Revisionist history. It certainly wasn't everybody, and may not have been a majority, but it was definitely "a thing."

Beardog26 said:

---

Revisionist history. It certainly wasn't everybody, and may not have been a majority, but it was definitely "a thing."

---

I assume you are referring to yourself. If not, please provide an example where someone thought Fox wouldn't be an improvement over Jones.

UrsaMajor said:

---

I venture to say that if Cal becomes a perennial Sweet-16 team with a couple of NC's, there will be plenty on this Board who will "know" that Knowlton failed in his hiring and that Travis would have been a better hire.

---

I don't think that comment is particularly fair. Most that wanted Travis over Fox admit they do not know the ceiling with Travis, only that Fox has shown his ceiling - which isn't perennial Sweet 16's. If Fox ends up turning Cal into a perennial Sweet 16 program, those of that wanted Travis do not know he would have done even better. Your comment indicates you think plenty of the Travis supporters are disingenuous, which like the thread title only serves to alienate Cal fans.

Greg,

I echo SF City's sentiment. I think your appraisal of the factors surrounding Fox's hire are very helpful and mesh with my own conversations with Knowlton.

I was in Austin in March 2019 attending the Men's NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships (the most fun sporting event I have ever personally attended, and I have attended plenty including pro and college football, MLB, pro and college Bball, Olympics, Rugby World Cup etc.) when the Fox hire was announced. Knowlton was at the meet and I spent 20 minutes with him discussing the hire. According to Knowton, WJ was never told he was to be retained, but that was an erroneous rumor put out by the Chronicle. As Greg noted a search firm had been hired months before and had been sharing information with Knowlton before narrowing the candidate list to a half dozen or so (I forget the exact number). Jason Kidd, even though expressing interest was not in the final cut as a Cal professor who remains important to the team and had Kidd as a student expressed great opposition. That sentiment, plus the domestic baggage and the likely fact that Kidd preferred a return to the NBA , added to his omission from the finalists. As Greg mention, Fox killed it in his interview with nobody being a close second.

Obviously, Knowton may have b***ing me about Jones but I personally believe over the Chronicle news.

We still have a long time to go before Fox's success or failure as a Cal coach is known, but I really liked what I personally saw last night at Haas and am encouraged by every interview I see or read about from the kids on the team. They appear to be enjoying the game again and that was missing the past two years, and maybe beyond that.

The only schools that field perennial Sweet 16 squads are public schools that are not actually institutions of higher learning at all and private schools, for you see, if athletes at those schools can fog a mirror, they good. Ain't going to happen at Cal.

bearister said:

---

The only schools that field perennial Sweet 16 squads are public schools that are not actually institutions of higher learning at all and private schools, for you see, if athletes at those schools can fog a mirror, they good. Ain't going to happen at Cal.

---

#3 Kansas (#59 Public University)
#6 Florida (#7)
#7 Maryland (#24)
#9 North Carolina (#5)
#11 Virginia (#4)
#21 Arizona (#53)
#23 Purdue (#18)

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public

#1 UCLA, #2 Cal, & #3 Michigan aren't ranked now, but UCLA and Michigan often are.
Kansas and Arizona may pose as universities, but the others are good.

Cal's status is a draw to any California student who sees their peers working their butts off to try and get into a UC. When we have good sports programs that's actually a very big deal. When the programs suck the better recruits tend to look elsewhere.

cal said:

---

No one said Fox is incompetent, he is a competent coach, but looking better than last year's train wreck is a low hurdle. I've said all along the big danger is we get a coach that takes us to .500 in conference and we continually renew his contract for the next 10 years. Maybe one and done in the Tournament in a good year. Because the Administration would be fine with that and people like Calfans will call anyone who thinks otherwise a "loser." I compared him to Braun in results, but said Braun was a better recruiter, Fox the better tactician. We will see how it plays out at Cal. As I said, people can also learn and improve. Again, I hope he knocks it out of the park.

