I will concede a correlation between "starts" and draft; so what? The issue is not draftability, it is the ability for a team to win. Dick Padgett had tremendous talent and fielded totally underachieving teams. Campenelli had OK talent and did OK; although he didn't seem able to coach superior talented players. Brown, Bird and Rabb didn't go very far for all their "stars".
Well these 5 games have shown me a few things
17,975 Views |
189 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by bluesaxe
Just a thought. Have you seen the results for the Naval Academy in football? I doubt they are following the Alabama/SC model.
Uggh.....bearchamp said:
I will concede a correlation between "starts" and draft; so what? The issue is not draftability, it is the ability for a team to win. Dick Padgett had tremendous talent and fielded totally underachieving teams. Campenelli had OK talent and did OK; although he didn't seem able to coach superior talented players. Brown, Bird and Rabb didn't go very far for all their "stars".
The problem is that it implies that "our" coach is just so much smarter than "theirs" and thus even though they have a ton more talent (aka all those 4 and 5 stars that people paid a LOT of money believe can help them win) we will be, like some team from Hickory High, pull it out at the end with our swinging gate play and a nice jumper from the elbow.
No.
You HAVE to have talent. And that talent has a GOOD shot of making money playing a game.
SO...
1) You need a dedicated practice facility. Worrisome (in the extreme) is that we haven't heard much (anything?) about that for a few months. Needs to get done. The players the program NEED WANT IT. Again, if you think we can compete against the big boys in this conference without it you are smoking something
2) We can ALWAY find the odd examples of Dick Padget or Lou C. The issue is that to SUSTAIN winning and to not rely upon odd alingments of stars you need to put out an equal amount of talent. YEs. ON ANY given Sunday...Yada yada yada...
I am not interested (at all) about any given sunday. I am interested in long term program building. That means talent equal to the upper third of the conference.
3) And the worst thing about the Hickory High myth is that it lets the administration (and donors) completely off the hook. If cal wants to compete for titles it needs to attract 4 (and occassionaly 5) start talent. If it doesn't want to lean into that it should go play in the Big West. Believing we can coach up 2 and 3 start EE majors to beat future NBA stars is ludicrous in the extreme.
Take care of your Chicken
And Navy???
You are doing that to trigger me? Admit it.bearchamp said:
Just a thought. Have you seen the results for the Naval Academy in football? I doubt they are following the Alabama/SC model.
The MIGHTY midshipmen (and I thank them for their service) have beaten the mighty Holy Cross Rollers and the always great Tulane Green Wave. They got blow out by Notre Dame.
Again, if you want to compete in that sort of conference that is always an option. Cal would probably do great, occasionally getting an (repeat!!) invitation to the LIBERTY BOWL. But we play in the Pac12 - where a bunch of kids on the other side are going pro.
To understand this look at Utah. It struggled initially with WAC/Mountain West talent. They upped their recruiting game (as well as benefiting from the decline in BYU football and more kids coming back from Mission playing for them). They were choke away form being in the playoff.
Take care of your Chicken
I just looked at the current football rankings for lame 3 star and below teams. No. 23 nationally.
and they went 3-10 the year prior. 7-6 the year before that. I think that gives them the same record as Wilcox. Wooop de dooo.bearchamp said:
I just looked at the current football rankings for lame 3 star and below teams. No. 23 nationally.
Take care of your Chicken
Regarding you last paragraph, speaking for myself, I absolutely don't want to join Alabama's world and I have spoken out many times about various proposals to diminish academics in order to win. In my opinion it is hard to argue based on results or eye test that Cal has run its revenue sports in anything but a completely incompetent and flat out stupid manner for 60 years. There is too much for me to detail and we all know the details anyway. If Cal stops shooting itself in the head and what we get is a team that is say in the top third of conference and every couple years is top 25 and that is just the best we can do, I'll be fine with that.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?
My frustration is the incompetence is obvious and what I have seen the fan base do my whole life is this process:
1. Team stinks. We must build
2. Moronic coaching hire
3. How do we know coaching hire is moronic. We need to slowly build. We have the coach we have. Shut up and be positive for 4-5 years when we will really know.
4. Moronic coaching hire turns out to be moronic.
5. Fans slowly turn after 4-5 years, fans universally mad for 2 weeks
6. Cal fires coach.
7 Team stinks. We must build.
8. Moronic coaching hire
lather rinse repeat.
When I first joined what was then Cyberbears, what is not BearInsider, Tom Holmoe was the coach. It was my first foray into a Cal online community. I was flabbergasted to learn that anyone supported Holmoe, or Kasser or didn't realize that Cal's athletic department was a giant cluster you know what. But not only were there those, they were in great number making mindnumbingly ridiculous arguments for the support. And yet we keep repeating this every damned time.
Yes, I know. Fill in the blank name is our new AD or chancellor and they are really good and going to change things and we should give their obviously stupid policies and obviously stupid coaching hires a chance because I was here during the rough times when the last person was here who at that time I said was brilliant and caring and now I say was stupid and apathetic and I now say this one is brilliant and caring and the new nonsensical hires/policies will work and we should just support them because they are going to be around for 5 years anyway.
