UrsaMajor said:

---

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.

---

I agree that it is unfair to say Knowlton doesn't know what he is doing just because he was a hockey player and doesn't know basketball. It isn't like Cal has had either a basketball or a football player for an AD in a really long time, nonetheless, some hires were more questionable than others.

Gladstone's comments during and after the Tedford hiring process (plus the make up of his search committee) made me feel like he knew what he was doing. Knowlton's comments during and after the Fox hiring made me feel like he didn't know what he was doing.

We agree, however, it is now done, and we just want a winning basketball team. But if someone like the OP wants to bash "90%" of the fan base as losers for being pissed after the Fox hire, I'll push back against that.

SFCityBear 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.

---

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.

---

Nice try, but your plea to bury the hatchet was about those defending their position in this thread. The fact that you can find a post or two from back when Fox was first hired where someone called him a loser does not mean the "Hire Fox" detractors in this thread ever called him, or are continuing to call him a loser. That is flat out misrepresenting our position. Now if you really truly believe it to a fair representation, then perhaps I was wrong in accusing you of making stuff up. If that's the case, I apologize. And I will spare you the proper insult.

As for your last paragraph:

Look, City, 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.

Fify

Cal8285 said:

---

I agree that it is unfair to say Knowlton doesn't know what he is doing just because he was a hockey player and doesn't know basketball. It isn't like Cal has had either a basketball or a football player for an AD in a really long time, nonetheless, some hires were more questionable than others.

Gladstone's comments during and after the Tedford hiring process (plus the make up of his search committee) made me feel like he knew what he was doing. Knowlton's comments during and after the Fox hiring made me feel like he didn't know what he was doing.

We agree, however, it is now done, and we just want a winning basketball team. But if someone like the OP wants to bash "90%" of the fan base as losers for being pissed after the Fox hire, I'll push back against that.

---

We do agree, and your comment about JK's comments during and after the hire are fair. I would submit, however, that they may reflect a slipshod process that may or may not have struck gold (or at least bronze), or they may reflect poor communication with the media and fan base (which I acknowledge is an important part of his job).

Wow...Mark Twain was so prescient re: this Board.

BearGreg said:

---

The analysis of what Fox's Georgia record is not reflective of his potential at Cal was talked about by Knowlton privately and by some others publicly can most simply be summarized as:

- The SEC is a dirty, dirty league when it comes to recruiting (look no further than LSUs situation) and that Fox recruited to even tiptoe down that path. The Pac 12 has its share of shady recruiting but nowhere near the SEC and at Cal, Fox can recruit kids whose families care about academics and not simply being paid
- Fox was arguably the most successful coach in the history of Georgia and relative success should not be discarded outright. What Tony Bennett did at WSU certainly was only relatively impressive and yet clearly indicated that at the right place, he could be an elite coach.

Everyone can independently decide whether those are compelling for them or not but they were talked about at last privately, even if they weren't appropriate for press release and press conference mentions.

Happy to discuss more details and nuances on Haas Pavilion if it's of interest to subscribers

---

We should talk over on premium because I am not convinced with UCLA and Arizona (and arguably Oregonb, USC and perhaps ASU) that we are some pure as pure as new snow conference. Lets also note that the SEC is 2 schools bigger so that is 2 more schools to be dirty.

It is also the fact that the PAC-12 has a hard time recruiting from outside the Pacific Time zone and thus, sadly, is frankly population challenged when it comes to conferences back east. Add in the restrictions cal operates which no one else does in the conference and....well....it isn't clear to me that Fox is going to be getting top 4 recruiting classes (in the conference)

Now the GOOD news is that you don't NEED top 4 classes to make the tournament. However you DO need top classes to avoid the seeds of death (7 through 10). One of the great frustrations of being a cal fan is that we do decently, make the show, and then play Oklahoma in OK City or Duke in Florida Jacksonville (or since we are Cal - Pitt in Pittsburgh). Talk Martin down - and yes we drew the worst luck against Hawaii but he did recruit well and had us as a 4.