---

Not me, you must mean calfanz

Calfans said:

---

cal said:

---

No one said Fox is incompetent, he is a competent coach, but looking better than last year's train wreck is a low hurdle. I've said all along the big danger is we get a coach that takes us to .500 in conference and we continually renew his contract for the next 10 years. Maybe one and done in the Tournament in a good year. Because the Administration would be fine with that and people like Calfans will call anyone who thinks otherwise a "loser." I compared him to Braun in results, but said Braun was a better recruiter, Fox the better tactician. We will see how it plays out at Cal. As I said, people can also learn and improve. Again, I hope he knocks it out of the park.

---

Not me, you must mean calfanz

---

I think it is rather arrogant and silly for those of us who do this part time, and have only a bit of the entire picture to lay blame at the powers that be. In this world of Twitter and INSTAgram, we all feel like our tweets are just as important as those in the know, but the bottom line they aren't.

I'd rather trust those in charge, and pull for the kids.

calfanz said:

---

Calfans said:

---

cal said:

---

No one said Fox is incompetent, he is a competent coach, but looking better than last year's train wreck is a low hurdle. I've said all along the big danger is we get a coach that takes us to .500 in conference and we continually renew his contract for the next 10 years. Maybe one and done in the Tournament in a good year. Because the Administration would be fine with that and people like Calfans will call anyone who thinks otherwise a "loser." I compared him to Braun in results, but said Braun was a better recruiter, Fox the better tactician. We will see how it plays out at Cal. As I said, people can also learn and improve. Again, I hope he knocks it out of the park.

---

Not me, you must mean calfanz

---

I think it is rather arrogant and silly for those of us who do this part time, and have only a bit of the entire picture to lay blame at the powers that be. In this world of Twitter and INSTAgram, we all feel like our tweets are just as important as those in the know, but the bottom line they aren't.

I'd rather trust those in charge, and pull for the kids.

---

I always pull for the kids.

What are these message boards for if not to discuss our opinions of Cal sports, especially the decisions made by the highly paid professionals. "Don"t question authority, the people in charge always know best"? That is what you got out of your time at Cal? If you don't like someone's opinion don't address it, just mischaracterize their opinion and call them "losers"?

"If you don't like someone's opinion don't address it,"

Avoidance or non-response is tantamount to advocating for the acceptance of controversial alternative opinions. Opinions which you may believe are not valid or are untrue. Avoidance of response allows those controversial statements to prosper uncontested, think "Fake News".

Accepting the promulgation of deliberate controversial or biased opinion is not a path to an informed consensus opinion.

Go back and re-read the whole sentence you quoted.

Civil Bear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I venture to say that if Cal becomes a perennial Sweet-16 team with a couple of NC's, there will be plenty on this Board who will "know" that Knowlton failed in his hiring and that Travis would have been a better hire.

---

I don't think that comment is particularly fair. Most that wanted Travis over Fox admit they do not know the ceiling with Travis, only that Fox has shown his ceiling - which isn't perennial Sweet 16's. If Fox ends up turning Cal into a perennial Sweet 16 program, those of that wanted Travis do not know he would have done even better. Your comment indicates you think plenty of the Travis supporters are disingenuous, which like the thread title only serves to alienate Cal fans.

---

You are correct.

There are two ways to look at the hiring of Jones' replacement, 1) Based on what was known at the time, and 2) based on hindsight. If Fox takes Cal to multiple Final Fours, yes, I'll still think that, based on what was known at the time, Fox was the wrong hire. However, since we will have hindsight, I'll be glad we lucked out and got Fox, I will think that there is almost no chance that Travis or anyone else would have done as well or better, and the strong likelihood is that anyone else would have done worse.

My assessment of the Fox hire was based on two things, 1) Fox's track record at the time of his hire, and 2) the comments Knowlton made about why he hired Fox. Those things won't change, so I'll always feel like Knowlton, at the time, made the wrong choice. Whether later I will think it worked out well anyway is another matter, and as always with every Cal hire I don't like, I hope I will.

Yes, I hope that in hindsight, I end up loving the choice and thrilled we got Fox. One game against a team picked to finish 4th in a conference that generally doesn't have more than 2, maybe 3, good teams, does not yet give me the appropriate hindsight to get thrilled. Fox needs time to recruit and build a program, and that will take more than a season, and I hope he does it well.

