Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Cuonzo was a good recruiter

---

Cuonzo was not a good recruiter. That's like saying Braun was a good recruiter because he got Powe to come here or that Monty was a good recruiter because he got Jabari Bird to come here. A couple of good things fell into his lap. When you evaluate ALL the recruits Cuonzo got to come here, he wasn't a good recruiter, which is why Wyking started off with a really bad roster.

---

Disagree. Aside from recruiting the highest rated Cal class of all time, there were other highly sought after players that decommitted or transferred after he left. Off the top of my head Jemarl Baker and Charlie Moore.

---

Yeah, that is a head scratcher. I get that he is not liked, but Cuonzo was/is a very good recruiter. The only thing you might say is he brought in A talent but A and C (or even D) instead of all A or A and B talent. His biggest issue was coaching up the talent he brought in, decision a scheme to take advantage of the skills.

---

Brown and Rabbe where awesome gets, but take out that one year and his classes were not on par with Montgomery's or Braun's or even Jones'. That was the only year in Martin's career where his recruiting class averaged above 3 stars.

---

247 ranked the Brown/Rabb class 4th in the Pac 12. We got 2 guys that wouldn't be around long and Roman Davis.

247 ranked the next class 12th in the Pac-12.

247 ranked the next class 11th in the Pac-12. It would have been higher with Baker, but not that much. Baker was a good #73 ranked recruit.

We got 2 good seasons from Rabb. Would not have gotten more if Martin stayed
We got 1 good season from Brown.
We got 1 good season from Moore. Would not have gotten more if Martin stayed
We got 2 good seasons from Sueing. Can't blame Martin for it not being 4.
We got 3 contributing seasons from JHD, I'll leave it to others to judge the quality.
Frankly, Baker wanted out of his commitment and used Martin's firing as an excuse to get to Kentucky. I'd bet he finds another excuse if Martin stayed.

That is not a lot of seasons out of 3 recruiting classes.

But all you need to do is look at what he left Jones. The ONLY other guy that might have been on the team if Martin stayed was Baker. Even with Baker, that was a terrible roster. In our third year since he left, we have one guy - JHD in the classes that should have at least a few guys to give us experience. Cal is not a one and done program.

I'm on board with his recruiting sucked.

Not to mention...

"Coach Martin, what did you learn from your years at Tennessee?"

"A mistake I made at Tennessee was, when I was first hired, I took guys to fill the open scholarships, so we would have a full roster, but maybe I should've left then open for BETTER players, the following years." (not actual quote, but close enough)

Then, just about the very next week, he signs Brandon Chauca.

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

Gosh, that was sort of grouchy for me, wasn't it... We'll have to agree to disagree on what his record at Georgia shows... but really, my point, wasn't about him... it was about the process that got us to him.

socaltownie said:

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

Georgia didn't think so.

Civil Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

Georgia didn't think so.

---

The SEC boosters have rarely been known to have realistic views. Since Fox.....1723

Pigskin Pete said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Cuonzo was a good recruiter

---

Cuonzo was not a good recruiter. That's like saying Braun was a good recruiter because he got Powe to come here or that Monty was a good recruiter because he got Jabari Bird to come here. A couple of good things fell into his lap. When you evaluate ALL the recruits Cuonzo got to come here, he wasn't a good recruiter, which is why Wyking started off with a really bad roster.

---

Disagree. Aside from recruiting the highest rated Cal class of all time, there were other highly sought after players that decommitted or transferred after he left. Off the top of my head Jemarl Baker and Charlie Moore.

---

7.2 PPG Jemarl Baker?

---

No doubt he would be into double digits at Cal without competition for baskets. Not to mention he's only a sophomore.

PtownBear1 said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Cuonzo was a good recruiter

---

Cuonzo was not a good recruiter. That's like saying Braun was a good recruiter because he got Powe to come here or that Monty was a good recruiter because he got Jabari Bird to come here. A couple of good things fell into his lap. When you evaluate ALL the recruits Cuonzo got to come here, he wasn't a good recruiter, which is why Wyking started off with a really bad roster.

---

Disagree. Aside from recruiting the highest rated Cal class of all time, there were other highly sought after players that decommitted or transferred after he left. Off the top of my head Jemarl Baker and Charlie Moore.

---

7.2 PPG Jemarl Baker?

---

No doubt he would be into double digits at Cal without competition for baskets. Not to mention he's only a sophomore.

---

Probably, but with a 35% 2P%, I doubt I'd get all worked up.

socaltownie said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

Georgia didn't think so.

---

The SEC boosters have rarely been known to have realistic views. Since Fox.....1723

---

That is largely a function of last year. Too early to tell this year. (6-2 beating chumps and losing to good teams).

Personally, I never felt "I sucked less than everyone else at my job" is a great line on a resume. I don't know why Cal 2019 is in a better position to succeed than Georgia 2009.

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

I agree with you, and I don't think Cal wants a repeat of Todd Bozeman which put the stain of probation on the Cal program and caused us to hire the squeaky clean Ben Braun. When a program wins big and/or gets a lot of top recruits, it will come under more intense scrutiny by the NCAA, which never goes after the WSUs of the world. We were heading for scrutiny when Cuonzo got Rabb and Brown, but he did not back that up with continued great recruiting success, to warrant scrutiny. Montgomery proved that it was possible to win both at Stanford and at Cal, without being fully loaded with top tier or NBA talent. I think that Braun's years with Powe, et al, or Cuonzos year with Rabb and Brown, plus Mathews, Wallace, and Bird, which was three 5-stars, and two 4-stars is as highly rated as you will ever see at Cal in the foreseeable future at Cal, IMO. And even with them, they did not have the coaching needed to win a conference title, the PAC tournament or the NCAA.

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

I agree with you, and I don't think Cal wants a repeat of Todd Bozeman which put the stain of probation on the Cal program and caused us to hire the squeaky clean Ben Braun. When a program wins big and/or gets a lot of top recruits, it will come under more intense scrutiny by the NCAA, which never goes after the WSUs of the world. We were heading for scrutiny when Cuonzo got Rabb and Brown, but he did not back that up with continued great recruiting success, to warrant scrutiny. Montgomery proved that it was possible to win both at Stanford and at Cal, without being fully loaded with top tier or NBA talent. I think that Braun's years with Powe, et al, or Cuonzos year with Rabb and Brown, plus Mathews, Wallace, and Bird, which was three 5-stars, and two 4-stars is as highly rated as you will ever see at Cal in the foreseeable future at Cal, IMO. And even with them, they did not have the coaching needed to win a conference title, the PAC tournament or the NCAA.

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

I agree with you, and I don't think Cal wants a repeat of Todd Bozeman which put the stain of probation on the Cal program and caused us to hire the squeaky clean Ben Braun. When a program wins big and/or gets a lot of top recruits, it will come under more intense scrutiny by the NCAA, which never goes after the WSUs of the world. We were heading for scrutiny when Cuonzo got Rabb and Brown, but he did not back that up with continued great recruiting success, to warrant scrutiny. Montgomery proved that it was possible to win both at Stanford and at Cal, without being fully loaded with top tier or NBA talent. I think that Braun's years with Powe, et al, or Cuonzos year with Rabb and Brown, plus Mathews, Wallace, and Bird, which was three 5-stars, and two 4-stars is as highly rated as you will ever see at Cal in the foreseeable future at Cal, IMO. And even with them, they did not have the coaching needed to win a conference title, the PAC tournament or the NCAA.

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

---

NO ONE does better than 10-8 without talent. That is the great myth of Cal sports boards - that if we just find that mad scientist we can compete straight up with the Oregons and UCLAs of the world with guys that got 4.0+ in High school and nailed their SATs. It is such a bleeping farce.

socaltownie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

I agree with you, and I don't think Cal wants a repeat of Todd Bozeman which put the stain of probation on the Cal program and caused us to hire the squeaky clean Ben Braun. When a program wins big and/or gets a lot of top recruits, it will come under more intense scrutiny by the NCAA, which never goes after the WSUs of the world. We were heading for scrutiny when Cuonzo got Rabb and Brown, but he did not back that up with continued great recruiting success, to warrant scrutiny. Montgomery proved that it was possible to win both at Stanford and at Cal, without being fully loaded with top tier or NBA talent. I think that Braun's years with Powe, et al, or Cuonzos year with Rabb and Brown, plus Mathews, Wallace, and Bird, which was three 5-stars, and two 4-stars is as highly rated as you will ever see at Cal in the foreseeable future at Cal, IMO. And even with them, they did not have the coaching needed to win a conference title, the PAC tournament or the NCAA.

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

---

NO ONE does better than 10-8 without talent. That is the great myth of Cal sports boards - that if we just find that mad scientist we can compete straight up with the Oregons and UCLAs of the world with guys that got 4.0+ in High school and nailed their SATs. It is such a bleeping farce.

---

While the great myth exists, I think another key point is that many (not all) would be very satisfied with a 10-8 team made up of strong students and coached well.

I know I would be happy to see that over the next couple seasons, but then - like most - I would be dissatisfied and want to compete with top of P12. They key is that you don't have to cheat to compete (but it helps). But it does require a combination of Talent, Coaching, University Support. We can't really sacrifice one or two for the sake of the other. The last two seasons were a trifecta of 0 for 3. And even the three prior season were really only 1 for 3 (mixed talent, mixed coaching, lame duck AD/Chancellor for 0 support). Monty had 2 of 3 (could have had better talent and support).