That is why (and I am sticking with it) the Fox hire was head slapping (thanks guys for bringing back the necro thread). While the founding member of #teamhope I do believe the problem with FOx is that he is never going to outrecruit Arizona, UCLA, (and likely USC, Oregon, Washington or Furd). It is simply ridiculously hard to win the conference and get a protected seed (1-4) if you are not recruiting at a high level. Yes yes. I can now anticipated all the wonderous posts about Newell and 1959 and how he made diamonds out of Coal. I, however, follow the modern game.

calfanz said:

---

90% of the fan base after the Fox hire were completely pissed. It's only a game i know, but this team has less talent and played much better than we've seen in a long time.

We will have major set backs on our way to respectability, but really, everyone here should realize we know less than the AD, and (OMG) less than the search firm on the best Coach for the Cal Bears.

---

I didn't realize that a home preseason win over a non-tournament mid-major settled a debate. I guess I underestimated its importance.

Being better than Wyking as a coach is a low bar and one that even critics of the hire would say that Fox would clear easily. The big criticism of him at the time was his poor recruiting and despite making the best lemonade out of the lemons he was given after his hire, his current recruiting class has been pretty poor. He will have to show an ability to find nuggets that are overlooked by the major conferences and coach them up into being better than expected and then build on that into better recruiting if he wants to be successful here at a level that those of us who have higher expectations than calfanz want to see.

Not disagreeing about Pepperdine,but what was Cal's record last year?

Cal_79 said:

---

Not disagreeing about Pepperdine,but what was Cal's record last year?

---

Beat Santa Clara by 12, which finished ahead of Pepperdine in the WCC. Not sure what that means other than a win over a mediocre WCC team doesn't mean much for conference play.

socaltownie said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

The analysis of what Fox's Georgia record is not reflective of his potential at Cal was talked about by Knowlton privately and by some others publicly can most simply be summarized as:

- The SEC is a dirty, dirty league when it comes to recruiting (look no further than LSUs situation) and that Fox recruited to even tiptoe down that path. The Pac 12 has its share of shady recruiting but nowhere near the SEC and at Cal, Fox can recruit kids whose families care about academics and not simply being paid
- Fox was arguably the most successful coach in the history of Georgia and relative success should not be discarded outright. What Tony Bennett did at WSU certainly was only relatively impressive and yet clearly indicated that at the right place, he could be an elite coach.

Everyone can independently decide whether those are compelling for them or not but they were talked about at last privately, even if they weren't appropriate for press release and press conference mentions.

Happy to discuss more details and nuances on Haas Pavilion if it's of interest to subscribers

---

We should talk over on premium because I am not convinced with UCLA and Arizona (and arguably Oregonb, USC and perhaps ASU) that we are some pure as pure as new snow conference. Lets also note that the SEC is 2 schools bigger so that is 2 more schools to be dirty.

It is also the fact that the PAC-12 has a hard time recruiting from outside the Pacific Time zone and thus, sadly, is frankly population challenged when it comes to conferences back east. Add in the restrictions cal operates which no one else does in the conference and....well....it isn't clear to me that Fox is going to be getting top 4 recruiting classes (in the conference)

Now the GOOD news is that you don't NEED top 4 classes to make the tournament. However you DO need top classes to avoid the seeds of death (7 through 10). One of the great frustrations of being a cal fan is that we do decently, make the show, and then play Oklahoma in OK City or Duke in Florida Jacksonville (or since we are Cal - Pitt in Pittsburgh). Talk Martin down - and yes we drew the worst luck against Hawaii but he did recruit well and had us as a 4.

That is why (and I am sticking with it) the Fox hire was head slapping (thanks guys for bringing back the necro thread). While the founding member of #teamhope I do believe the problem with FOx is that he is never going to outrecruit Arizona, UCLA, (and likely USC, Oregon, Washington or Furd). It is simply ridiculously hard to win the conference and get a protected seed (1-4) if you are not recruiting at a high level. Yes yes. I can now anticipated all the wonderous posts about Newell and 1959 and how he made diamonds out of Coal. I, however, follow the modern game.

---

I don't see how you can say that. It may be true. In fact, he may not be able to out recruit WSU or even Cal Baptist for that matter. OTOH, he may be able to keep up with the UCLA's and USC's of the conference if he shows success. Announcing that something is "never" going to happen seems arrogant in the extreme. I do agree, however, that he will never out recruit Oregon, since Altman pays criminals to play at Oregon, and he won't out recruit Arizona, since Miller will pay anyone and their entire family.

socaltownie said:

---

That is why (and I am sticking with it) the Fox hire was head slapping (thanks guys for bringing back the necro thread). While the founding member of #teamhope I do believe the problem with FOx is that he is never going to outrecruit Arizona, UCLA, (and likely USC, Oregon, Washington or Furd). It is simply ridiculously hard to win the conference and get a protected seed (1-4) if you are not recruiting at a high level. Yes yes. I can now anticipated all the wonderous posts about Newell and 1959 and how he made diamonds out of Coal. I, however, follow the modern game.