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I venture to say that if Cal becomes a perennial Sweet-16 team with a couple of NC's, there will be plenty on this Board who will "know" that Knowlton failed in his hiring and that Travis would have been a better hire.

---

I don't think that comment is particularly fair. Most that wanted Travis over Fox admit they do not know the ceiling with Travis, only that Fox has shown his ceiling - which isn't perennial Sweet 16's. If Fox ends up turning Cal into a perennial Sweet 16 program, those of that wanted Travis do not know he would have done even better. Your comment indicates you think plenty of the Travis supporters are disingenuous, which like the thread title only serves to alienate Cal fans.

---

You are correct.

There are two ways to look at the hiring of Jones' replacement, 1) Based on what was known at the time, and 2) based on hindsight. If Fox takes Cal to multiple Final Fours, yes, I'll still think that, based on what was known at the time, Fox was the wrong hire. However, since we will have hindsight, I'll be glad we lucked out and got Fox, I will think that there is almost no chance that Travis or anyone else would have done as well or better, and the strong likelihood is that anyone else would have done worse.

My assessment of the Fox hire was based on two things, 1) Fox's track record at the time of his hire, and 2) the comments Knowlton made about why he hired Fox. Those things won't change, so I'll always feel like Knowlton, at the time, made the wrong choice. Whether later I will think it worked out well anyway is another matter, and as always with every Cal hire I don't like, I hope I will.

Yes, I hope that in hindsight, I end up loving the choice and thrilled we got Fox. One game against a team picked to finish 4th in a conference that generally doesn't have more than 2, maybe 3, good teams, does not yet give me the appropriate hindsight to get thrilled. Fox needs time to recruit and build a program, and that will take more than a season, and I hope he does it well.

---

With one exception, I can agree with this assessment. Hindsight is always better than awareness at the time, and I don't think criticism of the hire AT THE TIME was misplaced. My one "exception" is your use of the phrase "lucked out." I would submit that it is equally likely that Knowlton knew what he was doing rather than he "lucked out."

UrsaMajor said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I venture to say that if Cal becomes a perennial Sweet-16 team with a couple of NC's, there will be plenty on this Board who will "know" that Knowlton failed in his hiring and that Travis would have been a better hire.

---

I don't think that comment is particularly fair. Most that wanted Travis over Fox admit they do not know the ceiling with Travis, only that Fox has shown his ceiling - which isn't perennial Sweet 16's. If Fox ends up turning Cal into a perennial Sweet 16 program, those of that wanted Travis do not know he would have done even better. Your comment indicates you think plenty of the Travis supporters are disingenuous, which like the thread title only serves to alienate Cal fans.

---

You are correct.

There are two ways to look at the hiring of Jones' replacement, 1) Based on what was known at the time, and 2) based on hindsight. If Fox takes Cal to multiple Final Fours, yes, I'll still think that, based on what was known at the time, Fox was the wrong hire. However, since we will have hindsight, I'll be glad we lucked out and got Fox, I will think that there is almost no chance that Travis or anyone else would have done as well or better, and the strong likelihood is that anyone else would have done worse.

My assessment of the Fox hire was based on two things, 1) Fox's track record at the time of his hire, and 2) the comments Knowlton made about why he hired Fox. Those things won't change, so I'll always feel like Knowlton, at the time, made the wrong choice. Whether later I will think it worked out well anyway is another matter, and as always with every Cal hire I don't like, I hope I will.

Yes, I hope that in hindsight, I end up loving the choice and thrilled we got Fox. One game against a team picked to finish 4th in a conference that generally doesn't have more than 2, maybe 3, good teams, does not yet give me the appropriate hindsight to get thrilled. Fox needs time to recruit and build a program, and that will take more than a season, and I hope he does it well.

---

With one exception, I can agree with this assessment. Hindsight is always better than awareness at the time, and I don't think criticism of the hire AT THE TIME was misplaced. My one "exception" is your use of the phrase "lucked out." I would submit that it is equally likely that Knowlton knew what he was doing rather than he "lucked out."