Bottom line is Cal is down to 3000 attendance because the rest of us know that Cal will never be competent and there aren't enough fans who care to make Cal accountable.
Wyking Jones was probably the most brilliant hire of my lifetime because at least somebody decided we just suck and we might as well not pay for sucking. Although, I'd have preferred going no more than $500K per year for the privilege of sucking. But Cal has to stick to a course of sucking or not sucking. $2.6M could have bought a good coach this season, but unfortunately it had to buy 2 coaches because Cal can't decide what it wants to be.
I think the "all or nothing" approach is misguided. We should accept that Cal is not going to be Kentucky. Notwithstanding, the Princeton offense was developed for a reason. Just look at Purdue v Virginia this year. The right coach and develop an appropriate program. Look at what Charmin Smith is doing with WBB this year despite a dearth of big "stars". Look at what Stanford is doing without being Kentucky. No one has ever said it would be easy.
I don't want to be Kentucky. I want to beat Oregon, UCLA and Washington on a semi-regular basis. Just like I don't want to be Bama but get to a Rosebowl before I die. Playing the second week of the NCAA tournament would also be nice....been over 25 years since we have been.bearchamp said:
I think the "all or nothing" approach is misguided. We should accept that Cal is not going to be Kentucky. Notwithstanding, the Princeton offense was developed for a reason. Just look at Purdue v Virginia this year. The right coach and develop an appropriate program. Look at what Charmin Smith is doing with WBB this year despite a dearth of big "stars". Look at what Stanford is doing without being Kentucky. No one has ever said it would be easy.
Take care of your Chicken
I am not in agreement with socal about a lot and I would not make academic concessions to recruiting. However, he is right to shoot down this idea that we can be a consistent winner in P-5 with an Ivy league or service academy approach. There is a real problem with Cal fans aesthetically liking teams and often players who overachieve their talent. But you don't get awards for overachieving.bearchamp said:
I think the "all or nothing" approach is misguided. We should accept that Cal is not going to be Kentucky. Notwithstanding, the Princeton offense was developed for a reason. Just look at Purdue v Virginia this year. The right coach and develop an appropriate program. Look at what Charmin Smith is doing with WBB this year despite a dearth of big "stars". Look at what Stanford is doing without being Kentucky. No one has ever said it would be easy.
Here is a fact. NCAA seeding is a good way to determine how well a team did in the regular season. Our highest seeded teams in the last 60 years came with Bozeman recruits and Martin recruits. Our only two Sweet Sixteens with Bozeman recruits. I don't want either of those guys, especially Bozeman who was a crooked slimeball. My point is that our top results came with high level recruiting and very questionable coaching. Would Monty have done a lot more with Bozeman's recruits? Absolutely. But the point is wins not wins over expectations. Back to my point to Ursa about Calipari. Does anyone care that he might not be the greatest "coach"? Why should they? 15 conference championships should say enough about the overall package. No we aren't Kentucky and never will be (no reason we can't be UMass, though).
There is nothing wrong with running the "picket fence" at the end of the game. If it worked for Hickory, why not us????Quote:
.it is that I just get SO tired of Cal fans whose basketball knowledge comes from watching Hoosiers every year.
I love the passion of OTB and SCT. However, their rant against Cal fans is misguided, albeit hilarious. Reminds me of the alcoholic father who screamed about his kids being losers. Was one kid a loser? Yes. Was he one of his kids? Yes. But all of the siblings suffered. That type of misplaced venom does more damage than good - so why do they do it? They are bright enough guys to call out indivuals (I have been their target before), without resorting to irrational generalizations. Please boys - use your power for good!
Having said that, I will reinforce some of their irrational generalizations, that I wholeheartedly agree with - at least wrt Basketball:
After seeing 5 games and then some (the OP starting point). Here is what I see as the best case scenario of the Knowlton/Fox experience. Fox gets the most out of current players and recruits some players to fit his program. After three years, CalmBball is playing OK and has reached it's ceiling. Knowlton and the larger Campus Community is somewhat supporting the program, but no one is really SATISFIED. However, during three years, the college basketball community recognizes three things:
Cal parts ways with Fox and hires a younger high-ceiling coach who proves worthy of enough money to keep around for a decade or two (that is why we want someone under about 45 yrs old).
While I would have liked that to happen with Jones replacement, I don't think the bullets were in place (and aren't yet). The best alternative provided by ANYONE was Decuire - and our next hire needs to be better than Travis D (although I think he was just as capable of being the transition coach that Fox is destined to be - and could have been had cheaper, but I guess he didn't have the interview).
Having said that, I will reinforce some of their irrational generalizations, that I wholeheartedly agree with - at least wrt Basketball:
- Has the program lost their fans? Yes. I'm one of the die hards, but it is lonely and sad. We're all that's left. The numbers don't lie - 3,000 is being generous. Most of the young alum base and students are not interested. The fair weather fans also need to be brought back. There is only one long-term proven method. Winning. That's it folks.
- The administration has been a joke forever. This unfortunately is true. It goes beyond hiring (and keeping) coaches. I don't think it is intentional or institutionally structured - simply dysfunction of the highest order. The best we have is hope. Knowlton seems like the right direction, but he did not come from a proven P5 program with a record of strong hires. He IS doing a lot to address the dysfunction - and I don't think OTB or SCT give him enough or any credit for that.
