a top recruiting class coming in and kept it going for a couple of years before jumping to Georgia. He took over a below average Georgia team and kept it below average for 9 years. Which seems more applicable to the situation he is in now at Cal? We need someone who can build a program. He had 9 years to do that at Georgia and couldn't, so he was fired. Wilcox has not proven he can either, but at least there is no evidence he can't.

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

---

put Wilcox next to Fox, let us know how it shakes out. You'd have to leave out the "I feel really good about Wilcox" since that is not a tangible record of note.

---

A coach who is in Year 3 of his HC career "not having achieved anything YET" is different than a HC who spent the last 9 years not achieving anything.

Im rooting for both of them, but if I'm betting, my money is on Wilcox winning a post season game at Cal long before Fox does.

---

Cool. That's really cool speculation. The question isn't prospecting the future based on first two years (though I'm not sure what you can point to that demonstrably points to a better future career than Fox)

If we're comparing first two seasons:

Mark Fox

Year 1: 25-7; NCAA tourney
Year 2: 27-6; conf champ; NCAA tourney

Winning %: 80%

Justin Wilcox

Year 1: 5-7; 9th in conference
Year 2: 7-6; 6th in conference

---

Mark Fox took over a top rated Nevada team with a top recruiting class coming in and kept it going for a couple of years before jumping to Georgia. He took over a below average Georgia team and kept it below average for 9 years. Which seems more applicable to the situation he is in now at Cal? We need someone who can build a program. He had 9 years to do that at Georgia and couldn't, so he was fired. Wilcox has not proven he can either, but at least there is no evidence he can't.

---

I am greatly disappointed in your continual efforts to denigrate Mark Fox, even while saying you support him. You are one of my favorite posters, with often great insight, and I've usually agreed with most or all of what you write. It is fine to have an opinion, but when we start stating opinions like fact, we need to be reasonably sure of the truth of such facts.

Let's deal first with Fox's record at Nevada, which many posters here pooh-poohed, implying that was not the real Fox record we must look at which was his record at Georgia, and only his SEC record there. Since you brought it up, where do you get information that "Mark Fox took over a top rated Nevada team with a top recruiting class?" That team, Trent Johnson's 2003-04 team, was a good team. They went 25-9, won the conference and went to the NCAA and lost in the sweet 16, but they were NEVER RANKED in the AP poll at any time during or after the 2004 season. As to the "top recruiting class" that Fox inherited, that class consisted of three freshmen, Ramon Sessions,David Ellis, and Curry Lynch. Sessions was the best recruit, and was South Carolina player of the year in high school, but was UNRANKED in the top 100 recruits by any of the usual top recruit ranking services, Scout, Rivals, RCSI and two others. Ellis was a 7-1 center who played 4 years at Nevada averaging 2 points and 2 rebounds. Lynch was a guard who also played 4 years and averaged less than one point, less than one rebound, and less than one assist per game. Fox did have an unranked JC transfer, Mo Charlo, who later went undrafted but played several years in the NBA G league, but I don't know if he was a Fox recruit or a Johnson recruit that Fox inherited. For that matter, Fox may have been the lead recruiter of any of the recruits in the incoming class, since he was Johnson's assistant at the time, I believe.

As to the roster of the team Fox inherited, it had an 8 man rotation, but Snyder left for the NBA, Okeson, Hill-Thomas, and Paul graduated, and Kemp got hurt and had to miss Fox's first season. So Fox had to play his first season with only 2 returning starters and one returning sub from the rotation, Washington, plus his only decent freshman recruit, Sessions, and the JC transfer Charlo. So he had 5 players to begin the season with, 3 of whom were experienced, but still not anything like saying he "took over a top ranked team with a top ranked recruiting class", which was just not true, unless you have evidence otherwise.

BTW, Fox had five 20 win seasons at Nevada, won 5 conference titles, and Trent Johnson had one 20-win season and one conference title, plus several teams with losing records. Fox's 2007 team won 29 games and was ranked #10 in the country by AP, and finished ranked #15. He went to more NCAAs than Johnson, but did not win an NCAA game, which Johnson did. Fox had his success at Nevada primarily with his own players not Johnson's.

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

---

put Wilcox next to Fox, let us know how it shakes out. You'd have to leave out the "I feel really good about Wilcox" since that is not a tangible record of note.