---

Judging from how he was inexplicably slow to fire Wyking until basically parents and players came to him in a group intervention, then immediately thereafter how inexplicably rash he was to conduct his coaching search, I'll take my chances with "lucked out."

oskidunker said:

---

Attacking every possession. No weave .

---

What is your problem with a weave? I happen to like a weave. When it is run properly, it is an attacking offense, and the beauty of it is the defense (and the fans) never know when the attack will come or who will be the attacker.

A weave with no purpose is boring and dumb. When properly run, each dribbler hands the ball off to a teammate, and precisely at the moment he hands the ball off he sets a screen for him. This way, he can not get called for setting a moving screen, which is a violation. As I remember, Wyking Jones tried to run a weave, and the thing wrong with it was that the dribblers didn't set these screens.

The problem with the weave is that kids today are not play orientated, other than a simple two-man play like a pick and roll or a backdoor cut and a lob pass, and the weave is done best with several players involved. Montgomery used it once in a while to give his kids something new, or give the opponent something new to worry about. But he seldom continued using it, perhaps because the kids became bored with it. Motion offense is the thing now, as it has been for many years.

UrsaMajor said:

---

[

I couldn't agree more, SFCity. I just get fed up with those who seem intent on trashing people for the sake of trashing people.

---

Care to name names or provide some examples? Or you content with trashing people for the sake of trashing people?

Civil Bear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

[

I couldn't agree more, SFCity. I just get fed up with those who seem intent on trashing people for the sake of trashing people.

---

Care to name names or provide some examples? Or you content with trashing people for the sake of trashing people?

---

We learned at Cal to question authority. Seems like a few on this board think that's a bad thing, and that you can only do that if you have every single fact at your disposal. Again, this is a sports message board, not a confidential board meeting. We can make reasonable inferences. Heck unreasonable ones. It's a fricken sports message board.

oskidunker said:

---

But the same complaint over and over again? The stubborn refusal to acknowledge that Fox MIGHT be a good hire.? Its too soon to know but hoping he isn't does not seem productive.

---

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something important. Please point to the post in this thread (or any other) where someone is hoping Fox doesn't end up being a good hire.

SFCityBear said:

---

Can we just all bury the hatchet now, and sit back and watch this basketball team grow and mature under this new coach, and let go of our preconceived notions about how the coach would be a loser at Cal? He is not going anywhere for a few years, and neither are any of you, I'd guess. So why not go to games and enjoy the new style of play, a style which has not been seen in Berkeley for many years? If Cal continues to play this way, and can begin to do it against good teams, then good wins will come, and even better players will come, and that will make it even more entertaining for us. Let us just sit back and enjoy the ride.

---

As long as there are posters mischaracterizing the positions of those that were against the Fox hire, there will be posters wanting to reiterate their positions. If you want to bury the hatchet, stop making stuff up.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Can we just all bury the hatchet now, and sit back and watch this basketball team grow and mature under this new coach, and let go of our preconceived notions about how the coach would be a loser at Cal? He is not going anywhere for a few years, and neither are any of you, I'd guess. So why not go to games and enjoy the new style of play, a style which has not been seen in Berkeley for many years? If Cal continues to play this way, and can begin to do it against good teams, then good wins will come, and even better players will come, and that will make it even more entertaining for us. Let us just sit back and enjoy the ride.

---

As long as there are posters mischaracterizing the positions of those that were against the Fox hire, there will be posters wanting to reiterate their positions. If you want to bury the hatchet, stop making stuff up.

---

I have completely lost track of who are trashers and those who are trashing the trashers, and now I think we have trashing of those trashing the trashers. Could someone please recapitulate?

MSaviolives said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Can we just all bury the hatchet now, and sit back and watch this basketball team grow and mature under this new coach, and let go of our preconceived notions about how the coach would be a loser at Cal? He is not going anywhere for a few years, and neither are any of you, I'd guess. So why not go to games and enjoy the new style of play, a style which has not been seen in Berkeley for many years? If Cal continues to play this way, and can begin to do it against good teams, then good wins will come, and even better players will come, and that will make it even more entertaining for us. Let us just sit back and enjoy the ride.