And the trifecta costs money, so it takes a savvy athletic administration to balance revenue (which comes primarily with success) and costs (which are tough in an arms race).

Said well. Shorter version - "Bring it hard or do not bring it at all."

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

I agree with you, and I don't think Cal wants a repeat of Todd Bozeman which put the stain of probation on the Cal program and caused us to hire the squeaky clean Ben Braun. When a program wins big and/or gets a lot of top recruits, it will come under more intense scrutiny by the NCAA, which never goes after the WSUs of the world. We were heading for scrutiny when Cuonzo got Rabb and Brown, but he did not back that up with continued great recruiting success, to warrant scrutiny. Montgomery proved that it was possible to win both at Stanford and at Cal, without being fully loaded with top tier or NBA talent. I think that Braun's years with Powe, et al, or Cuonzos year with Rabb and Brown, plus Mathews, Wallace, and Bird, which was three 5-stars, and two 4-stars is as highly rated as you will ever see at Cal in the foreseeable future at Cal, IMO. And even with them, they did not have the coaching needed to win a conference title, the PAC tournament or the NCAA.

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

---

Montgomery's teams at Stanford were loaded? Compared to whom exactly? Not with NBA players, anyway, not like Duke or Kentucky, or even the PAC's Arizona and UCLA, who bring in highly rated classes year after year.

You left out a couple of the future NBA players whom Montgomery coached at Stanford: Adam Keefe, and Greg Butler. So that is a total of 13 future NBA players over Montgomery's 18 year career at Stanford. That is an average of 0.72 NBA players per season on his roster. At Cal, he coached 5 future NBA players, Christopher, Jorge, Crabbe, Wallace, and Bird in six seasons, and average of 0.83 NBA players per season.

Let's compare Montgomery's teams at Stanford with Cal's teams over the same 18 years, 1986-2004. During those years, Cal actually had more future NBA players than Montgomery had: Kevin Johnson, Leonard Taylor, Lamond Murray, Jason Kidd, Michael Stewart, Tremaine Fowlkes, Sean Marks, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Ed Gray, Geno Carlisle, Sean Lampley, Francisco Elson, Jamal Sampson, Leon Powe, and Dominic McGuire. That is 15 NBA players at Cal vs 13 for Monty at Stanford.

Montgomery's record at Stanford was three 30 win seasons, plus 10 more 20-win seasons, 3 PAC10 championships, and one tie for a PAC10 championship, one PAC10 tourney title, one loss in the NCAA National Semifinal, one win in the Regional Semifinal, and one loss in the Regional Semifinal.

The record of the Cal teams over the same 18 seasons was ten 20-win seasons, no PAC10 Championships, no PAC 10 Tournament titles, and two losses in the NCAA Regional Semifinal.

You could well make a case that Stanford had better support players, who did not go to the NBA, but Cal had their share of good support players also over the 18 years. I think Cal underachieved for the material they had, and I feel the coaching at Cal in those years was inferior to Montgomery's coaching at Stanford. In any case, with less than one NBA player per year on the roster for both schools, neither school was loaded. I still think good coaching makes a difference, no matter whether the quality of the roster is top notch, average, or below average.

I felt Montgomery would be a good hire for Cal, but I was not enthusiastic at the time. He was a good coach, and I felt he could do more with less. What I liked most about him was his honesty and candor, and his ability to make so many players better, and play better team ball at both ends than we had seen since the days of Newell. I did not expect him to stay for many years. I felt his ceiling was Final Four, and I wanted more than that. I want wins and championships. Losses just don't do it for me. I knew he could win the PAC10, and at least he did that, even though Cal fans downplay that achievement. We are a hard lot to please.

Except in swimming, water polo, volley ball, soccer, etc. The mythical players (5*, 4.0 grades) exist, we just haven't landed them consistently.

bearchamp said:

---

Except in swimming, water polo, volley ball, soccer, etc. The mythical players (5*, 4.0 grades) exist, we just haven't landed them consistently.

---

OK. Bad post. The issue there is that other than (sorta - see below), kids can not play those sports professionally and colleges can not monetize them. As I have LONG argued (happy to do it any day of the week), The day that NCAA rugby gets a TV contract worth any sort of coin is the day before Texas and USC and Bama go "all in" and we become irrelevant. Ditto Water polo or swmming

It is important really, to understand the landscape. The NCAA "most kids are not going pro" is NOT true for P5 basketball (and not that true for football). Most starting P5 players on DECENT teams are at least making a living playing overseas. IN many cases it will be for salaries more than most grads from the school will make as newly minted BA/BS. It is time to recognize that they are learning a craft while at school and undertand that and support it.

PS. Soccer is a bit of an odd one. While clearly people DO make coin playing it most college players are long past the time they are making that move. Sorta like Gymnastics and to a certain extent Hockey or Baseball. Add in that we are talking about US players.

BeachedBear said:

---

While the great myth exists, I think another key point is that many (not all) would be very satisfied with a 10-8 team made up of strong students and coached well.

---

I wish those people would go away and find something else to care about in life

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

I agree with you, and I don't think Cal wants a repeat of Todd Bozeman which put the stain of probation on the Cal program and caused us to hire the squeaky clean Ben Braun. When a program wins big and/or gets a lot of top recruits, it will come under more intense scrutiny by the NCAA, which never goes after the WSUs of the world. We were heading for scrutiny when Cuonzo got Rabb and Brown, but he did not back that up with continued great recruiting success, to warrant scrutiny. Montgomery proved that it was possible to win both at Stanford and at Cal, without being fully loaded with top tier or NBA talent. I think that Braun's years with Powe, et al, or Cuonzos year with Rabb and Brown, plus Mathews, Wallace, and Bird, which was three 5-stars, and two 4-stars is as highly rated as you will ever see at Cal in the foreseeable future at Cal, IMO. And even with them, they did not have the coaching needed to win a conference title, the PAC tournament or the NCAA.

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

---

Montgomery's teams at Stanford were loaded? Compared to whom exactly? Not with NBA players, anyway, not like Duke or Kentucky, or even the PAC's Arizona and UCLA, who bring in highly rated classes year after year.

You left out a couple of the future NBA players whom Montgomery coached at Stanford: Adam Keefe, and Greg Butler. So that is a total of 13 future NBA players over Montgomery's 18 year career at Stanford. That is an average of 0.72 NBA players per season on his roster. At Cal, he coached 5 future NBA players, Christopher, Jorge, Crabbe, Wallace, and Bird in six seasons, and average of 0.83 NBA players per season.

Let's compare Montgomery's teams at Stanford with Cal's teams over the same 18 years, 1986-2004. During those years, Cal actually had more future NBA players than Montgomery had: Kevin Johnson, Leonard Taylor, Lamond Murray, Jason Kidd, Michael Stewart, Tremaine Fowlkes, Sean Marks, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Ed Gray, Geno Carlisle, Sean Lampley, Francisco Elson, Jamal Sampson, Leon Powe, and Dominic McGuire. That is 15 NBA players at Cal vs 13 for Monty at Stanford.

Montgomery's record at Stanford was three 30 win seasons, plus 10 more 20-win seasons, 3 PAC10 championships, and one tie for a PAC10 championship, one PAC10 tourney title, one loss in the NCAA National Semifinal, one win in the Regional Semifinal, and one loss in the Regional Semifinal.

The record of the Cal teams over the same 18 seasons was ten 20-win seasons, no PAC10 Championships, no PAC 10 Tournament titles, and two losses in the NCAA Regional Semifinal.

You could well make a case that Stanford had better support players, who did not go to the NBA, but Cal had their share of good support players also over the 18 years. I think Cal underachieved for the material they had, and I feel the coaching at Cal in those years was inferior to Montgomery's coaching at Stanford. In any case, with less than one NBA player per year on the roster for both schools, neither school was loaded. I still think good coaching makes a difference, no matter whether the quality of the roster is top notch, average, or below average.

I felt Montgomery would be a good hire for Cal, but I was not enthusiastic at the time. He was a good coach, and I felt he could do more with less. What I liked most about him was his honesty and candor, and his ability to make so many players better, and play better team ball at both ends than we had seen since the days of Newell. I did not expect him to stay for many years. I felt his ceiling was Final Four, and I wanted more than that. I want wins and championships. Losses just don't do it for me. I knew he could win the PAC10, and at least he did that, even though Cal fans downplay that achievement. We are a hard lot to please.