- Talent is important. I find it hard to believe anyone is still arguing this point. Pac-12 is a 4 star league in Bball. That means an occasional 5 star and a couple 3 stars. Mostly 3-stars with a 2-star and occasional 4 star won't cut it. And yes, we all agree it needs to be coached. However, even those 100 3 stars that get coached up to the NBA come from a few programs that have proven staffs that can develop players. Cal hasn't had that level of player development EVER in my memory and doesn't hire coaches to do so. Seriously, most of those 3-stars powerhouses are in mid-major conferences, where it makes sense.
- Cal can't figure out what it wants. This is sort of true, but I don't think it is a simple as they want it to be. For example, Cal can't just drop out of P12 Basketball and remain in the other sports (many of which we compete at the highest level). However, as OTB points out, if Cal wants to stay in the P12, but not be competitive in Bball, then at least do it in a pragmatic, cost-effective way. Overpaying two HC salaries for mediocrity will get you fired in the real world.
After seeing 5 games and then some (the OP starting point). Here is what I see as the best case scenario of the Knowlton/Fox experience. Fox gets the most out of current players and recruits some players to fit his program. After three years, CalmBball is playing OK and has reached it's ceiling. Knowlton and the larger Campus Community is somewhat supporting the program, but no one is really SATISFIED. However, during three years, the college basketball community recognizes three things:
- Knowlton is stable and supports the program
- It is no longer a rebuild - nor a stepping stone, but a place to really build a program.
- Knowlton has now spent enough years at the P5 level to build relationships that he has some names and connections to hire better.
- Cal has the opportunity to do better in Bball
Cal parts ways with Fox and hires a younger high-ceiling coach who proves worthy of enough money to keep around for a decade or two (that is why we want someone under about 45 yrs old).
While I would have liked that to happen with Jones replacement, I don't think the bullets were in place (and aren't yet). The best alternative provided by ANYONE was Decuire - and our next hire needs to be better than Travis D (although I think he was just as capable of being the transition coach that Fox is destined to be - and could have been had cheaper, but I guess he didn't have the interview).
Gee, aren't you a jumping the gun on Fox? Also, we really don't know how good Cal can be with a good coach. And, nothing written here explains why we can't be Stanford.
I honestly don't think I'm jumping the gun. Do I think Fox is better than Jones? - Absolutely! Do I think Fox will be better than Martin, Braun or Campanelli? Hopefully is the best I can give you bearchamp. Here's my betting distribution for you. Earmark this page and let's check back after year three.bearchamp said:
Gee, aren't you a jumping the gun on Fox? Also, we really don't know how good Cal can be with a good coach. And, nothing written here explains why we can't be Stanford.
1. Fox results are disappointing <15 wins per season:10%
2. Fox results are as expected ~ 15-20 wins per season: 60%
3. Fox results are impressive >20 wins per season: 30%
To clarify, 20 wins per season is NOT impressive in general. Only considering where we're coming from. And my worse case scenario fits in here. Because the only way Fox gets 20 wins per season in three years is something like 15, 20 then 25 wins. At that point I'm giddy and wanting to sign him long term and buy him a ranch. But what if he then regresses to 20 wins every year and we are perpetually on the bubble and then slowly fizzles (sound familiar? see Campanelli, Braun et al).
Yep. And the support was almost universal. In that respect, the Cal online fanbase has grown smarter as we always have people on both sides of the debate. But the "Support stupidity because it's our stupidity" faction is still there and will never go away. These are the people who would be content with 10-8 in conference and barely making the tournament.OaktownBear said:
When I first joined what was then Cyberbears, what is not BearInsider, Tom Holmoe was the coach. It was my first foray into a Cal online community. I was flabbergasted to learn that anyone supported Holmoe, or Kasser or didn't realize that Cal's athletic department was a giant cluster you know what. But not only were there those, they were in great number making mindnumbingly ridiculous arguments for the support. And yet we keep repeating this every damned time.
Fox is not on the level of a Holmoe or Wyking hire, so I hope for it to work out better than it will because nothing I do in the immediate future will have an effect.
Excellent post, BB. One slight correction: Travis was, in fact, the first person interviewed, but apparently bombed the interview badly.
UrsaMajor said:
Excellent post, BB. One slight correction: Travis was, in fact, the first person interviewed, but apparently bombed the interview badly.
Montana had just won the Big Sky for the second year in a row and had just lost to Michigan in the first round of the tournament on March 21 after giving them a scare (down only 3 at halftime). DeCuire and the team flew back to Montana from Iowa on Monday the 23rd, the day Jones was fired. Fox was announced as HC with contract agreement only 5 days later. If DeCuire was the first guy interviewed it was probably something like only a day or two after he and the team got back from the NCAA tournament? Maybe it would have been more reasonable to give him time to prepare? What was the rush? The NCAA Tournament was still going on there might be good up and coming coaches to interview. It is a quiet period so there are no recruits to keep on board.