---

As long as there are posters mischaracterizing the positions of those that were against the Fox hire, there will be posters wanting to reiterate their positions. If you want to bury the hatchet, stop making stuff up.

---

I have completely lost track of who are trashers and those who are trashing the trashers, and now I think we have trashing of those trashing the trashers. Could someone please recapitulate?

---

Intuit said:

---

"If you don't like someone's opinion don't address it,"

Avoidance or non-response is tantamount to advocating for the acceptance of controversial alternative opinions. Opinions which you may believe are not valid or are untrue. Avoidance of response allows those controversial statements to prosper uncontested, think "Fake News".

Accepting the promulgation of deliberate controversial or biased opinion is not a path to an informed consensus opinion.

---

You misinterpreted and misquoted me. There is a question mark at the end of that sentence. I am saying the opposite.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Can we just all bury the hatchet now, and sit back and watch this basketball team grow and mature under this new coach, and let go of our preconceived notions about how the coach would be a loser at Cal? He is not going anywhere for a few years, and neither are any of you, I'd guess. So why not go to games and enjoy the new style of play, a style which has not been seen in Berkeley for many years? If Cal continues to play this way, and can begin to do it against good teams, then good wins will come, and even better players will come, and that will make it even more entertaining for us. Let us just sit back and enjoy the ride.

---

As long as there are posters mischaracterizing the positions of those that were against the Fox hire, there will be posters wanting to reiterate their positions. If you want to bury the hatchet, stop making stuff up.

---

Exactly. Look no further than the OP and the title of this thread for why we are revisiting this. EVERYONE was happy with the win and more importantly, the way the team looked in the win. Every person on this board wants Fox to succeed. We all root for this team. I know for my part I'd rather not debate past decisions that can't be undone (like the renovation of CMS).

If you don't want us to restate our position don't attack us, call us names and mischaracterize our position because then we are only compelled to restate our position.

"You misinterpreted and misquoted me. There is a question mark at the end of that sentence. I am saying the opposite."

Good to know.

I think Fox might be a good coach for Cal, but the game was against Pepperdine. Pepperdine went 6-10 in their conference last year. I would hope we can roll Pepperdine. If we can't we have bigger problems than I thought.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I venture to say that if Cal becomes a perennial Sweet-16 team with a couple of NC's, there will be plenty on this Board who will "know" that Knowlton failed in his hiring and that Travis would have been a better hire.

---

I don't think that comment is particularly fair. Most that wanted Travis over Fox admit they do not know the ceiling with Travis, only that Fox has shown his ceiling - which isn't perennial Sweet 16's. If Fox ends up turning Cal into a perennial Sweet 16 program, those of that wanted Travis do not know he would have done even better. Your comment indicates you think plenty of the Travis supporters are disingenuous, which like the thread title only serves to alienate Cal fans.

---

You are correct.

There are two ways to look at the hiring of Jones' replacement, 1) Based on what was known at the time, and 2) based on hindsight. If Fox takes Cal to multiple Final Fours, yes, I'll still think that, based on what was known at the time, Fox was the wrong hire. However, since we will have hindsight, I'll be glad we lucked out and got Fox, I will think that there is almost no chance that Travis or anyone else would have done as well or better, and the strong likelihood is that anyone else would have done worse.

My assessment of the Fox hire was based on two things, 1) Fox's track record at the time of his hire, and 2) the comments Knowlton made about why he hired Fox. Those things won't change, so I'll always feel like Knowlton, at the time, made the wrong choice. Whether later I will think it worked out well anyway is another matter, and as always with every Cal hire I don't like, I hope I will.

Yes, I hope that in hindsight, I end up loving the choice and thrilled we got Fox. One game against a team picked to finish 4th in a conference that generally doesn't have more than 2, maybe 3, good teams, does not yet give me the appropriate hindsight to get thrilled. Fox needs time to recruit and build a program, and that will take more than a season, and I hope he does it well.