---

1. Keefe was on the list.
2. I knew about Butler. I didn't include him because it strained credulity to do so with 55 games to his record as it strains credulity to include guys like Patrick Christopher and Leonard Taylor who had 4 games and 10 games in the NBA or Geno Carlisle who had 6. Or including Dominic Maguire and Tremaine Fowlkes who played their upper class years at other schools. Or Francisco Elson who you know full well was not close to that talent at Cal and he played 5 seasons in Europe to develop his game between Cal and the NBA. Sampson was a decent player for Cal for one year. It would be fair to take Wright of Monty's list if you want.
3. I never said Cal's coaching was better, so I don't know your point in comparing results
4. You are not looking at distribution. For instance, Kidd Murray and Stewart played on the same team.Johnson and Taylor on the same team.
5. In his first 9 years, Montgomery had 2 seasons better than 10-8. Guess what? Those years they had Butler and Lichti and his 15-3 year he added Keefe. Then a whole lotta nuthin.
6. Then he entered his successful period.
1997 - 12-6 in conference. Roster included Knight, Young and Madsen. supporting players like Weems, Arthur Lee and Ryan Mendez. Peter Sauer - Loaded.
1998 - 30 wins. 15-3 in conference. Lee, weems, Young Madsen Sauer Mendez, collins collins. - Loaded.
1999 - Lee, weems, young, madsen collins, collins, sauer mendez. loaded
2000 - jacobson, collins collins madsen, senior mosely at the point, mendez, borchardt -- loaded
2001 - 31 wins. jacobson, collins, collins, borchardt. Senior MacDonald at point, Julius Barnes, Teyo Johnson, Justin Davis
2002 - a mere 12 conference wins. jacobson, borchardt, childress, Barnes Johnson, Davis
2003 - 14 conference wins. probably his least depth. Childress, Barnes, Davis, Lottich, Little
2004 - 30 wins. childress Davis, lottich little, hernandez, haryasz.

Any of the 1998-2001 teams I would have taken Stanford's roster over anyone in the conference. Give me any of those teams listed and simply Ben Braun to coach them, and I will be a happy Cal fan.

When you look at the quality of players + the number of years they played college it is not a contest. Almost all played 4 years, they all played 3. Only 4 guys on your list played more than 2 seasons at Cal during the 18 years monty coached Stanford.

But my point was that Monty didn't do better than 10-8 without having serious talent. His first 9 years, including his 2-16 season, (man that was a bad roster) demonstrate that point.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

I agree with you, and I don't think Cal wants a repeat of Todd Bozeman which put the stain of probation on the Cal program and caused us to hire the squeaky clean Ben Braun. When a program wins big and/or gets a lot of top recruits, it will come under more intense scrutiny by the NCAA, which never goes after the WSUs of the world. We were heading for scrutiny when Cuonzo got Rabb and Brown, but he did not back that up with continued great recruiting success, to warrant scrutiny. Montgomery proved that it was possible to win both at Stanford and at Cal, without being fully loaded with top tier or NBA talent. I think that Braun's years with Powe, et al, or Cuonzos year with Rabb and Brown, plus Mathews, Wallace, and Bird, which was three 5-stars, and two 4-stars is as highly rated as you will ever see at Cal in the foreseeable future at Cal, IMO. And even with them, they did not have the coaching needed to win a conference title, the PAC tournament or the NCAA.

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

---

Montgomery's teams at Stanford were loaded? Compared to whom exactly? Not with NBA players, anyway, not like Duke or Kentucky, or even the PAC's Arizona and UCLA, who bring in highly rated classes year after year.

You left out a couple of the future NBA players whom Montgomery coached at Stanford: Adam Keefe, and Greg Butler. So that is a total of 13 future NBA players over Montgomery's 18 year career at Stanford. That is an average of 0.72 NBA players per season on his roster. At Cal, he coached 5 future NBA players, Christopher, Jorge, Crabbe, Wallace, and Bird in six seasons, and average of 0.83 NBA players per season.

Let's compare Montgomery's teams at Stanford with Cal's teams over the same 18 years, 1986-2004. During those years, Cal actually had more future NBA players than Montgomery had: Kevin Johnson, Leonard Taylor, Lamond Murray, Jason Kidd, Michael Stewart, Tremaine Fowlkes, Sean Marks, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Ed Gray, Geno Carlisle, Sean Lampley, Francisco Elson, Jamal Sampson, Leon Powe, and Dominic McGuire. That is 15 NBA players at Cal vs 13 for Monty at Stanford.

Montgomery's record at Stanford was three 30 win seasons, plus 10 more 20-win seasons, 3 PAC10 championships, and one tie for a PAC10 championship, one PAC10 tourney title, one loss in the NCAA National Semifinal, one win in the Regional Semifinal, and one loss in the Regional Semifinal.

The record of the Cal teams over the same 18 seasons was ten 20-win seasons, no PAC10 Championships, no PAC 10 Tournament titles, and two losses in the NCAA Regional Semifinal.

You could well make a case that Stanford had better support players, who did not go to the NBA, but Cal had their share of good support players also over the 18 years. I think Cal underachieved for the material they had, and I feel the coaching at Cal in those years was inferior to Montgomery's coaching at Stanford. In any case, with less than one NBA player per year on the roster for both schools, neither school was loaded. I still think good coaching makes a difference, no matter whether the quality of the roster is top notch, average, or below average.

I felt Montgomery would be a good hire for Cal, but I was not enthusiastic at the time. He was a good coach, and I felt he could do more with less. What I liked most about him was his honesty and candor, and his ability to make so many players better, and play better team ball at both ends than we had seen since the days of Newell. I did not expect him to stay for many years. I felt his ceiling was Final Four, and I wanted more than that. I want wins and championships. Losses just don't do it for me. I knew he could win the PAC10, and at least he did that, even though Cal fans downplay that achievement. We are a hard lot to please.

---

1. Keefe was on the list.
2. I knew about Butler. I didn't include him because it strained credulity to do so with 55 games to his record as it strains credulity to include guys like Patrick Christopher and Leonard Taylor who had 4 games and 10 games in the NBA or Geno Carlisle who had 6. Or including Dominic Maguire and Tremaine Fowlkes who played their upper class years at other schools. Or Francisco Elson who you know full well was not close to that talent at Cal and he played 5 seasons in Europe to develop his game between Cal and the NBA. Sampson was a decent player for Cal for one year. It would be fair to take Wright of Monty's list if you want.
3. I never said Cal's coaching was better, so I don't know your point in comparing results
4. You are not looking at distribution. For instance, Kidd Murray and Stewart played on the same team.Johnson and Taylor on the same team.
5. In his first 9 years, Montgomery had 2 seasons better than 10-8. Guess what? Those years they had Butler and Lichti and his 15-3 year he added Keefe. Then a whole lotta nuthin.
6. Then he entered his successful period.
1997 - 12-6 in conference. Roster included Knight, Young and Madsen. supporting players like Weems, Arthur Lee and Ryan Mendez. Peter Sauer - Loaded.
1998 - 30 wins. 15-3 in conference. Lee, weems, Young Madsen Sauer Mendez, collins collins. - Loaded.
1999 - Lee, weems, young, madsen collins, collins, sauer mendez. loaded
2000 - jacobson, collins collins madsen, senior mosely at the point, mendez, borchardt -- loaded
2001 - 31 wins. jacobson, collins, collins, borchardt. Senior MacDonald at point, Julius Barnes, Teyo Johnson, Justin Davis
2002 - a mere 12 conference wins. jacobson, borchardt, childress, Barnes Johnson, Davis
2003 - 14 conference wins. probably his least depth. Childress, Barnes, Davis, Lottich, Little
2004 - 30 wins. childress Davis, lottich little, hernandez, haryasz.

Any of the 1998-2001 teams I would have taken Stanford's roster over anyone in the conference. Give me any of those teams listed and simply Ben Braun to coach them, and I will be a happy Cal fan.

When you look at the quality of players + the number of years they played college it is not a contest. Almost all played 4 years, they all played 3. Only 4 guys on your list played more than 2 seasons at Cal during the 18 years monty coached Stanford.

But my point was that Monty didn't do better than 10-8 without having serious talent. His first 9 years, including his 2-16 season, (man that was a bad roster) demonstrate that point.

---

Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to point out to a fellow Cal engineer the fault of simply counting the the number of NBA players over Monty's tenure at the 'furd. He should have known better.

Civil Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I get being beaten down by the sheer ennui that is Cal basketball and wonder why anyone would spend two seconds caring about it at this point, but we just paid $3M in buyouts and increased the salary of the coach in hopes of getting someone to care. Frankly, when Jones was hired I came to terms with the fact that Cal had decided that the financially wise thing to do was to be the Washington Generals. Was willing to live with that. But don't spend a bunch of money and become the Generals anyway.

---

Regardless of how much money you spend on your coach, how many college coaches are going to be able to come into a losing team in the spring and make a marked difference immediately, even if they don't lose three starters to transfers right away?

Long-term, we're not going to be the Generals. I have concerns about hiring Fox and I don't need to reiterate them again and again. But we will get to mediocrity at some point.

We need to hit the transfer portal HARD.

---

THe problem is, as you know, that the administration makes hitting that portal extremely difficult. Ditto grad transfers. That is, probably, my biggest complaint. Fox can coach. I am not sold he is a great recruiter but whatever. But this is an almost impossible rebuild in the current environment.

And yes, if I read one more god damm wall of text about the great Darrell I and how Pete Newell ran a wonderous half court set I will SCREAM ;-)

---

My criticism has been primarily for Knowlton, not Fox. My issue is that with Cal having a deficient roster over the past 2 years due to defections, and just starting to have some stability there, we needed to maintain what we had and recruit more. We were not in a position where we had talent that was poorly coached. Fox is a solid coach who is not a recruiter. As I said elsewhere, I don't know that I think it is fair to Fox to expect him to EVER turn this program around. But hiring a guy that excels in coaching more than recruiting is not understanding your situation.

---

Except we didn't hire a guy who excels at coaching. Oh, we hired a guy who excels at coaching at Nevada, but not at power 5 conference, which Georgia found out and we should have learned from. But when you wait til the last minute to decide - well, actually be forced to admit your decision to inexplicably retain the coach who just put together the worst two year stretch in conference history was wrong, well this is what you get, I guess.