---

We may land a truly elite guy every now and again but we are never going to put recruit Arizona and UCLA. That's not a Fox thing. Frankly, with whatever shenanigans Oregon is doing we may not be able to put recruit then either. SC, UW and Furd can be had, IMO.

I'm not sure the school's objective is to be a program that wins the conference and gets 1-4 seeds regularly. Do you think is what the AD is about?

Yes. The goal should always be to win the conference championship.

oskidunker said:

---

The mindless weave until the shot clock expired and a heave from 25 feet by Harrison Dyson was nor fun to watch.

---

that didn't happen even once

BearGreg said:

---

The analysis of what Fox's Georgia record is not reflective of his potential at Cal was talked about by Knowlton privately and by some others publicly can most simply be summarized as:

- The SEC is a dirty, dirty league when it comes to recruiting (look no further than LSUs situation) and that Fox recruited to even tiptoe down that path. The Pac 12 has its share of shady recruiting but nowhere near the SEC and at Cal, Fox can recruit kids whose families care about academics and not simply being paid
- Fox was arguably the most successful coach in the history of Georgia and relative success should not be discarded outright. What Tony Bennett did at WSU certainly was only relatively impressive and yet clearly indicated that at the right place, he could be an elite coach.

Everyone can independently decide whether those are compelling for them or not but they were talked about at last privately, even if they weren't appropriate for press release and press conference mentions.

Happy to discuss more details and nuances on Haas Pavilion if it's of interest to subscribers

---

yes please

HoopDreams said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

The analysis of what Fox's Georgia record is not reflective of his potential at Cal was talked about by Knowlton privately and by some others publicly can most simply be summarized as:

- The SEC is a dirty, dirty league when it comes to recruiting (look no further than LSUs situation) and that Fox recruited to even tiptoe down that path. The Pac 12 has its share of shady recruiting but nowhere near the SEC and at Cal, Fox can recruit kids whose families care about academics and not simply being paid
- Fox was arguably the most successful coach in the history of Georgia and relative success should not be discarded outright. What Tony Bennett did at WSU certainly was only relatively impressive and yet clearly indicated that at the right place, he could be an elite coach.

Everyone can independently decide whether those are compelling for them or not but they were talked about at last privately, even if they weren't appropriate for press release and press conference mentions.

Happy to discuss more details and nuances on Haas Pavilion if it's of interest to subscribers

---

yes please

---

yes, that would be appreciated

Big C said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

The analysis of what Fox's Georgia record is not reflective of his potential at Cal was talked about by Knowlton privately and by some others publicly can most simply be summarized as:

- The SEC is a dirty, dirty league when it comes to recruiting (look no further than LSUs situation) and that Fox recruited to even tiptoe down that path. The Pac 12 has its share of shady recruiting but nowhere near the SEC and at Cal, Fox can recruit kids whose families care about academics and not simply being paid
- Fox was arguably the most successful coach in the history of Georgia and relative success should not be discarded outright. What Tony Bennett did at WSU certainly was only relatively impressive and yet clearly indicated that at the right place, he could be an elite coach.

Everyone can independently decide whether those are compelling for them or not but they were talked about at last privately, even if they weren't appropriate for press release and press conference mentions.

Happy to discuss more details and nuances on Haas Pavilion if it's of interest to subscribers

---

yes please

---

yes, that would be appreciated

---

Or you could save yourself some time, read OaktownBear's posts in this thread

He's the coach now. I hope that he does better than I expect. Of all the coaches I've ever hoped to do better than I expect at Cal, the only who ever honestly surprised me was Snyder in his fifth year given how the first four years went. And ultimately he proved he was not the kind of coach who could sustain success like he had in that one season.