---

With one exception, I can agree with this assessment. Hindsight is always better than awareness at the time, and I don't think criticism of the hire AT THE TIME was misplaced. My one "exception" is your use of the phrase "lucked out." I would submit that it is equally likely that Knowlton knew what he was doing rather than he "lucked out."

---

You submit that it is equally likely based on what?

As I said, my assessment of the Fox hire is based on 1) Fox's track record at the time of the hire, and 2) the comments Knowlton made about the hire.

Based on those two things, if Fox works out really well, then Knowlton lucked out. Maybe Knowlton knew what he was doing, but his comments he made about the hire indicated that he didn't really know what he was doing.

If Knowlton had good reason to think Fox's track record was misleading, why didn't he say anything about it? It isn't like there were secrets he needed to keep about it. Did Fox have a good plan to improve his offensive track record? Did Fox have a good plan to improve his recruiting track record? Knowlton said nothing. Instead, Knowlton told us that Fox had a good track record, and that Fox and Knowlton hit it off really well. To the first, I say BS, and to the second, I say it is irrelevant. Why would Knowlton hide it if he had information that would show he knew what he was doing? What evidence is there that Knowlton was hiding things from us and he actually knew what he was doing?

At this point, I look at the evidence, and the evidence FROM KNOWLTON suggests Knowlton didn't know what he was doing, so yeah, I think that if Fox works out, "lucked out" is more likely than "misled us about the reasons for hiring and actually knew what he was doing." And the jury is a LONG way from returning a verdict on whether it works out, although I am certainly rooting for it to work out.

And look, no matter what, there is an element of luck if a coach works out, whether we hired a Travis or hired a Fox or a Kidd or somebody else. If Travis had been hired over Fox, it would have meant a higher ceiling and a higher floor. We'd need some luck to end up on the better side of mediocre. Cal wasn't in a position to hire a guy that would be close to a guarantee of being a smashing success, so luck was going to be involved no matter what.

The concern with Fox is the established track record didn't leave as much room for good luck or bad luck, we would likely come nowhere near to the horror of the Jones era, and nowhere near to being a perennial Sweet 16 contender. If it turns out we do the former, that's really bad luck, if it turns out we do the latter, that's really good luck.

If we have great success, I really don't care if it is mostly luck, Cal has had enough bad luck over the years, we deserve some good luck. Again, too early to tell, for now, I'll enjoy one game of positives, hope we have a lot more this year, and hope that over the years, Fox builds a really good program that make me appreciate how lucky we got.

Cal8285 said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I venture to say that if Cal becomes a perennial Sweet-16 team with a couple of NC's, there will be plenty on this Board who will "know" that Knowlton failed in his hiring and that Travis would have been a better hire.

---

I don't think that comment is particularly fair. Most that wanted Travis over Fox admit they do not know the ceiling with Travis, only that Fox has shown his ceiling - which isn't perennial Sweet 16's. If Fox ends up turning Cal into a perennial Sweet 16 program, those of that wanted Travis do not know he would have done even better. Your comment indicates you think plenty of the Travis supporters are disingenuous, which like the thread title only serves to alienate Cal fans.

---

You are correct.

There are two ways to look at the hiring of Jones' replacement, 1) Based on what was known at the time, and 2) based on hindsight. If Fox takes Cal to multiple Final Fours, yes, I'll still think that, based on what was known at the time, Fox was the wrong hire. However, since we will have hindsight, I'll be glad we lucked out and got Fox, I will think that there is almost no chance that Travis or anyone else would have done as well or better, and the strong likelihood is that anyone else would have done worse.

My assessment of the Fox hire was based on two things, 1) Fox's track record at the time of his hire, and 2) the comments Knowlton made about why he hired Fox. Those things won't change, so I'll always feel like Knowlton, at the time, made the wrong choice. Whether later I will think it worked out well anyway is another matter, and as always with every Cal hire I don't like, I hope I will.