---

A coach who is in Year 3 of his HC career "not having achieved anything YET" is different than a HC who spent the last 9 years not achieving anything.

Im rooting for both of them, but if I'm betting, my money is on Wilcox winning a post season game at Cal long before Fox does.

---

Cool. That's really cool speculation. The question isn't prospecting the future based on first two years (though I'm not sure what you can point to that demonstrably points to a better future career than Fox)

If we're comparing first two seasons:

Mark Fox

Year 1: 25-7; NCAA tourney
Year 2: 27-6; conf champ; NCAA tourney

Winning %: 80%

Justin Wilcox

Year 1: 5-7; 9th in conference
Year 2: 7-6; 6th in conference

---

Mark Fox took over a top rated Nevada team with a top recruiting class coming in and kept it going for a couple of years before jumping to Georgia. He took over a below average Georgia team and kept it below average for 9 years. Which seems more applicable to the situation he is in now at Cal? We need someone who can build a program. He had 9 years to do that at Georgia and couldn't, so he was fired. Wilcox has not proven he can either, but at least there is no evidence he can't.

---

Yeah so Wilcox hasn't proven he can fail yet. What a ringing endorsement. Until he accomplishes something, he's accomplished less than Fox.

WIlcox Bear both Washington & USC last season & that made last year special.

calumnus said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

dear calalum: A winning season in football must be defined. if you go 7-5 but have three creampuffs on your schedule, that is a "winning season" with an asterisk . Thge only true gauge is the won-lost record in conference play. Here, percentages come into play because more games are played in basketball. Again, because there are so few games played in football, no analysis can be made until you have 3-5 seasons under your belt.

---

My measure was a win in the post season. Fox did not get one in 9 years at Georgia.

Between the NCAA, the NIT and the CIT, 120 teams play in the postseason in basketball.

76 football teams get bowl invites. The criteria for either is a winning record, including creampuffs.

Maybe first to have a winning record in conference? Wilcox has a head start, but 5 of 9 conference games this year are against teams in the preseason Top 25 and that does not include the 2 games against UCLA and USC. A winning conference record in basketball is not an amazing accomplishment as the PAC-12 has only 2 teams in most pre-season Top 25s.

---

For many fans, the post season also includes the conference tournaments, which is a real test, often playing games back to back to back. Mark Fox's Georgia teams won at least one game in the SEC tournament in every year that he was the coach at Georgia, except 2013, where he lost to LSU in the first game. In the 2016 SEC Tournament, they beat Miss St. and South Carolina, and in the 2018 tournament, they beat Vandy and Missouri. His record in the post season event is 10-9.

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

---

put Wilcox next to Fox, let us know how it shakes out. You'd have to leave out the "I feel really good about Wilcox" since that is not a tangible record of note.

---

A coach who is in Year 3 of his HC career "not having achieved anything YET" is different than a HC who spent the last 9 years not achieving anything.

Im rooting for both of them, but if I'm betting, my money is on Wilcox winning a post season game at Cal long before Fox does.

---

A number of Insider posters have said that we should only consider Fox's record at Georgia, and of that record, only his conference record and NCAA record are important when judging this coach. Your criteria I think you said was winning games in the post season. I think his whole body of work should be considered, but let's stick with his time at Georgia.

First, Georgia is not much of a basketball school. Very few of Georgia's teams have had much success since the SEC was formed in 1932. It hasn't been a complete graveyard for coaches, but it is very close to it. Since 1932, 87 seasons, Georgia has won only one SEC championship outright, in 1990. They tied for the East Division of the SEC with two other teams in 2002, but that may have been vacated as Georgia was placed on probation under Jim Harrick for under the table payments. Out of 60 SEC conference tournaments, Georgia has won only two, in 1983 and 2008. Since 1932, Georgia has had an overall losing record, 1165-1202. In 87 seasons, Georgia has been to a final four once, in 1983, and to one other sweet 16, in 1996. They have been invited to the NCAA 12 times.

The highest ranking ever in the AP National Poll for a Georgia team was #10, back in December of 1983. Georgia has never had a consensus all-american. Georgia had three SEC Players of the Year, Domenique Wilkins, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, and Yante Maten, and two of those, Caldwell-Pope and Maten, were Mark Fox recruits. Unfortunately, none of those three stars was ever on a successful Georgia team.