---

Love you Ken but his record at Georgia - a school with no tradition, is actually pretty good considering he wasn't a good recruiter. Plus it is clear his peers want him around to help coach. The issue remains is whether this approach works - whether in the Pac12 with a decent (but not ridiculous) number of NBA talent level kids Cal can win.

I have my doubts but I have reconciled myself (at least today) that Cal will never go "all in" so as to talent level compete with the upper third of the conference.

---

I agree with you, and I don't think Cal wants a repeat of Todd Bozeman which put the stain of probation on the Cal program and caused us to hire the squeaky clean Ben Braun. When a program wins big and/or gets a lot of top recruits, it will come under more intense scrutiny by the NCAA, which never goes after the WSUs of the world. We were heading for scrutiny when Cuonzo got Rabb and Brown, but he did not back that up with continued great recruiting success, to warrant scrutiny. Montgomery proved that it was possible to win both at Stanford and at Cal, without being fully loaded with top tier or NBA talent. I think that Braun's years with Powe, et al, or Cuonzos year with Rabb and Brown, plus Mathews, Wallace, and Bird, which was three 5-stars, and two 4-stars is as highly rated as you will ever see at Cal in the foreseeable future at Cal, IMO. And even with them, they did not have the coaching needed to win a conference title, the PAC tournament or the NCAA.

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

---

Montgomery's teams at Stanford were loaded? Compared to whom exactly? Not with NBA players, anyway, not like Duke or Kentucky, or even the PAC's Arizona and UCLA, who bring in highly rated classes year after year.

You left out a couple of the future NBA players whom Montgomery coached at Stanford: Adam Keefe, and Greg Butler. So that is a total of 13 future NBA players over Montgomery's 18 year career at Stanford. That is an average of 0.72 NBA players per season on his roster. At Cal, he coached 5 future NBA players, Christopher, Jorge, Crabbe, Wallace, and Bird in six seasons, and average of 0.83 NBA players per season.

Let's compare Montgomery's teams at Stanford with Cal's teams over the same 18 years, 1986-2004. During those years, Cal actually had more future NBA players than Montgomery had: Kevin Johnson, Leonard Taylor, Lamond Murray, Jason Kidd, Michael Stewart, Tremaine Fowlkes, Sean Marks, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Ed Gray, Geno Carlisle, Sean Lampley, Francisco Elson, Jamal Sampson, Leon Powe, and Dominic McGuire. That is 15 NBA players at Cal vs 13 for Monty at Stanford.

Montgomery's record at Stanford was three 30 win seasons, plus 10 more 20-win seasons, 3 PAC10 championships, and one tie for a PAC10 championship, one PAC10 tourney title, one loss in the NCAA National Semifinal, one win in the Regional Semifinal, and one loss in the Regional Semifinal.

The record of the Cal teams over the same 18 seasons was ten 20-win seasons, no PAC10 Championships, no PAC 10 Tournament titles, and two losses in the NCAA Regional Semifinal.

You could well make a case that Stanford had better support players, who did not go to the NBA, but Cal had their share of good support players also over the 18 years. I think Cal underachieved for the material they had, and I feel the coaching at Cal in those years was inferior to Montgomery's coaching at Stanford. In any case, with less than one NBA player per year on the roster for both schools, neither school was loaded. I still think good coaching makes a difference, no matter whether the quality of the roster is top notch, average, or below average.

I felt Montgomery would be a good hire for Cal, but I was not enthusiastic at the time. He was a good coach, and I felt he could do more with less. What I liked most about him was his honesty and candor, and his ability to make so many players better, and play better team ball at both ends than we had seen since the days of Newell. I did not expect him to stay for many years. I felt his ceiling was Final Four, and I wanted more than that. I want wins and championships. Losses just don't do it for me. I knew he could win the PAC10, and at least he did that, even though Cal fans downplay that achievement. We are a hard lot to please.

---

1. Keefe was on the list.
2. I knew about Butler. I didn't include him because it strained credulity to do so with 55 games to his record as it strains credulity to include guys like Patrick Christopher and Leonard Taylor who had 4 games and 10 games in the NBA or Geno Carlisle who had 6. Or including Dominic Maguire and Tremaine Fowlkes who played their upper class years at other schools. Or Francisco Elson who you know full well was not close to that talent at Cal and he played 5 seasons in Europe to develop his game between Cal and the NBA. Sampson was a decent player for Cal for one year. It would be fair to take Wright of Monty's list if you want.
3. I never said Cal's coaching was better, so I don't know your point in comparing results
4. You are not looking at distribution. For instance, Kidd Murray and Stewart played on the same team.Johnson and Taylor on the same team.
5. In his first 9 years, Montgomery had 2 seasons better than 10-8. Guess what? Those years they had Butler and Lichti and his 15-3 year he added Keefe. Then a whole lotta nuthin.
6. Then he entered his successful period.
1997 - 12-6 in conference. Roster included Knight, Young and Madsen. supporting players like Weems, Arthur Lee and Ryan Mendez. Peter Sauer - Loaded.
1998 - 30 wins. 15-3 in conference. Lee, weems, Young Madsen Sauer Mendez, collins collins. - Loaded.
1999 - Lee, weems, young, madsen collins, collins, sauer mendez. loaded
2000 - jacobson, collins collins madsen, senior mosely at the point, mendez, borchardt -- loaded
2001 - 31 wins. jacobson, collins, collins, borchardt. Senior MacDonald at point, Julius Barnes, Teyo Johnson, Justin Davis
2002 - a mere 12 conference wins. jacobson, borchardt, childress, Barnes Johnson, Davis
2003 - 14 conference wins. probably his least depth. Childress, Barnes, Davis, Lottich, Little
2004 - 30 wins. childress Davis, lottich little, hernandez, haryasz.

Any of the 1998-2001 teams I would have taken Stanford's roster over anyone in the conference. Give me any of those teams listed and simply Ben Braun to coach them, and I will be a happy Cal fan.

When you look at the quality of players + the number of years they played college it is not a contest. Almost all played 4 years, they all played 3. Only 4 guys on your list played more than 2 seasons at Cal during the 18 years monty coached Stanford.

But my point was that Monty didn't do better than 10-8 without having serious talent. His first 9 years, including his 2-16 season, (man that was a bad roster) demonstrate that point.

---

Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to point out to a fellow Cal engineer the fault of simply counting the the number of NBA players over Monty's tenure at the 'furd. He should have known better.

---

Yeah, by that metric, Campanelli's first two teams would beat Monty's conference championship team and there is simply no way that roster was better.

I don't like the either/or nature of some of the comments on this thread. Winning is not either talent or coaching. In thinking about Monty's Stanfurd teams,I think that there is a threshold of talent that then allows superior coaching to put the results "over the top." Without enough good players, even a mash-up of Pete Newell and John Wooden won't win consistently. At the same time, all the talent in the world won't get you to the finish line without excellent coaching. Year after year, Kentucky has if not the best recruiting class, then one of the top. Given the plethora of 5* players on the roster, I would argue that Calipari's results are not commensurate. As for Cal, we need to get to a threshold of talent and then see what a good coach can do.

On another note, SCT correctly points out that administrative support is needed. The problem at Cal is that the administration hasn't been consistent.. Tien appointed a "blue ribbon task force" that recommended going all in for IA because it should be possible to be both excellent in academics and in athletics. Then came Berdahl who was openly hostile to IA. I've told this story before, but I recall a conversation with him in which he said that he wanted a football team that routinely went 7-4 or 8-3, good enough so that most alums were satisfied, but not so good that Rose Bowls, etc. became important. Birgeneau was supportive of athletics, but in a chaotic way. I remember his support of the stadium project but cavalierly dismissing any concerns about the cost ("I'm sure the money will be there somehow"). Then came Dirks who was, in addition to his other faults, indifferent at best to IA. Now we have a Chancellor who is openly supportive of athletics and has taken steps to improve the programs. However, Carol is here for 5 years only, and God knows who will follow her and what his/her attitude will be.

socaltownie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

---

NO ONE does better than 10-8 without talent. That is the great myth of Cal sports boards - that if we just find that mad scientist we can compete straight up with the Oregons and UCLAs of the world with guys that got 4.0+ in High school and nailed their SATs. It is such a bleeping farce.

---

There's a big difference between a team with second tier players who are experienced and in depth vs. a team with one or two players who have "serious talent" but not the experience or depth. A good coach can take the first and make it seriously competitive. A bad coach will waste the second, and probably won't manage to keep adding the same kinds of players as they leave in one or two years. It's not like we have the choice between building up a program with more talent, more depth and more experience or just going with five stars. The first path is about our only hope right now to fix this program. It takes patience that obviously is in short supply these days.

No one is arguing for your last example. And I'm not arguing that we got the right guy, but given that we got that guy I think that's the path forward that has a chance of reviving this corpse.

"I felt his ceiling was Final Four, and I wanted more than that. I want wins and championships. Losses just don't do it for me."

I honestly laughed out loud at these sentences. I'll take a ceiling of Final Four any day. Sure, IF you get there it's better to win it all but Final Fours and not championships are the resume line people use to consider if a coach is HOF level. And I can't really recall a Final Four team that didn't have wins. I mean, c'mon man.