Yes, I hope that in hindsight, I end up loving the choice and thrilled we got Fox. One game against a team picked to finish 4th in a conference that generally doesn't have more than 2, maybe 3, good teams, does not yet give me the appropriate hindsight to get thrilled. Fox needs time to recruit and build a program, and that will take more than a season, and I hope he does it well.

---

With one exception, I can agree with this assessment. Hindsight is always better than awareness at the time, and I don't think criticism of the hire AT THE TIME was misplaced. My one "exception" is your use of the phrase "lucked out." I would submit that it is equally likely that Knowlton knew what he was doing rather than he "lucked out."

---

You submit that it is equally likely based on what?

As I said, my assessment of the Fox hire is based on 1) Fox's track record at the time of the hire, and 2) the comments Knowlton made about the hire.

Based on those two things, if Fox works out really well, then Knowlton lucked out. Maybe Knowlton knew what he was doing, but his comments he made about the hire indicated that he didn't really know what he was doing.

If Knowlton had good reason to think Fox's track record was misleading, why didn't he say anything about it? It isn't like there were secrets he needed to keep about it. Did Fox have a good plan to improve his offensive track record? Did Fox have a good plan to improve his recruiting track record? Knowlton said nothing. Instead, Knowlton told us that Fox had a good track record, and that Fox and Knowlton hit it off really well. To the first, I say BS, and to the second, I say it is irrelevant. Why would Knowlton hide it if he had information that would show he knew what he was doing? What evidence is there that Knowlton was hiding things from us and he actually knew what he was doing?

At this point, I look at the evidence, and the evidence FROM KNOWLTON suggests Knowlton didn't know what he was doing, so yeah, I think that if Fox works out, "lucked out" is more likely than "misled us about the reasons for hiring and actually knew what he was doing." And the jury is a LONG way from returning a verdict on whether it works out, although I am certainly rooting for it to work out.

And look, no matter what, there is an element of luck if a coach works out, whether we hired a Travis or hired a Fox or a Kidd or somebody else. If Travis had been hired over Fox, it would have meant a higher ceiling and a higher floor. We'd need some luck to end up on the better side of mediocre. Cal wasn't in a position to hire a guy that would be close to a guarantee of being a smashing success, so luck was going to be involved no matter what.

The concern with Fox is the established track record didn't leave as much room for good luck or bad luck, we would likely come nowhere near to the horror of the Jones era, and nowhere near to being a perennial Sweet 16 contender. If it turns out we do the former, that's really bad luck, if it turns out we do the latter, that's really good luck.

If we have great success, I really don't care if it is mostly luck, Cal has had enough bad luck over the years, we deserve some good luck. Again, too early to tell, for now, I'll enjoy one game of positives, hope we have a lot more this year, and hope that over the years, Fox builds a really good program that make me appreciate how lucky we got.

---

With this definition of "lucked out," I think we are in agreement. BTW, for the record I was disappointed in the Fox hire initially as well. I even told Knowlton that. I do think, however, that saying that Knowlton doesn't know what he's doing because he was a hockey player (I don't remember who said that) is totally silly. Any more than Steve Gladstone shouldn't have been involved in hiring Tedford because his sport was crew. In the end, I don't care if Knowlton "lucked out" or was incredibly brilliant. I just want a winning basketball team.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Can we just all bury the hatchet now, and sit back and watch this basketball team grow and mature under this new coach, and let go of our preconceived notions about how the coach would be a loser at Cal? He is not going anywhere for a few years, and neither are any of you, I'd guess. So why not go to games and enjoy the new style of play, a style which has not been seen in Berkeley for many years? If Cal continues to play this way, and can begin to do it against good teams, then good wins will come, and even better players will come, and that will make it even more entertaining for us. Let us just sit back and enjoy the ride.

---

As long as there are posters mischaracterizing the positions of those that were against the Fox hire, there will be posters wanting to reiterate their positions. If you want to bury the hatchet, stop making stuff up.

---

You accuse me of making stuff up, when your accusation itself is made up by you, and has no basis in fact. I do my best to be factual. I look stuff up. I could get a fact wrong by mistake, or my memory might be mistaken, but at least I am honest about it, and will try and own up to it if I make a mistake.