The most successful coach in Georgia history was Hugh Durham, who coached Georgia for 17 years, reached the final four once, tied for the SEC East Division once, and won the conference tournament once. Sports-reference.com ranks Mark Fox as the second most successful coach in Georgia school history since 1932. Tubby Smith was at Georgia for 2 years and took a team to the sweet 16, which catapulted him into the Kentucky job. Jim Harrick was at Georgia for 4 years, and took them to the NCAA twice, and put the school on probation.

Here is what Fox did accomplish at Georgia:

1. Achieved an overall winning record, 163-133, 55.1%, and his teams averaged 18 wins a year. He had four 20-win seasons in 9 years.
2. Took over a team that had gone 12-20 overall and 3-13 in the SEC the year before, and in his second season had turned the team around to 21-12 overall, 9-7 and 3rd place in the SEC East, and a trip to the NCAA and a 2nd round loss.
3. He had 3 losing seasons in his first 4 years, but finished stronger with 5 straight winning seasons, including 3 straight 20-win seasons.
4. Recruited and coached two SEC Conference Players of the Year, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope and Yante Maten.

It was said that Fox could not recruit in the supposedly talent-laden recruiting area of Georgia. He did recruit Caldwell-Pope from Georgia, and his rosters were full of recruits from Georgia, so he could recruit them, just not enough good ones. With Georgia's long history of not playing good basketball, maybe the best players don't want to go there. What I am saying here is that for whatever reason and with whatever coach, Georgia is not very successful. They don't get many good players and they don't get many good coaches. Turning Georgia into a basketball school or power is possibly or even probably more of a challenge than turning Cal around into what it once was. Fox did well at Georgia compared to most of his predecessors there. He is maybe not as good as we wanted, but he may just need an environment where it is easier to succeed than at Georgia since no coach has succeeded there. He won games, had some decent teams. He did achieve something at Georgia in my opinion.

Let's also keep in mind what we need to do first, and that is dig ourselves out of the grave we are in, the dumpster that Wyking Jones left us, with a little help from Cuonzo Martin, the worst two year span in Cal history. I feel that Mark Fox can bring us winning basketball, and it is up to him if he can win enough to get Cal to the next level, where we can compete with the best teams in the conference and the country.

I think the most impressive thing about Fox is that he immediately went with an international strategy to augment recruiting. That plays to our strengths and reputation around the world. A very smart move under the circumstances, and I hope it continues.

DCW67MSW said:

---

WIlcox Bear both Washington & USC last season & that made last year special.

---

This is sad. We should aspire much higher than beating two bad conference opponents in the same year.

Baby steps I guess.

Holmoe

GBear4Life said:

---

DCW67MSW said:

---

WIlcox Bear both Washington & USC last season & that made last year special.

---

This is sad. We should aspire much higher than beating two bad conference opponents in the same year.

Baby steps I guess.

---

You want to go check the standings again and call UW a bad conference opponent? Do you actually even follow college football?

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pretty much describes Justin Wilcox too. I'll take the slow, sustained burn that Justin is building for the hoops program.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything yet.

The only thing on Wilcox's resume at this point is below .500 coach who lost in one of the worst bowl performances ever.

Fox is a better coach than Wilcox by any measure until Wilcox proves otherwise.

---

Wilcox hasn't accomplished anything? Yeah, okay.

---

put Wilcox next to Fox, let us know how it shakes out. You'd have to leave out the "I feel really good about Wilcox" since that is not a tangible record of note.

---

A coach who is in Year 3 of his HC career "not having achieved anything YET" is different than a HC who spent the last 9 years not achieving anything.

Im rooting for both of them, but if I'm betting, my money is on Wilcox winning a post season game at Cal long before Fox does.

---

Cool. That's really cool speculation. The question isn't prospecting the future based on first two years (though I'm not sure what you can point to that demonstrably points to a better future career than Fox)

If we're comparing first two seasons:

Mark Fox

Year 1: 25-7; NCAA tourney
Year 2: 27-6; conf champ; NCAA tourney

Winning %: 80%

Justin Wilcox

Year 1: 5-7; 9th in conference
Year 2: 7-6; 6th in conference

---

Mark Fox took over a top rated Nevada team with a top recruiting class coming in and kept it going for a couple of years before jumping to Georgia. He took over a below average Georgia team and kept it below average for 9 years. Which seems more applicable to the situation he is in now at Cal? We need someone who can build a program. He had 9 years to do that at Georgia and couldn't, so he was fired. Wilcox has not proven he can either, but at least there is no evidence he can't.