UrsaMajor said:

---

I don't like the either/or nature of some of the comments on this thread. Winning is not either talent or coaching. In thinking about Monty's Stanfurd teams,I think that there is a threshold of talent that then allows superior coaching to put the results "over the top." Without enough good players, even a mash-up of Pete Newell and John Wooden won't win consistently. At the same time, all the talent in the world won't get you to the finish line without excellent coaching. Year after year, Kentucky has if not the best recruiting class, then one of the top. Given the plethora of 5* players on the roster, I would argue that Calipari's results are not commensurate. As for Cal, we need to get to a threshold of talent and then see what a good coach can do.

On another note, SCT correctly points out that administrative support is needed. The problem at Cal is that the administration hasn't been consistent.. Tien appointed a "blue ribbon task force" that recommended going all in for IA because it should be possible to be both excellent in academics and in athletics. Then came Berdahl who was openly hostile to IA. I've told this story before, but I recall a conversation with him in which he said that he wanted a football team that routinely went 7-4 or 8-3, good enough so that most alums were satisfied, but not so good that Rose Bowls, etc. became important. Birgeneau was supportive of athletics, but in a chaotic way. I remember his support of the stadium project but cavalierly dismissing any concerns about the cost ("I'm sure the money will be there somehow"). Then came Dirks who was, in addition to his other faults, indifferent at best to IA. Now we have a Chancellor who is openly supportive of athletics and has taken steps to improve the programs. However, Carol is here for 5 years only, and God knows who will follow her and what his/her attitude will be.

---

I wasn't arguing either or, although I think that is clearly what you got. However, coaches are better at some things than others. I wasn't saying get a recruiter who can't coach, but we need personnel. To be clear, I'd be ecstatic with the talent Braun left for Monty.

However you are massively arguing against yourself with your citing Calipari. Who cares if his results are not commensurate with his recruits. He has a national championship, 4 final fours, 15 conference championships and 15 conference tournament championships. If I knew who the next coach was that would have those results by underperforming with their recruits, I would take them every time

I could argue that Monty's results underperform his coaching acumen. Don't care. You don't get a medal for style points or for how you do it. No one gives a championship to the most "well coached " team. College coaching is about recruiting and coaching.

bluesaxe said:

---

"I felt his ceiling was Final Four, and I wanted more than that. I want wins and championships. Losses just don't do it for me."

I honestly laughed out loud at these sentences. I'll take a ceiling of Final Four any day. Sure, IF you get there it's better to win it all but Final Fours and not championships are the resume line people use to consider if a coach is HOF level. And I can't really recall a Final Four team that didn't have wins. I mean, c'mon man.

---

Well, Bluesaxe, considering all the pessimism and cyncism on view in this thread, if I wrote something that made you laugh, then all my posts here have been worth it. I wish we had some more laughter in the Bear Insider forums, instead of what we have had lately.

I probably should have elaborated on my statement a bit, to make it clearer. In Western society today, old institutions and values are being torn down or shredded one after another. We have dumbed down society so that competition is watered down or dumbed down a lot from what it used to be. We hand out trophies for 2nd,, 3rd, 4th and more places. Many teachers in schools and some entire schools teach classes and give out no grades. Stanford tried it, but I don't know if they still have that system.

More to the point, the NCAA tournament was dumbed down many years ago by expanding it to 64 teams and more, and in a number of years, a team which had a losing record might be invited. Now it is to the point where each year, maybe 5 or 6 teams have a realistic chance to win it. The rest hang their hat on a chance to upset one of the top teams, so they can brag about that. Many teams think it a great accomplishment to get invited to the NCAA. Some teams who get invited will get all excited just because they got a high seed. I think it cheapens or dumbs down winning, if an invitation or a seed becomes the goal. The goal should be to play the best you can, and give yourself a chance to win the damn thing. With 64 teams, it does not define the best team in the nation, because it depends so much on the subjective opinions of a committee, as to who gets invited, and what seed they will be, and this determines how easy or hard their path will be to the final. There is way too much room for bias and maybe corruption at the outset. It has become a money-making machine, instead of a fair competition between the best teams. Arizona, the 5th place team in the PAC, won the NCAA tournament, and I think that was a travesty, even though no one here will agree with me.

As I see it, my three goals for any team are:

1. Win the round-robin home and home conference championship. This used to be the hardest to win, because half the games are in hostile arenas, filled with rabid students and fans of the local team. At Cal today, we have few rabid students, and this year, we have few fans at all, so we don't have a great home court advantage like in years gone by.

2. Win the conference championship, which is very tough, maybe the toughest, of 3 or 4 road games back to back on a neutral floor, That is a grueling competition.

3. Win the NCAA. This depends a lot on the subjective opinions of judges on the selection committee.

On the journey to become good enough to achieve any of these goals, a team should try to win as many games as possible, and having had a good season or two, should begin to schedule better teams, and learn how to compete with them. 20 wins is good, 30 wins is great.

I was a competitive person. I worked hard to be the best I could be. I took losses hard, in the classroom or on the court. I like to think the competition prepared me for life, where there are losses, but you have to pick yourself up off the floor, and try and get better, so you don't fail again. Life is a competition, no matter what our teachers or politicians tell us. I'm very grateful to have seen Montgomery coach Cal to the PAC!0 title in 2010, no matter how much fans on this board are not satisfied with it. It was actually WINNING something important, a trophy for the school. There were several coaches and many, many players, some of them great players, who walked through those doors in Harmon or Haas for 50 years and could not win the PAC title, whether it was against a weak conference or a stronger conference. Montgomery did it, and he had some good players that year, but no great ones. I'm very proud of Montgomery and those kids.

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Monty's teams at Stanford were loaded with top tiered talent. Borchardt, Lichti, Childress, Collins, Collins, Keefe, young, knight, Madsen Wright Jacobsen - That's just the guys that went NBA. At Cal he won a conference championship in a down year with a team that was loaded with experienced very good second tier talent. He had some success with teams lead by a player who now is in his 7th NBA season. Monty never did better than 10-8 in conference without some serious talent.

---

NO ONE does better than 10-8 without talent. That is the great myth of Cal sports boards - that if we just find that mad scientist we can compete straight up with the Oregons and UCLAs of the world with guys that got 4.0+ in High school and nailed their SATs. It is such a bleeping farce.

---

There's a big difference between a team with second tier players who are experienced and in depth vs. a team with one or two players who have "serious talent" but not the experience or depth. A good coach can take the first and make it seriously competitive. A bad coach will waste the second, and probably won't manage to keep adding the same kinds of players as they leave in one or two years. It's not like we have the choice between building up a program with more talent, more depth and more experience or just going with five stars. The first path is about our only hope right now to fix this program. It takes patience that obviously is in short supply these days.

No one is arguing for your last example. And I'm not arguing that we got the right guy, but given that we got that guy I think that's the path forward that has a chance of reviving this corpse.

---

That just is so not generally true in the P5. Sure. on RARE occasions you get a virginia. Many years you do not - instead watching teams with Soph and Frosh that are NBA talent make it to the second weekend.

Look, I GET that this narrative is really frustrating for the blue haired cal fans to lean into. But it is the bitter reality of the modern game. You gotta have kids that are capable of getting drafted to be able to get over the hump.

(And back away from your keyboard before you type "But what about Butler!!!" The issue is the P5. You gotta go, a MINIMUM of 12 and 4 in conference to get off the seeds of death and, in the modern world of the pods, a really crappy draw where you play the 1-4 on their home turf. The Butlers of the world can steal a game or 2 in december to get their RPI up and then dominate leagues WITHOUT NBA talent. P5s, however, play nearly every week a team (or 2) with at least 1-2 kids on the opposing roster who have a shot at the show.......well, except if you are playing the Bears this year ;-)

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

There's a big difference between a team with second tier players who are experienced and in depth vs. a team with one or two players who have "serious talent" but not the experience or depth. A good coach can take the first and make it seriously competitive. A bad coach will waste the second, and probably won't manage to keep adding the same kinds of players as they leave in one or two years. It's not like we have the choice between building up a program with more talent, more depth and more experience or just going with five stars. The first path is about our only hope right now to fix this program. It takes patience that obviously is in short supply these days.

No one is arguing for your last example. And I'm not arguing that we got the right guy, but given that we got that guy I think that's the path forward that has a chance of reviving this corpse.

---

That just is so not generally true in the P5. Sure. on RARE occasions you get a virginia. Many years you do not - instead watching teams with Soph and Frosh that are NBA talent make it to the second weekend.

Look, I GET that this narrative is really frustrating for the blue haired cal fans to lean into. But it is the bitter reality of the modern game. You gotta have kids that are capable of getting drafted to be able to get over the hump.

(And back away from your keyboard before you type "But what about Butler!!!" The issue is the P5. You gotta go, a MINIMUM of 12 and 4 in conference to get off the seeds of death and, in the modern world of the pods, a really crappy draw where you play the 1-4 on their home turf. The Butlers of the world can steal a game or 2 in december to get their RPI up and then dominate leagues WITHOUT NBA talent. P5s, however, play nearly every week a team (or 2) with at least 1-2 kids on the opposing roster who have a shot at the show.......well, except if you are playing the Bears this year ;-)

---

I think you're confusing what I said with something you thought I said. We aren't trying to get over a hump here. We're trying to get out of a hole. This isn't a question of getting to the second weekend, it's how to even get to the point where there's a shot at the tourney. Do you really think you can just hire a coach who will bring in some NBA level freshmen and make magic happen immediate? This program has had two consecutive 8-win seasons and was left with a bare roster. Again. There's no practice facility. The student body isn't engaged, attendance is pathetic. Academics are required. And even if such a miracle occurred wouldn't that same coach end up leaving?