Plus, on March 21 a former Cal football student trainer made public sexual harassment claims against Cal coaches and players. It was in the news all week. She was on the Today Show March 27. Shouldn't Knowlton have been dealing with that? Making the proper investigations and public statements? Why rush a critical coaching hire with huge long term consequences when you should be dealing with a more pressing issue?
Based on testimony of one guy.UrsaMajor said:
Excellent post, BB. One slight correction: Travis was, in fact, the first person interviewed, but apparently bombed the interview badly.
Beached - some good, some bad in here. I'm going to be an ass and let the good stuff go uncommented and focus on my snarky disagreement. Why change my mode of operation now?BeachedBear said:
I love the passion of OTB and SCT. However, their rant against Cal fans is misguided, albeit hilarious. Reminds me of the alcoholic father who screamed about his kids being losers. Was one kid a loser? Yes. Was he one of his kids? Yes. But all of the siblings suffered. That type of misplaced venom does more damage than good - so why do they do it? They are bright enough guys to call out indivuals (I have been their target before), without resorting to irrational generalizations. Please boys - use your power for good!
Having said that, I will reinforce some of their irrational generalizations, that I wholeheartedly agree with - at least wrt Basketball:
- Has the program lost their fans? Yes. I'm one of the die hards, but it is lonely and sad. We're all that's left. The numbers don't lie - 3,000 is being generous. Most of the young alum base and students are not interested. The fair weather fans also need to be brought back. There is only one long-term proven method. Winning. That's it folks.
- The administration has been a joke forever. This unfortunately is true. It goes beyond hiring (and keeping) coaches. I don't think it is intentional or institutionally structured - simply dysfunction of the highest order. The best we have is hope. Knowlton seems like the right direction, but he did not come from a proven P5 program with a record of strong hires. He IS doing a lot to address the dysfunction - and I don't think OTB or SCT give him enough or any credit for that.
- Talent is important. I find it hard to believe anyone is still arguing this point. Pac-12 is a 4 star league in Bball. That means an occasional 5 star and a couple 3 stars. Mostly 3-stars with a 2-star and occasional 4 star won't cut it. And yes, we all agree it needs to be coached. However, even those 100 3 stars that get coached up to the NBA come from a few programs that have proven staffs that can develop players. Cal hasn't had that level of player development EVER in my memory and doesn't hire coaches to do so. Seriously, most of those 3-stars powerhouses are in mid-major conferences, where it makes sense.
- Cal can't figure out what it wants. This is sort of true, but I don't think it is a simple as they want it to be. For example, Cal can't just drop out of P12 Basketball and remain in the other sports (many of which we compete at the highest level). However, as OTB points out, if Cal wants to stay in the P12, but not be competitive in Bball, then at least do it in a pragmatic, cost-effective way. Overpaying two HC salaries for mediocrity will get you fired in the real world.
After seeing 5 games and then some (the OP starting point). Here is what I see as the best case scenario of the Knowlton/Fox experience. Fox gets the most out of current players and recruits some players to fit his program. After three years, CalmBball is playing OK and has reached it's ceiling. Knowlton and the larger Campus Community is somewhat supporting the program, but no one is really SATISFIED. However, during three years, the college basketball community recognizes three things:
- Knowlton is stable and supports the program
- It is no longer a rebuild - nor a stepping stone, but a place to really build a program.
- Knowlton has now spent enough years at the P5 level to build relationships that he has some names and connections to hire better.
- Cal has the opportunity to do better in Bball
Cal parts ways with Fox and hires a younger high-ceiling coach who proves worthy of enough money to keep around for a decade or two (that is why we want someone under about 45 yrs old).
While I would have liked that to happen with Jones replacement, I don't think the bullets were in place (and aren't yet). The best alternative provided by ANYONE was Decuire - and our next hire needs to be better than Travis D (although I think he was just as capable of being the transition coach that Fox is destined to be - and could have been had cheaper, but I guess he didn't have the interview).
For me, it is not a matter of whether he is a nice guy, a competent guy, a hard worker or an overall good AD in the right situation. No he is not the right direction for Cal. As you say, the administration has been a joke forever. You don't change that by nibbling around the edges. He has been there for a year and eight months. The idea that he is somehow new or just getting started needs to go. Any dysfunction in his department after 20 months is his own. Further, hiring men's basketball coaches and football coaches are the key public tasks he does. The process he described in the press was embarrassing. I don't care if it had resulted in Travis, Fox or Coach K. It was embarrassing. If that was not an accurate reflection of his process as some have claimed (and I think those claims have little credibility) than he should be slammed for being so glib with the press to make himself look foolish.Quote:
Knowlton seems like the right direction, but he did not come from a proven P5 program with a record of strong hires. He IS doing a lot to address the dysfunction - and I don't think OTB or SCT give him enough or any credit for that
To be clear, dropping out of the conference is all SCT, not me. 1. I know we can't. Gotta be in football, men's and women's basketball, women's vollyball. 2. We need the conference payout. It is a lot of money we will not get at a lesser conference. When it comes to basketball, that is the only reason we make money.Quote:
Cal can't figure out what it wants. This is sort of true, but I don't think it is a simple as they want it to be. For example, Cal can't just drop out of P12 Basketball and remain in the other sports (many of which we compete at the highest level). However, as OTB points out, if Cal wants to stay in the P12, but not be competitive in Bball, then at least do it in a pragmatic, cost-effective way. Overpaying two HC salaries for mediocrity will get you fired in the real world.