When I say "preconceived notion that Fox is a loser" it is because I read in this forum beginning at least on the day it was announced that Cal was in negotiations with Mark Fox, where at least one fan, BearSD, wrote that Fox was "a multi-time loser" (March 29)

After Fox was hired, I remember reading a post by a fan who wrote that "Fox is a loser" and he based that on the fact that Fox's SEC conference record over 9 years was 77-79. Several fans agreed with this poster. I got into a debate with him, claiming he was cherry-picking, choosing only a part of Fox's record where he had fewer losses than wins to call him an overall "loser". He overlooked that Fox had only two losing SEC seasons in 9 years, and he overlooked that Fox had an overall winning record at Georgia. He overlooked that Fox had an overall winning record at Nevada, along with a winning record in the WCC conference, including conference championships over five years at Nevada. So if Fox had won just one game in the SEC which he had lost, then he would have been 78-78, and could be labeled "an average coach" instead of being called a loser. I failed to convince that fan or the many who agreed with him. Hatters gonna hat. Some went to the lengths of dismissing his entire success at Nevada as being due to Trent Johnson, and then dismissing the WCC as too weak a conference to be considered in the conversation. Other fans denigrated Fox for not getting wins in the NCAA tourney, and some said the SEC was not a strong conference when Fox was there, so he should have done better, and many other cherry picks to take away from Fox's actual record, which was a good one at Nevada, and an average one at Georgia, as I see him. There were a handful who defended him, like R90, Joe Amos Yaks (Go Bears!), bluesaxe, RJABear, annarborbear, but most posters in that thread and the ones that followed shortly thereafter, continued the bashing for different reasons, Tsubamoto, socaltownie, parentswerebears, Ptown, oaktown, and many more. Some called him "a failure". In any case there were several who called Fox a loser, so I did not make that up.

No more than a couple fans called him a good coach, if that many. Some said he was a good defensive coach. No one said he was a good recruiter, that I remember. Many were critical of his offense. I knew nothing about him, and only weighed in because I tired quickly of the mischaracterization of the man's record, which was about average, and it was being painted otherwise

Maybe it has been the bit of optimism generated by Fox's recruits that has caused fans to soften their criticism a little. Lately, we've not heard Fox called a loser, but we've been hearing that Fox "has a ceiling" implying there is some success level which he would never be able to exceed, which is again based on his time at Georgia, and one's interpretation of it. We never heard the nicer word "ceiling" when Fox got hired. But we hear it now. No one wants to be known as a Fox-hater if the guy were to start having any success at Cal.

Since I like writing about Newell and the lessons he left us, his path has some similarity. Pete was hired by a small school with no facilities, no gym, and not much money or glamour. They were an independent, and not a member of any conference. He was hired to coach basketball and golf, and thinking of the elite country club types among USF alumni, golf may have been as important or maybe more important there than basketball. Pete had played for Loyola, and had an unspectacular career, mostly fouling out of games, and he had never coached in college before. A few seasons later, Pete leads them to the NIT title. Then he gets hired by Michigan State in a major conference, the Big Ten, where he was a lackluster 45-42. His career path was similar to Fox's. He had more success at USF than Fox had at Nevada, but his road to the NIT title was easier than Fox's road to possible success in the NCAA might have been, IMO. Fox had to win his conference to get in, and USF was not in a conference. Fox had to be overly successful to get a good seed. Newell's record at Michigan State and Fox's at Georgia were somewhat similar. Many at Cal were not happy when Newell got hired to coach the Bears. And those many became more after Newell went 9-16 his first year, especially with two all-Americans on the team, Bob McKeen and Larry Friend. There were plenty of fans who wanted him fired. I hope Fox does better in his first year than Newell did.

Look, Civil, you are a smart guy with a lot of good things to say. Why must you start conversations with me and some others with an insult? Maybe we can make a clarification to make our meaning clearer for you. Why not just ask us a question about what we mean, instead of trying to ridicule or marginalize us? Aren't you better than that? I think you are.