We have the coach we have for at least three years most likely. We need a foundation for someone to build on and to recognize that there are no quick fixes here. So getting guys who aren't headed to the NBA as freshmen or sophs but who might get there or play pro ball internationally after three or four years with good coaching seems like a more realistic path for now. And you can win 20+ games and get into the tournament with those types of players, which puts you in position to make a more legit pitch to select high-level talent who might have a reason to want to go to Cal, particularly local kids like Kidd and Rabb or guys who don't mind leaving the beaten path. But you don't go from nowhere to being top level in a year or two.

I guess I could mention that we had four NBA draft picks and a bad game coach in 2016 and still didn't get past game one of the tourney. And two NBA draft picks in 2017 with a bad game coach and couldn't even win one damned NIT game.

I have no idea why you brought up Butler. I'd be more inclined to use Villanova or Wisconsin or Michigan State as models, programs that were built on a particular philosophy and regional but not always top tier talent. You might call the latter two programs old school but Villanova isn't, and Villanova became a power by recruiting very carefully, looking for a certain type of player who fit their ethic, and built a program with continuity while gradually getting better players to come in. They went 10 seasons only one player being drafted by the NBA and yet made the tourney 7 times in that stretch including a Final Four, before they started pulling in top tier talent more consistently.

And finally, you can **** off with that blue-hair comment. This isn't about modern game vs. old school. This is about facing reality and understanding what you're working with. Until we have an AD who knows what he's doing, a practice facility, and a program strong enough to at least play post-season and maybe draw a crowd to Haas what you're talking about is a pipe dream.

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

There's a big difference between a team with second tier players who are experienced and in depth vs. a team with one or two players who have "serious talent" but not the experience or depth. A good coach can take the first and make it seriously competitive. A bad coach will waste the second, and probably won't manage to keep adding the same kinds of players as they leave in one or two years. It's not like we have the choice between building up a program with more talent, more depth and more experience or just going with five stars. The first path is about our only hope right now to fix this program. It takes patience that obviously is in short supply these days.

No one is arguing for your last example. And I'm not arguing that we got the right guy, but given that we got that guy I think that's the path forward that has a chance of reviving this corpse.

---

That just is so not generally true in the P5. Sure. on RARE occasions you get a virginia. Many years you do not - instead watching teams with Soph and Frosh that are NBA talent make it to the second weekend.

Look, I GET that this narrative is really frustrating for the blue haired cal fans to lean into. But it is the bitter reality of the modern game. You gotta have kids that are capable of getting drafted to be able to get over the hump.

(And back away from your keyboard before you type "But what about Butler!!!" The issue is the P5. You gotta go, a MINIMUM of 12 and 4 in conference to get off the seeds of death and, in the modern world of the pods, a really crappy draw where you play the 1-4 on their home turf. The Butlers of the world can steal a game or 2 in december to get their RPI up and then dominate leagues WITHOUT NBA talent. P5s, however, play nearly every week a team (or 2) with at least 1-2 kids on the opposing roster who have a shot at the show.......well, except if you are playing the Bears this year ;-)

---

I think you're confusing what I said with something you thought I said. We aren't trying to get over a hump here. We're trying to get out of a hole. This isn't a question of getting to the second weekend, it's how to even get to the point where there's a shot at the tourney. Do you really think you can just hire a coach who will bring in some NBA level freshmen and make magic happen immediate? This program has had two consecutive 8-win seasons and was left with a bare roster. Again. There's no practice facility. The student body isn't engaged, attendance is pathetic. Academics are required. And even if such a miracle occurred wouldn't that same coach end up leaving?

We have the coach we have for at least three years most likely. We need a foundation for someone to build on and to recognize that there are no quick fixes here. So getting guys who aren't headed to the NBA as freshmen or sophs but who might get there or play pro ball internationally after three or four years with good coaching seems like a more realistic path for now. And you can win 20+ games and get into the tournament with those types of players, which puts you in position to make a more legit pitch to select high-level talent who might have a reason to want to go to Cal, particularly local kids like Kidd and Rabb or guys who don't mind leaving the beaten path. But you don't go from nowhere to being top level in a year or two.

I guess I could mention that we had four NBA draft picks and a bad game coach in 2016 and still didn't get past game one of the tourney. And two NBA draft picks in 2017 with a bad game coach and couldn't even win one damned NIT game.

I have no idea why you brought up Butler. I'd be more inclined to use Villanova or Wisconsin or Michigan State as models, programs that were built on a particular philosophy and regional but not always top tier talent. You might call the latter two programs old school but Villanova isn't, and Villanova became a power by recruiting very carefully, looking for a certain type of player who fit their ethic, and built a program with continuity while gradually getting better players to come in. They went 10 seasons only one player being drafted by the NBA and yet made the tourney 7 times in that stretch including a Final Four, before they started pulling in top tier talent more consistently.

And finally, you can **** off with that blue-hair comment. This isn't about modern game vs. old school. This is about facing reality and understanding what you're working with. Until we have an AD who knows what he's doing, a practice facility, and a program strong enough to at least play post-season and maybe draw a crowd to Haas what you're talking about is a pipe dream.

---

1) Talent (and actual statistics)

Welll....lets look at the schools you mentioned (the challenge of Bear's fans is that they have a pretty limited understanding of the NBA and the other schools in the NCAA

Nova - 2 players drafted in 2016
1 in 2017
4 in 2018
1 in 2019


Michigan state -

4 in 2016
2 in 2018

Wisky
3 - in 2015
1 in 2016
1 in 2017

For the Bears?
Wallace, Rabb, Brown and Bird since 2016. Only 1 of them currently has "stuck"

Yes - some VERY strange circumstances led to that loss to Hawaii as a 4....but by far our highest bid EVER.
(https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-East-Conference/59/Villanova/76/nba-players)


2) "Realistic path" vs. how it actually works.

No. This is, again, Bears with a lot more gray hair than I talking. Again, it is EXTREMELY rare anymore than you can get off the seeds of death (7 through 10) playing in a P5 if you don't win AT LEAST 13 games in conference. Sure. You might sneak in as an 8/9. Guess what? You get the recruiting "fun" of playing Kentucky in Memphis and losing by 30 as a function of the pod system. I am NOT convinced that actually helps rather than hurts your program because it underscores for the recruits just how much of a gap there is between you and the blue bloods that are competing for their talent.

3) The Enfeld data point

Most distressing should be right here at home. NO ONE is going to accuse Andy E. of being a great game coach. Ditto player development. You know what he does do? Recruit really really well. I leave it to you to figure out why but this is in a community where he is absolutely WAY down the pecking order of fan interest....at a place that is OVERWHELMININGLY a football school. For those playing at home USC has the number 1 recruit in the ****ING COUNTRY coming in next year This year they signed 2 fives, 2 fours, and 3 threes. https://247sports.com/college/usc/Season/2019-Basketball/Commits/ And it will be interesting to see how things go since they beat Harvard by 15 at there house. I wonder how much we lose to them at ours?

4) Lets really talk about Villanova.

It is important to note that they had a MUCH richer tradition than Cal with the Rolley teams. As you know, Jay Wright was an assistant under Rolley before going off to Hostra and then coming back (Can you say Travis? Cause I can). They also get the advantage of being the main school in Philly AND having generally limited (non-existent?) admin requirements as well as prep school pipeline from the East Coast Catholic schools. We should be so lucky. They have also been aided by the changes int he Big East in Basketball to become largely a Basketball only conference, removing challenging games like Syracuse,


Are we "stuck" with Mark Fox for three years? Yup. Will root for the bears and enjoy the journey.
But it is simply ludicrous to believe that "If we find a great teacher we can coach these kids into national champions." TALENT is king. You gotta be able to go get it, retain it, and use it. Sadly Cal is not committed to winning so we opt for door number 2 and alumns - some of them that resemble you - enable it because they don't appreciate that TALENT IS KING.

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

There's a big difference between a team with second tier players who are experienced and in depth vs. a team with one or two players who have "serious talent" but not the experience or depth. A good coach can take the first and make it seriously competitive. A bad coach will waste the second, and probably won't manage to keep adding the same kinds of players as they leave in one or two years. It's not like we have the choice between building up a program with more talent, more depth and more experience or just going with five stars. The first path is about our only hope right now to fix this program. It takes patience that obviously is in short supply these days.

No one is arguing for your last example. And I'm not arguing that we got the right guy, but given that we got that guy I think that's the path forward that has a chance of reviving this corpse.

---

That just is so not generally true in the P5. Sure. on RARE occasions you get a virginia. Many years you do not - instead watching teams with Soph and Frosh that are NBA talent make it to the second weekend.

Look, I GET that this narrative is really frustrating for the blue haired cal fans to lean into. But it is the bitter reality of the modern game. You gotta have kids that are capable of getting drafted to be able to get over the hump.