But yes, switching back and forth between I don't give a shyte and we have to do something! Gets you to pay $2.5M a year for a 2nd chair assistant and gets you to pay a couple hundred million dollars for a football team without a winning conference record in 10 tries. And it gets you a fan base that says screw you and leaves.
To quote the old Blueblood "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Quote:
After seeing 5 games and then some (the OP starting point). Here is what I see as the best case scenario of the Knowlton/Fox experience. Fox gets the most out of current players and recruits some players to fit his program. After three years, CalmBball is playing OK and has reached it's ceiling. Knowlton and the larger Campus Community is somewhat supporting the program, but no one is really SATISFIED. However, during three years, the college basketball community recognizes three things:
- Knowlton is stable and supports the program
- It is no longer a rebuild - nor a stepping stone, but a place to really build a program.
- Knowlton has now spent enough years at the P5 level to build relationships that he has some names and connections to hire better.
- Cal has the opportunity to do better in Bball
Cal parts ways with Fox and hires a younger high-ceiling coach who proves worthy of enough money to keep around for a decade or two (that is why we want someone under about 45 yrs old).
That isn't how Cal works and you know it. If Fox is up to 15 wins by Year 3, he'll get 5 years. If he pulls off an NIT by year 5, he'll get 7 or 8 years. Scrapes a 13 seed in the tournament he'll get 10. Because Cal doesn't determine what is acceptable and set that standard. They look at last year and set expectations for next. If he wins 10 this year, it will be "improvement". If I were you, I would look at Fox's record at Georgia, and add a couple years more to the downward slide that Cal will allow. As I've said, Cal doesn't fire a coach until the team completely gives up on them. Wait, I have to amend that to account for the Sonny Dykes experience. If the team gives up on the coach in Year 1, we call them bad apples and give him another chance until such time as they give up again or the coach actively and publicly seeks to leave.
If things actually went as you say and Fox stabilized the program, Cal will wait until it is thoroughly destabilized again until they move on.
I'll look forward to the NIT and the fresh start in 9 or 10 years. By that time the only question is will Cal be in "uninspired paper pusher" or "unqualified alum" phase at AD.
What seems more likely - Decuire, a guy who already didn't bomb an interview to get a job with Montana, bombed his interview or the guy who didn't hire him wanted to give a guy who is always asking him for insider information a good excuse why he made his controversial choice?OaktownBear said:Based on testimony of one guy.UrsaMajor said:
Excellent post, BB. One slight correction: Travis was, in fact, the first person interviewed, but apparently bombed the interview badly.
I may be-dead in 10 years. Just want to beat Harvard at this point. Competitive home games.
Go Bears!
socaltownie said:
socaltownie said: 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.
I keep hear people saying this, and it's irritating.
one, because it puts everyone who doesn't agree with you in a box
and two, because I have to ask how I am 'enabling' it? I don't buy into boycotting Cal games. I have season tixs, and post on a cal sports blog
Why i'm sticking my nose in here is beyond me.HoopDreams said:socaltownie said:
socaltownie said: 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.
I keep hear people saying this, and it's irritating.
one, because it puts everyone who doesn't agree with you in a box
and two, because I have to ask how I am 'enabling' it? I don't buy into boycotting Cal games. I have season tixs, and post on a cal sports blog
Let me just respectfully say, I think continuing to go to games is enabling it. Braun wasn't going to get fired until those 10K empty seats for the NIT game made it clear to Sandy that what was happening wasn't good enough. Jones, inexplicably, wasn't going to get fired until the season ticket cancelations came flooding in, with an almost torch wielding revolt by tthe Cal community.
I can't keep track of the loooonnnng posts, but I agree with OTB, that Knowlton doesn't seem to me to have it. The proof for me is that on day 1 when he took the job he wasn't formulating a plan for replacing the men's basketball coach after a disasterous season. That was astounding administrative and leadership malfeasance.
#1 in winning would be finally getting the practice facility moving forward - ideally with a ground breaking. We are the only team in the conference without one.
But I know - Gene Hackman is walking through the door and going to "coach up" talent so we can beat the team from Central on an epic picket fence play.
But I know - Gene Hackman is walking through the door and going to "coach up" talent so we can beat the team from Central on an epic picket fence play.
Take care of your Chicken
One thing that may change is the one-and-done rule. If players can go straight to the NBA, then teams like Kentucky, etc., will shift their strategies and start hunting the four-year players (like the Warriors' Paschall), which would mean the competition for five stars will increase (supply and demand).
To put it another way, recruiting will become even more important because the talent pool will be shallower, though the flip side is that there will be fewer teams with elite players.
It's really hard to say, though, how that will play out, as presumably kids will be able to turn pro whenever they want so there still will be one-year players.
But the bottom line doesn't change: First, second, third and fourth, you need to recruit talented players. Then you need to coach them in a competent manner. Elite coaching only comes into play when the talent is relatively equal.