---

I am greatly disappointed in your continual efforts to denigrate Mark Fox, even while saying you support him. You are one of my favorite posters, with often great insight, and I've usually agreed with most or all of what you write. It is fine to have an opinion, but when we start stating opinions like fact, we need to be reasonably sure of the truth of such facts.

Let's deal first with Fox's record at Nevada, which many posters here pooh-poohed, implying that was not the real Fox record we must look at which was his record at Georgia, and only his SEC record there. Since you brought it up, where do you get information that "Mark Fox took over a top rated Nevada team with a top recruiting class?" That team, Trent Johnson's 2003-04 team, was a good team. They went 25-9, won the conference and went to the NCAA and lost in the sweet 16, but they were NEVER RANKED in the AP poll at any time during or after the 2004 season. As to the "top recruiting class" that Fox inherited, that class consisted of three freshmen, Ramon Sessions,David Ellis, and Curry Lynch. Sessions was the best recruit, and was South Carolina player of the year in high school, but was UNRANKED in the top 100 recruits by any of the usual top recruit ranking services, Scout, Rivals, RCSI and two others. Ellis was a 7-1 center who played 4 years at Nevada averaging 2 points and 2 rebounds. Lynch was a guard who also played 4 years and averaged less than one point, less than one rebound, and less than one assist per game. Fox did have an unranked JC transfer, Mo Charlo, who later went undrafted but played several years in the NBA G league, but I don't know if he was a Fox recruit or a Johnson recruit that Fox inherited. For that matter, Fox may have been the lead recruiter of any of the recruits in the incoming class, since he was Johnson's assistant at the time, I believe.

As to the roster of the team Fox inherited, it had an 8 man rotation, but Snyder left for the NBA, Okeson, Hill-Thomas, and Paul graduated, and Kemp got hurt and had to miss Fox's first season. So Fox had to play his first season with only 2 returning starters and one returning sub from the rotation, Washington, plus his only decent freshman recruit, Sessions, and the JC transfer Charlo. So he had 5 players to begin the season with, 3 of whom were experienced, but still not anything like saying he "took over a top ranked team with a top ranked recruiting class", which was just not true, unless you have evidence otherwise.

BTW, Fox had five 20 win seasons at Nevada, won 5 conference titles, and Trent Johnson had one 20-win season and one conference title, plus several teams with losing records. Fox's 2007 team won 29 games and was ranked #10 in the country by AP, and finished ranked #15. He went to more NCAAs than Johnson, but did not win an NCAA game, which Johnson did. Fox had his success at Nevada primarily with his own players not Johnson's.

---

All I am saying is that as a coach, he reminds me of Ben Braun, not the Ben Braun we hired, the one we fired and Rice hired. Why compare him to Johnson? Did you hear me say we should hire Johnson? I just said that Fox's best results were with Fox's recruits and trended downward after, in a similar way Braun's best results were with Bozeman's recruits and trended down after. That 2006 Nevada team started 3 seniors and 2 juniors, with the next 2 off the bench also juniors, ie all Johnson recruits/signees.

Everything you say about Fox can be said double about Braun. Braun had FOURTEEN 20 win seasons under his belt. He took Eastern Michigan to the Sweet 16. He took Cal the Sweet 16 his first year after losing our prolific primary scorer. He won the NIT with a bunch of JC transfers. He had a winning Pac10/12 conference record and had Cal in the postseason 8 out of 12 years (I have no idea how many PAC-12 tournament games Braun won).

You complained a lot about Cuonzo's offense as I remember. Have you ever seen Fox's Georgia teams play? Again, he reminds me of Braun.

Both Braun and Fox were once hot coaching commodities, having won a lot of games in weaker leagues.

Braun accomplished a lot more at a power conference level. After being fired by Cal, he was hired by Rice for the next season.

There is a reason Fox had zero offers for a year after getting fired.

For many reasons I think it was a bad hire. That said, it is done and we will all hope for the best. He is definitely competent and people can learn and grow at any stage of their career. I am glad you are so optimistic, I hope you prove to be right on this.