(And back away from your keyboard before you type "But what about Butler!!!" The issue is the P5. You gotta go, a MINIMUM of 12 and 4 in conference to get off the seeds of death and, in the modern world of the pods, a really crappy draw where you play the 1-4 on their home turf. The Butlers of the world can steal a game or 2 in december to get their RPI up and then dominate leagues WITHOUT NBA talent. P5s, however, play nearly every week a team (or 2) with at least 1-2 kids on the opposing roster who have a shot at the show.......well, except if you are playing the Bears this year ;-)

---

I think you're confusing what I said with something you thought I said. We aren't trying to get over a hump here. We're trying to get out of a hole. This isn't a question of getting to the second weekend, it's how to even get to the point where there's a shot at the tourney. Do you really think you can just hire a coach who will bring in some NBA level freshmen and make magic happen immediate? This program has had two consecutive 8-win seasons and was left with a bare roster. Again. There's no practice facility. The student body isn't engaged, attendance is pathetic. Academics are required. And even if such a miracle occurred wouldn't that same coach end up leaving?

We have the coach we have for at least three years most likely. We need a foundation for someone to build on and to recognize that there are no quick fixes here. So getting guys who aren't headed to the NBA as freshmen or sophs but who might get there or play pro ball internationally after three or four years with good coaching seems like a more realistic path for now. And you can win 20+ games and get into the tournament with those types of players, which puts you in position to make a more legit pitch to select high-level talent who might have a reason to want to go to Cal, particularly local kids like Kidd and Rabb or guys who don't mind leaving the beaten path. But you don't go from nowhere to being top level in a year or two.

I guess I could mention that we had four NBA draft picks and a bad game coach in 2016 and still didn't get past game one of the tourney. And two NBA draft picks in 2017 with a bad game coach and couldn't even win one damned NIT game.

I have no idea why you brought up Butler. I'd be more inclined to use Villanova or Wisconsin or Michigan State as models, programs that were built on a particular philosophy and regional but not always top tier talent. You might call the latter two programs old school but Villanova isn't, and Villanova became a power by recruiting very carefully, looking for a certain type of player who fit their ethic, and built a program with continuity while gradually getting better players to come in. They went 10 seasons only one player being drafted by the NBA and yet made the tourney 7 times in that stretch including a Final Four, before they started pulling in top tier talent more consistently.

And finally, you can **** off with that blue-hair comment. This isn't about modern game vs. old school. This is about facing reality and understanding what you're working with. Until we have an AD who knows what he's doing, a practice facility, and a program strong enough to at least play post-season and maybe draw a crowd to Haas what you're talking about is a pipe dream.

---

1) Talent (and actual statistics)

Welll....lets look at the schools you mentioned (the challenge of Bear's fans is that they have a pretty limited understanding of the NBA and the other schools in the NCAA

Nova - 2 players drafted in 2016
1 in 2017
4 in 2018
1 in 2019


Michigan state -

4 in 2016
2 in 2018

Wisky
3 - in 2015
1 in 2016
1 in 2017

For the Bears?
Wallace, Rabb, Brown and Bird since 2016. Only 1 of them currently has "stuck"

Yes - some VERY strange circumstances led to that loss to Hawaii as a 4....but by far our highest bid EVER.
(https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-East-Conference/59/Villanova/76/nba-players)


2) "Realistic path" vs. how it actually works.

No. This is, again, Bears with a lot more gray hair than I talking. Again, it is EXTREMELY rare anymore than you can get off the seeds of death (7 through 10) playing in a P5 if you don't win AT LEAST 13 games in conference. Sure. You might sneak in as an 8/9. Guess what? You get the recruiting "fun" of playing Kentucky in Memphis and losing by 30 as a function of the pod system. I am NOT convinced that actually helps rather than hurts your program because it underscores for the recruits just how much of a gap there is between you and the blue bloods that are competing for their talent.

3) The Enfeld data point

Most distressing should be right here at home. NO ONE is going to accuse Andy E. of being a great game coach. Ditto player development. You know what he does do? Recruit really really well. I leave it to you to figure out why but this is in a community where he is absolutely WAY down the pecking order of fan interest....at a place that is OVERWHELMININGLY a football school. For those playing at home USC has the number 1 recruit in the ****ING COUNTRY coming in next year This year they signed 2 fives, 2 fours, and 3 threes. https://247sports.com/college/usc/Season/2019-Basketball/Commits/ And it will be interesting to see how things go since they beat Harvard by 15 at there house. I wonder how much we lose to them at ours?

4) Lets really talk about Villanova.

It is important to note that they had a MUCH richer tradition than Cal with the Rolley teams. As you know, Jay Wright was an assistant under Rolley before going off to Hostra and then coming back (Can you say Travis? Cause I can). They also get the advantage of being the main school in Philly AND having generally limited (non-existent?) admin requirements as well as prep school pipeline from the East Coast Catholic schools. We should be so lucky. They have also been aided by the changes int he Big East in Basketball to become largely a Basketball only conference, removing challenging games like Syracuse,


Are we "stuck" with Mark Fox for three years? Yup. Will root for the bears and enjoy the journey.
But it is simply ludicrous to believe that "If we find a great teacher we can coach these kids into national champions." TALENT is king. You gotta be able to go get it, retain it, and use it. Sadly Cal is not committed to winning so we opt for door number 2 and alumns - some of them that resemble you - enable it because they don't appreciate that TALENT IS KING.

---

Some valid points, SCT, although since I have gray hair, I guess you will discount anything I say. A couple of minor points. Villanova is currently the main school in Philly, but that hasn't always been the case. There were a number of years in which St. Joe's was king (remember their Final Four team?) and Nova was 2nd banana. This doesn't invalidate your point, just a small correction.

I'm not sure Andy Enfield is a great counter-example. In the first place, they haven't exactly been a perennial Final Four team even with Enfield's recruiting, and 2ndly they are highly likely to be hit with a major NCAA hammer for paying recruits. We were able to "recruit" really well under Bozeman as long as players' fathers got $30K in cash.

UrsaMajor said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

There's a big difference between a team with second tier players who are experienced and in depth vs. a team with one or two players who have "serious talent" but not the experience or depth. A good coach can take the first and make it seriously competitive. A bad coach will waste the second, and probably won't manage to keep adding the same kinds of players as they leave in one or two years. It's not like we have the choice between building up a program with more talent, more depth and more experience or just going with five stars. The first path is about our only hope right now to fix this program. It takes patience that obviously is in short supply these days.

No one is arguing for your last example. And I'm not arguing that we got the right guy, but given that we got that guy I think that's the path forward that has a chance of reviving this corpse.

---

That just is so not generally true in the P5. Sure. on RARE occasions you get a virginia. Many years you do not - instead watching teams with Soph and Frosh that are NBA talent make it to the second weekend.

Look, I GET that this narrative is really frustrating for the blue haired cal fans to lean into. But it is the bitter reality of the modern game. You gotta have kids that are capable of getting drafted to be able to get over the hump.

(And back away from your keyboard before you type "But what about Butler!!!" The issue is the P5. You gotta go, a MINIMUM of 12 and 4 in conference to get off the seeds of death and, in the modern world of the pods, a really crappy draw where you play the 1-4 on their home turf. The Butlers of the world can steal a game or 2 in december to get their RPI up and then dominate leagues WITHOUT NBA talent. P5s, however, play nearly every week a team (or 2) with at least 1-2 kids on the opposing roster who have a shot at the show.......well, except if you are playing the Bears this year ;-)

---

I think you're confusing what I said with something you thought I said. We aren't trying to get over a hump here. We're trying to get out of a hole. This isn't a question of getting to the second weekend, it's how to even get to the point where there's a shot at the tourney. Do you really think you can just hire a coach who will bring in some NBA level freshmen and make magic happen immediate? This program has had two consecutive 8-win seasons and was left with a bare roster. Again. There's no practice facility. The student body isn't engaged, attendance is pathetic. Academics are required. And even if such a miracle occurred wouldn't that same coach end up leaving?

We have the coach we have for at least three years most likely. We need a foundation for someone to build on and to recognize that there are no quick fixes here. So getting guys who aren't headed to the NBA as freshmen or sophs but who might get there or play pro ball internationally after three or four years with good coaching seems like a more realistic path for now. And you can win 20+ games and get into the tournament with those types of players, which puts you in position to make a more legit pitch to select high-level talent who might have a reason to want to go to Cal, particularly local kids like Kidd and Rabb or guys who don't mind leaving the beaten path. But you don't go from nowhere to being top level in a year or two.

I guess I could mention that we had four NBA draft picks and a bad game coach in 2016 and still didn't get past game one of the tourney. And two NBA draft picks in 2017 with a bad game coach and couldn't even win one damned NIT game.

I have no idea why you brought up Butler. I'd be more inclined to use Villanova or Wisconsin or Michigan State as models, programs that were built on a particular philosophy and regional but not always top tier talent. You might call the latter two programs old school but Villanova isn't, and Villanova became a power by recruiting very carefully, looking for a certain type of player who fit their ethic, and built a program with continuity while gradually getting better players to come in. They went 10 seasons only one player being drafted by the NBA and yet made the tourney 7 times in that stretch including a Final Four, before they started pulling in top tier talent more consistently.

And finally, you can **** off with that blue-hair comment. This isn't about modern game vs. old school. This is about facing reality and understanding what you're working with. Until we have an AD who knows what he's doing, a practice facility, and a program strong enough to at least play post-season and maybe draw a crowd to Haas what you're talking about is a pipe dream.