To put it another way, recruiting will become even more important because the talent pool will be shallower, though the flip side is that there will be fewer teams with elite players.
It's really hard to say, though, how that will play out, as presumably kids will be able to turn pro whenever they want so there still will be one-year players.
But the bottom line doesn't change: First, second, third and fourth, you need to recruit talented players. Then you need to coach them in a competent manner. Elite coaching only comes into play when the talent is relatively equal.
I expect talent evaluation will become more important as you dip lower into the pool.ClayK said:
One thing that may change is the one-and-done rule. If players can go straight to the NBA, then teams like Kentucky, etc., will shift their strategies and start hunting the four-year players (like the Warriors' Paschall), which would mean the competition for five stars will increase (supply and demand).
I think horrible coaching can have an effect at any talent level.Quote:
Elite coaching only comes into play when the talent is relatively equal.
This is the nut, right there. Embracing mediocrity. That's why I called it my best case scenario (aka Hope). There IS a good place for Cal in Mens Basketball. It's not Kentucky or Kansas (or even Duke). But there are many unique attributes to Cal that can support a level of success that is better than any of us have seen since, well, ever*. It requires a functional support network (university, athletic department, community & donors) that are on the same page, embrace the unique positives, mitigate the negatives and can make decisions at the right time and adapt. Which includes not settling for a B-OaktownBear said:
If things actually went as you say and Fox stabilized the program, Cal will wait until it is thoroughly destabilized again until they move on.
*I believe Cal could sustain a program that regularly (4 out every 5 seasons) is in the tourney and competes for the conference title. it schedules half of its OOC schedule against national contenders and wins its share. It makes the finals of pre-season tournaments and wins its share. It also makes it to the sweet 16 more than once a generation and most importantly . . . Everyone believes that the team can compete with any other and with a little luck and a good run could make it past the second weekend. Results wise, that's most like Oregon and Arizona today (less recently, Stanford at Monty's peak & UCLA at times). And I think its possible without the scandal.
I think the thing that people don't realize is that it is in a funny way hard for a coach to sustain that "above average" level. Look at Braun. He came in and took us to a Sweet Sixteen with Bozeman's guys. He kept the program afloat rebuilding a depleted roster and facing sanctions with two 8-10 conference records and culminating with a national championship. (sarcasm intended). Brought in Freshman that went to the NIT and 3 straight years of tourney teams going 11-7, 12-6, 13-5 and a couple first round wins. I don't think Braun was a great coach, but that was a reasonable result at that point in his career. He parlayed that into a great recruiting class on paper that just didn't work out. One more tourney team and then finishing with two 6-12 seasons.BeachedBear said:This is the nut, right there. Embracing mediocrity. That's why I called it my best case scenario (aka Hope). There IS a good place for Cal in Mens Basketball. It's not Kentucky or Kansas (or even Duke). But there are many unique attributes to Cal that can support a level of success that is better than any of us have seen since, well, ever*. It requires a functional support network (university, athletic department, community & donors) that are on the same page, embrace the unique positives, mitigate the negatives and can make decisions at the right time and adapt. Which includes not settling for a B-OaktownBear said:
If things actually went as you say and Fox stabilized the program, Cal will wait until it is thoroughly destabilized again until they move on.
*I believe Cal could sustain a program that regularly (4 out every 5 seasons) is in the tourney and competes for the conference title. it schedules half of its OOC schedule against national contenders and wins its share. It makes the finals of pre-season tournaments and wins its share. It also makes it to the sweet 16 more than once a generation and most importantly . . . Everyone believes that the team can compete with any other and with a little luck and a good run could make it past the second weekend. Results wise, that's most like Oregon and Arizona today (less recently, Stanford at Monty's peak & UCLA at times). And I think its possible without the scandal.
I think the thing is, if you are on the upswing you can sell that you are building a program. Once you plateau, your ceiling is hit, kids think you aren't going to get to the next level, so now you can't get the players you got on the rise. Some coaches do it. But it is hard. Fans see it too. Let's be honest. We kind of knew Monty had peaked when he left and a lot of people saw that as an opportunity to step up - which it was, but opportunity was stomped all over.
Very good and interesting post. That explains a lot.
Go Bears!
You could maybe be less condescending and have a real conversation here. I watch quite a bit of college basketball, actually. I'm pretty familiar with the idea that talent wins, though talent comes in a lot of different packages and doesn't always have to be NBA level to win at the college level. Perhaps we're simply not talking about the same things though. If your premise is that Cal will, for some reason that has no historical basis, decide that winning in sports is way more important than currently viewed, that donors will pony up huge amounts for basketball, build a lovely practice facility, pay for luxury travel, up the pay for assistants, get an AD who knows how to make all that stuff work, everything you need these days to get into recruiting wars with schools who have all that, then I'd say yeah, make a huge offer to a proven coach with recruiting chops and let's get on with it. I tend to think all this will happen when pigs fly, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, I can't make it happen.socaltownie said:1) Talent (and actual statistics)bluesaxe said: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?socaltownie said: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.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.
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 ;-)
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.
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.