I suspect the interview was crucial because Fox actually had a plan in mind - focus initially, and probably long-term as well, on international recruiting. One asset we have, even at rock bottom, is our world-wide profile as both a top academic institution and as a welcoming place for international students. Given who we are recruiting against in our conference, that is the one truly distinctive card we have to play.

annarborbear said:

---

I suspect the interview was crucial because Fox actually had a plan in mind - focus initially, and probably long-term as well, on international recruiting. One asset we have, even at rock bottom, is our world-wide profile as both a top academic institution and as a welcoming place for international students. Given who we are recruiting against in our conference, that is the one truly distinctive card we have to play.

---

Except - and this is critical - then the admin is going to HAVE to support it - with officials/recruiting trips/etc. to over seas locations. It can work - you gotta invest in it

annarborbear said:

---

I suspect the interview was crucial because Fox actually had a plan in mind - focus initially, and probably long-term as well, on international recruiting. One asset we have, even at rock bottom, is our world-wide profile as both a top academic institution and as a welcoming place for international students. Given who we are recruiting against in our conference, that is the one truly distinctive card we have to play.

---

I always root for our coach when they are our coach

I like our international recruiting strategy, but not our west coast and especially California strategy

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Big C said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

The analysis of what Fox's Georgia record is not reflective of his potential at Cal was talked about by Knowlton privately and by some others publicly can most simply be summarized as:

- The SEC is a dirty, dirty league when it comes to recruiting (look no further than LSUs situation) and that Fox recruited to even tiptoe down that path. The Pac 12 has its share of shady recruiting but nowhere near the SEC and at Cal, Fox can recruit kids whose families care about academics and not simply being paid
- Fox was arguably the most successful coach in the history of Georgia and relative success should not be discarded outright. What Tony Bennett did at WSU certainly was only relatively impressive and yet clearly indicated that at the right place, he could be an elite coach.

Everyone can independently decide whether those are compelling for them or not but they were talked about at last privately, even if they weren't appropriate for press release and press conference mentions.

Happy to discuss more details and nuances on Haas Pavilion if it's of interest to subscribers

---

yes please

---

yes, that would be appreciated

---

Or you could save yourself some time, read OaktownBear's posts in this thread and remember that no matter how much it gets spun, it was a bad process and a far suboptimal result.

He's the coach now. I hope that he does better than I expect. Of all the coaches I've ever hoped to do better than I expect at Cal, the only who ever honestly surprised me was Snyder in his fifth year given how the first four years went. And ultimately he proved he was not the kind of coach who could sustain success like he had in that one season.

---

Revisionist history, anyone? Snyder was 7-4-1 in his FOURTH year with a Copper Bowl win. At ASU he went to a Rose Bowl and Sun Bowl in successive years (11-2 and 9-3). But you're welcome to your expectations.

For a limited time only, this Official BI Thread Decal is available for $99.95 to the first 5,000 that place an order using the form available on the Women's Basketball board.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Big C said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

The analysis of what Fox's Georgia record is not reflective of his potential at Cal was talked about by Knowlton privately and by some others publicly can most simply be summarized as:

- The SEC is a dirty, dirty league when it comes to recruiting (look no further than LSUs situation) and that Fox recruited to even tiptoe down that path. The Pac 12 has its share of shady recruiting but nowhere near the SEC and at Cal, Fox can recruit kids whose families care about academics and not simply being paid
- Fox was arguably the most successful coach in the history of Georgia and relative success should not be discarded outright. What Tony Bennett did at WSU certainly was only relatively impressive and yet clearly indicated that at the right place, he could be an elite coach.

Everyone can independently decide whether those are compelling for them or not but they were talked about at last privately, even if they weren't appropriate for press release and press conference mentions.

Happy to discuss more details and nuances on Haas Pavilion if it's of interest to subscribers

---

yes please

---

yes, that would be appreciated

---

Or you could save yourself some time, read OaktownBear's posts in this thread and remember that no matter how much it gets spun, it was a bad process and a far suboptimal result.

He's the coach now. I hope that he does better than I expect. Of all the coaches I've ever hoped to do better than I expect at Cal, the only who ever honestly surprised me was Snyder in his fifth year given how the first four years went. And ultimately he proved he was not the kind of coach who could sustain success like he had in that one season.

---

Revisionist history, anyone? Snyder was 7-4-1 in his FOURTH year with a Copper Bowl win. At ASU he went to a Rose Bowl and Sun Bowl in successive years (11-2 and 9-3). But you're welcome to your expectations.

---

You're bragging about 7-4-1?