---

1) Talent (and actual statistics)

Welll....lets look at the schools you mentioned (the challenge of Bear's fans is that they have a pretty limited understanding of the NBA and the other schools in the NCAA

Nova - 2 players drafted in 2016
1 in 2017
4 in 2018
1 in 2019


Michigan state -

4 in 2016
2 in 2018

Wisky
3 - in 2015
1 in 2016
1 in 2017

For the Bears?
Wallace, Rabb, Brown and Bird since 2016. Only 1 of them currently has "stuck"

Yes - some VERY strange circumstances led to that loss to Hawaii as a 4....but by far our highest bid EVER.
(https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-East-Conference/59/Villanova/76/nba-players)


2) "Realistic path" vs. how it actually works.

No. This is, again, Bears with a lot more gray hair than I talking. Again, it is EXTREMELY rare anymore than you can get off the seeds of death (7 through 10) playing in a P5 if you don't win AT LEAST 13 games in conference. Sure. You might sneak in as an 8/9. Guess what? You get the recruiting "fun" of playing Kentucky in Memphis and losing by 30 as a function of the pod system. I am NOT convinced that actually helps rather than hurts your program because it underscores for the recruits just how much of a gap there is between you and the blue bloods that are competing for their talent.

3) The Enfeld data point

Most distressing should be right here at home. NO ONE is going to accuse Andy E. of being a great game coach. Ditto player development. You know what he does do? Recruit really really well. I leave it to you to figure out why but this is in a community where he is absolutely WAY down the pecking order of fan interest....at a place that is OVERWHELMININGLY a football school. For those playing at home USC has the number 1 recruit in the ****ING COUNTRY coming in next year This year they signed 2 fives, 2 fours, and 3 threes. https://247sports.com/college/usc/Season/2019-Basketball/Commits/ And it will be interesting to see how things go since they beat Harvard by 15 at there house. I wonder how much we lose to them at ours?

4) Lets really talk about Villanova.

It is important to note that they had a MUCH richer tradition than Cal with the Rolley teams. As you know, Jay Wright was an assistant under Rolley before going off to Hostra and then coming back (Can you say Travis? Cause I can). They also get the advantage of being the main school in Philly AND having generally limited (non-existent?) admin requirements as well as prep school pipeline from the East Coast Catholic schools. We should be so lucky. They have also been aided by the changes int he Big East in Basketball to become largely a Basketball only conference, removing challenging games like Syracuse,


Are we "stuck" with Mark Fox for three years? Yup. Will root for the bears and enjoy the journey.
But it is simply ludicrous to believe that "If we find a great teacher we can coach these kids into national champions." TALENT is king. You gotta be able to go get it, retain it, and use it. Sadly Cal is not committed to winning so we opt for door number 2 and alumns - some of them that resemble you - enable it because they don't appreciate that TALENT IS KING.

---

Some valid points, SCT, although since I have gray hair, I guess you will discount anything I say. A couple of minor points. Villanova is currently the main school in Philly, but that hasn't always been the case. There were a number of years in which St. Joe's was king (remember their Final Four team?) and Nova was 2nd banana. This doesn't invalidate your point, just a small correction.

I'm not sure Andy Enfield is a great counter-example. In the first place, they haven't exactly been a perennial Final Four team even with Enfield's recruiting, and 2ndly they are highly likely to be hit with a major NCAA hammer for paying recruits. We were able to "recruit" really well under Bozeman as long as players' fathers got $30K in cash.

---

USC - no. They haven't. However, They are 9-2 this year and their top recruits are tearing it up. It will be actually interesting to see if they get hit with the hammer - I will not hold my breath (see NCAA under your dictionary corrupt).

I have gray hair as well so I can't discount EVERY point....it is that I just get SO tired of Cal fans whose basketball knowledge comes from watching Hoosiers every year. If you could compete in the current landscape by "coaching up" you know who would be doing that? Duke. Cause they could have EVERY guy who needed 4 years to become a monster every cycle. And yet Coach K, understanding the current landscape and with more resources than GOD for his program undertands that underclass talent wins. Doesn't ALWAYS prevail but gives you the best chance in a one and done dance where scouting is limited, where talent is required on neutral courts and where there is such an advantage getting one of the top 16 seeds and thus "protected" in the first 2 rounds.

I don't know SCT's experience in bigtime sports, but my experience isn't just watching Hoosiers. While "talent" is necessary to make the Final Four, second tier, sell coached "talent" lands one in the top 25 of basketball. On the on the other hand, all the talent in the world misdirected just becomes a disappointment. The difference between super talent and "OK" talent is great, but few programs have super talent.
Regarding your view that football and basketball are different because of the professional possibilities for the players, I think you are out of date. I don't have real numbers, but I would be surprised if the percentage of football player graduates making money is materially greater than the percentage of swimmers making money on swimming (I agree that a few football players make much more money than the highest paid swimmers). Again, on percentage, even water polo will have a relatively high percentage of players making money (If a senior class has 10 and 4 make the national team or go to Europe, that is 40%. Highly unlikely that 40% of the football seniors are getting paid to play). I think football and basketball are different largely because they were different from the outset.
Finally, you don't like to lose, but is top 25 good enough? Do you really favor compromising the purposes of the University in order to enter the semi-pro world of Alabama? You accept that the University is part of the NCAA entertainment machine, but should it be?

bearchamp said:

---

I don't know SCT's experience in bigtime sports, but my experience isn't just watching Hoosiers. While "talent" is necessary to make the Final Four, second tier, sell coached "talent" lands one in the top 25 of basketball. On the on the other hand, all the talent in the world misdirected just becomes a disappointment. The difference between super talent and "OK" talent is great, but few programs have super talent.
Regarding your view that football and basketball are different because of the professional possibilities for the players, I think you are out of date. I don't have real numbers, but I would be surprised if the percentage of football player graduates making money is materially greater than the percentage of swimmers making money on swimming (I agree that a few football players make much more money than the highest paid swimmers). Again, on percentage, even water polo will have a relatively high percentage of players making money (If a senior class has 10 and 4 make the national team or go to Europe, that is 40%. Highly unlikely that 40% of the football seniors are getting paid to play). I think football and basketball are different largely because they were different from the outset.
Finally, you don't like to lose, but is top 25 good enough? Do you really favor compromising the purposes of the University in order to enter the semi-pro world of Alabama? You accept that the University is part of the NCAA entertainment machine, but should it be?

---

I agree to an extent with your point; however, when you compare the percentage of football players and swimmers or water polo players, I'm not sure I agree fully with your figures. For instance, water polo players who make the national team don't really make money; they make enough for expenses while playing, but not anything to bank. I'm not sure about the 40% figure either. Playing water polo in Europe is fiercely competitive, and most European players are superior to Americans. As for football, you are correct that very few will make the NFL, but many more will make money out of football as coaches, etc. Not anywhere near 40%, but more than will play professionally. Basketball is different all together in that many players can play overseas (hey, even Brandon Chauca!).

As for your last paragraph, I agree 100%

bearchamp said:

---

I don't know SCT's experience in bigtime sports, but my experience isn't just watching Hoosiers. While "talent" is necessary to make the Final Four, second tier, sell coached "talent" lands one in the top 25 of basketball. On the on the other hand, all the talent in the world misdirected just becomes a disappointment. The difference between super talent and "OK" talent is great, but few programs have super talent.
Regarding your view that football and basketball are different because of the professional possibilities for the players, I think you are out of date. I don't have real numbers, but I would be surprised if the percentage of football player graduates making money is materially greater than the percentage of swimmers making money on swimming (I agree that a few football players make much more money than the highest paid swimmers). Again, on percentage, even water polo will have a relatively high percentage of players making money (If a senior class has 10 and 4 make the national team or go to Europe, that is 40%. Highly unlikely that 40% of the football seniors are getting paid to play). I think football and basketball are different largely because they were different from the outset.
Finally, you don't like to lose, but is top 25 good enough? Do you really favor compromising the purposes of the University in order to enter the semi-pro world of Alabama? You accept that the University is part of the NCAA entertainment machine, but should it be?

---

http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.statistics.20160604.04.html#Sec3
Here are statistics. 5 starts have a 60% chance of being drafted in the NFL. 4 starts at about 30% chance.

And here are your NBA statistics (not as good cause not as rigorous a model but I am NOT getting paid so I am not running the analysis on their data)
https://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/crunching-the-numbers-recruiting-rankings-and-the-nba-draft

So if you are a 5 start you have about a 2 in 3 chance of being drafted. Doesn't necessarily mean you will play int the NBA but your odds are not bad. 4 stars are about 1 in 5. And then drops tremendously for 3 stars (your diamonds in the rought at 1 in 38).

Now look, if you play in a league of 3 stars it will be OK to trot out a bunch of 3 starts. You might do OK. But when you play in a p5 you gotta compete.

finally to your last paragraph? Absolutely. If Cal doesn't want to be in the pac-12 and compete with Oregon, USC and Washington then honestly it should go Big West and compete with other UCs and CSUs. What ISN"T acceptable is being in the Pac12, competing with one arm tied behind our back compared to others and losing badly.

I don't think many basketball players playing in Europe or the Phillipines or elsewhere in the very minor leagues are "banking" either. As for the number of WP players able to play abroad, the numbers are pretty large: caveat, that many are basically subsistence and not "banking". As for sports being a path to coaching or other sports professional opportunities, I don't think that SCT was referencing those opportunities, and I suggest that many of those opportunities are equally as great in "nonrevenue" sports. As a nonrevenue player, I have make a quite handsome living out of the sports industry.