But when the reality is that your program sucks to the point where it's moribund, you're light on amenities, and your athletic programs aren't revered like it's the only game in town, you can't somehow just magically snap fingers and acquire NBA players. You have to identify guys flying under the radar, develop them, develop a program culture, and build something from scratch. And if the same conditions exist once you've done that, you probably have to continue on that way. If things change for the better after a few years of incremental success and you can get a few more perks like the practice facility, maybe there's a leap you can take then. If you think that with the current AD, the current facilities, and the admission requirements we have now that you can skip that process and proceed directly to high seeds, please explain how.
On the topic of needing NBA talent to win, you're pointing to players from Villanova and MSU who got drafted the last few years. But in Wright's first 13 years at Nova he had a total of four players drafted and yet managed 8 tourney appearances and a Final Four. His best teams never had a top-25 recruiting class. It took him four years to make the tournament at Villanova. The next five seasons they never had a top 25 recruiting class, yet they went to the tourney all five years, ending with a Final Four appearance in 2009. Then he landed the No. 3 rated class in the country and the team got worse. The two teams that won the championship were built again without a single top-25 recruiting class. What Wright did well, and what good coaches whose schools don't just sell themselves to the McDonalds AAs, was identify the type of player he wanted, players with certain skillsets and a big drive to succeed. Where he is now, he can battle for the bluechips for players, but when he started he couldn't. That's why I used Nova as an example. They're glitzy now, but they weren't even when Rollie was coaching.
Another aside. I identified Wright as a coach Cal should go after when he was at Hofstra. I don't think Travis is going to be another Jay Wright, not even close.
Michigan State was an example of building off of regional recruiting and a defined philosophy. Izzo didn't get to the tourney until his third year at MSU. Izzo's recruiting model is taking less heralded players and developing the hell out of them, and especially local guys.
Wisconsin has had 6 guys drafted in the last 20 years. During that time they made 19 tournament appearances, three Final Fours, 6 Sweet 16s. Again, regional talent, identification of skills and toughness, a program identity and culture.
As an aside, both Brown and Wallace are currently in the NBA, so it's two who have stuck so far. Bird was looking like he'd stick until his mental issues. Not sure what your point is there. Yeah, that team had a high seed. It should have been a lot better, even given the injuries. Part of that problem was that Martin didn't recruit any depth, the second tier guys who could have stepped in and helped. And Martin had no clue how to develop Rabb or Brown, who alone should have been enough to win that game if they had any help from a very weak coaching staff.
But that's an aside. Where we are right now is no NBA players, not a chance of grabbing a top recruiting class, so the slow road is what it'll have to be to get anywhere. jmfo.
Just wanted to express appreciation for all the facts in your post.bluesaxe said:
You could maybe be less condescending and have a real conversation here. I watch quite a bit of college basketball, actually. I'm pretty familiar with the idea that talent wins, though talent comes in a lot of different packages and doesn't always have to be NBA level to win at the college level. Perhaps we're simply not talking about the same things though. If your premise is that Cal will, for some reason that has no historical basis, decide that winning in sports is way more important than currently viewed, that donors will pony up huge amounts for basketball, build a lovely practice facility, pay for luxury travel, up the pay for assistants, get an AD who knows how to make all that stuff work, everything you need these days to get into recruiting wars with schools who have all that, then I'd say yeah, make a huge offer to a proven coach with recruiting chops and let's get on with it. I tend to think all this will happen when pigs fly, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, I can't make it happen.
But when the reality is that your program sucks to the point where it's moribund, you're light on amenities, and your athletic programs aren't revered like it's the only game in town, you can't somehow just magically snap fingers and acquire NBA players. You have to identify guys flying under the radar, develop them, develop a program culture, and build something from scratch. And if the same conditions exist once you've done that, you probably have to continue on that way. If things change for the better after a few years of incremental success and you can get a few more perks like the practice facility, maybe there's a leap you can take then. If you think that with the current AD, the current facilities, and the admission requirements we have now that you can skip that process and proceed directly to high seeds, please explain how.
On the topic of needing NBA talent to win, you're pointing to players from Villanova and MSU who got drafted the last few years. But in Wright's first 13 years at Nova he had a total of four players drafted and yet managed 8 tourney appearances and a Final Four. His best teams never had a top-25 recruiting class. It took him four years to make the tournament at Villanova. The next five seasons they never had a top 25 recruiting class, yet they went to the tourney all five years, ending with a Final Four appearance in 2009. Then he landed the No. 3 rated class in the country and the team got worse. The two teams that won the championship were built again without a single top-25 recruiting class. What Wright did well, and what good coaches whose schools don't just sell themselves to the McDonalds AAs, was identify the type of player he wanted, players with certain skillsets and a big drive to succeed. Where he is now, he can battle for the bluechips for players, but when he started he couldn't. That's why I used Nova as an example. They're glitzy now, but they weren't even when Rollie was coaching.
Another aside. I identified Wright as a coach Cal should go after when he was at Hofstra. I don't think Travis is going to be another Jay Wright, not even close.
Michigan State was an example of building off of regional recruiting and a defined philosophy. Izzo didn't get to the tourney until his third year at MSU. Izzo's recruiting model is taking less heralded players and developing the hell out of them, and especially local guys.