Here's his coaching record. I'll let our readers decide whether he could sustain success or not.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/bruce-snyder-1.html

Yep. Looks like sustained success to me.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

You're bragging about 7-4-1?

Here's his coaching record. I'll let our readers decide whether he could sustain success or not.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/bruce-snyder-1.html

---

7-4-1 in the 4th year of a massive rebuild (a year ahead of schedule) is excellent progress. Or are you one of those who wants to fire every coach who doesn't go 11-1 or better in his 1st year?

UrsaMajor said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

You're bragging about 7-4-1?

Here's his coaching record. I'll let our readers decide whether he could sustain success or not.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/bruce-snyder-1.html

---

7-4-1 in the 4th year of a massive rebuild (a year ahead of schedule) is excellent progress. Or are you one of those who wants to fire every coach who doesn't go 11-1 or better in his 1st year?

---

7-4-1 four years into any coach's tenure is not impressive.

Thanks for the strawman though.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

You're bragging about 7-4-1?

Here's his coaching record. I'll let our readers decide whether he could sustain success or not.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/bruce-snyder-1.html

---

7-4-1 in the 4th year of a massive rebuild (a year ahead of schedule) is excellent progress. Or are you one of those who wants to fire every coach who doesn't go 11-1 or better in his 1st year?

---

7-4-1 four years into any coach's tenure is not impressive.

Thanks for the strawman though.

---

It is if the program is Cal. That 1990 season was the first7 win season since 1982 and one of only 3 since 1975. It was also Cal's first bowl win since the 1938 Rose Bowl.

dimitrig said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

You're bragging about 7-4-1?

Here's his coaching record. I'll let our readers decide whether he could sustain success or not.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/bruce-snyder-1.html

---

7-4-1 in the 4th year of a massive rebuild (a year ahead of schedule) is excellent progress. Or are you one of those who wants to fire every coach who doesn't go 11-1 or better in his 1st year?

---

7-4-1 four years into any coach's tenure is not impressive.

Thanks for the strawman though.

---

It is if the program is Cal. That 1990 season was the first7 win season since 1982 and one of only 3 since 1975. It was also Cal's first bowl win since the 1938 Rose Bowl.

---

That last part though has more to do with the lack of Pac 10 bowl tie-ins before the 90's than it does with Cal being bad. Plenty of Cal seasons since 1938 would have made bowls in the modern era.

OaktownBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

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.

---

The prediction was made that Fox would be a significant improvement over Jones and that would lead to posts exactly like the original post in this thread feeling that they were right when no one ever claimed otherwise. If those unhappy with the Fox hire see the future unfold exactly as they predicted it will take 5-7 years for those like the original poster to realize it. At this point it doesn't matter. If I were the OP, (and everyone else) I'd enjoy the wins I get without being a jackass.

---

Yup. Fox has demonstrated he's an upgrade over Wyking. That's not a high bar, but he seems to have easily cleared it.

Whether or not he's a GREAT hire remains to be seen.

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

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.

---

The prediction was made that Fox would be a significant improvement over Jones and that would lead to posts exactly like the original post in this thread feeling that they were right when no one ever claimed otherwise. If those unhappy with the Fox hire see the future unfold exactly as they predicted it will take 5-7 years for those like the original poster to realize it. At this point it doesn't matter. If I were the OP, (and everyone else) I'd enjoy the wins I get without being a jackass.

---

Yup. Fox has demonstrated he's an upgrade over Wyking. That's not a high bar, but he seems to have easily cleared it.

Whether or not he's a GREAT hire remains to be seen.

---

Loser

















</sarcasm>

Oh, it's definitely time to bump this thread.

I was hopeful we would make incremental improvement each game.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

calfanz said:

---

I was hopeful we would make incremental improvement each game.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

---

Didn't you say we were going to have major setbacks on our way to respectability? I would think this would qualify as one of those major setbacks.

Hopefully your wallet is still open, if you didn't blow it all on the Cal logo basketball court.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

calfanz said:

---

I was hopeful we would make incremental improvement each game.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

---

Didn't you say we were going to have major setbacks on our way to respectability? I would think this would qualify as one of those major setbacks.

Hopefully your wallet is still open, if you didn't blow it all on the Cal logo basketball court.

---

Santa Clara's spilt beer Mission with palm trees was good juju for Broncos.