Wisconsin has had 6 guys drafted in the last 20 years. During that time they made 19 tournament appearances, three Final Fours, 6 Sweet 16s. Again, regional talent, identification of skills and toughness, a program identity and culture.
As an aside, both Brown and Wallace are currently in the NBA, so it's two who have stuck so far. Bird was looking like he'd stick until his mental issues. Not sure what your point is there. Yeah, that team had a high seed. It should have been a lot better, even given the injuries. Part of that problem was that Martin didn't recruit any depth, the second tier guys who could have stepped in and helped. And Martin had no clue how to develop Rabb or Brown, who alone should have been enough to win that game if they had any hell from a very weak coaching staff.
But that's an aside. Where we are right now is no NBA players, not a chance of grabbing a top recruiting class, so the slow road is what it'll have to be to get anywhere. jmfo.
It's gonna take a while to rebuild this program. Hopefully Fox can at least do part of the job as I don't want these years to end up a waste like the Wyking years.
I, for one, don't "love the journey." I simply understand that no matter what supposed internet standard I might "demand" this team is what it is. The program is obviously at a particular stage - the VERY beginning - of a rebuild. So why waste the energy getting pissy about the losing? That's who we are right now. That's not love for the journey, it's acceptance of our reality.OaktownBear said:Hoop:HoopDreams said:OaktownBear said:I have to tell you, the penchant for mocking anyone who demonstrates that they care is tiresome. I doubt SCT needs a therapist or relaxation classes over this.BeachedBear said:Well the last five games have shown me that one of my fave posters, SCT is really upset. Maybe too upset for his own health. I'm not suggesting that anything you are saying is wrong, just that the frequency and tone of your posting seems like you're rooting for CalmBball to fail Maybe that's your intent, but it didn't seem that way in the past. Maybe it's social media, millenniials, polar politics, environmental degradation, avocado toast, pumpkin spice veggie burgers or one of the other ails of the era.socaltownie said:
Last five games, 1 and 4
A) Fox's tough guy approach is NOT going to work with a team this talent deficient. Great that he is getting them to work but also clear that they do NOT have WCC talent, much less Pac-12
B) I REALLY fear (and you can just look at the body language) that the team is ready to quit on him. They know they are overmatched. They are not happy. Scary thing is that some of them, if they act now, might be eligible for in 2021 for spring semester schools.
C) If he can't recruit (and nothing says he can) we will be looking for a new coach in about 4 years. Yahoo!! Isn't it cool how we totally screwed up everything that Monty had built? We are back to the very darkest of dark ages.
Go Bears!
You have 3000 people coming to each game. I'd start worrying about the people that don't care. Right now, this board is starting to look like an old cable access channel or a youtube channel with 72 views. For those of you who know youth sports, it looks like a TeamSnap page for a 10 year old soccer team. "I'm just here to see how Timmy develops. Who has snack duty next game?"
You are rapidly dwindling down to the 10 people who just enjoy going out to the gym and watching the team. Bless them. We need those fans, but you need some other people to care.
We have posts proclaiming that they care more about the journey no matter where it leads, that they go to see guys develop and not results. We have moved from the experience at Haas which has some relevance to threads reviewing the atmosphere at Santa Clara. If I ever get to the point where I care about Santa Clara's facility, and I haven't blown my brains out because I literally have no life, I'm glad to know that they have Coke and hot dogs at the snack bar.
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.
Oaktown, i read your post, but honestly can't figure out what you are saying
but I can speak to posting about the Santa Clara game day experience. I love going to college campuses, and do so when ever I can, whether it's for just a walk through campus, a lunch in the student union ... or to watch a sporting event
I also see like to see if there is day game things they do that are interesting, and that perhaps Cal can adopt.
Guess that's not your thing, but no worries
I think it is great that is your thing. No it isn't my thing. I'm sorry to be insulting. My problem is not that you posted that. My problem is that you posted it and it isn't virtually lost in all the great talk and excitement about the Cal basketball program or even the passionate consternation about the Cal basketball program. I meant it when I said we need fans like you. I love that there are fans that travel and enjoy doing so and seeing other schools, etc. However, on healthy board, reviewing the game day experience at a local WCC team should frankly be a thread that is barely noticed except by the handful of people that have a similar but I would say very narrow interest.
There have been multiple posts lately of a critical nature that have been marginalized with the "gee, you seem angry dude" response. My point is we are diminishing to the point where we are down to fans like you who love the journey. And with all due respect, there aren't enough of you to support the program. We need the fans who actually want to see victories as a primary part of the experience.
tequila4kapp said:I, for one, don't "love the journey." I simply understand that no matter what supposed internet standard I might "demand" this team is what it is. The program is obviously at a particular stage - the VERY beginning - of a rebuild. So why waste the energy getting pissy about the losing? That's who we are right now. That's not love for the journey, it's acceptance of our reality.OaktownBear said:Hoop:HoopDreams said:OaktownBear said:I have to tell you, the penchant for mocking anyone who demonstrates that they care is tiresome. I doubt SCT needs a therapist or relaxation classes over this.BeachedBear said:Well the last five games have shown me that one of my fave posters, SCT is really upset. Maybe too upset for his own health. I'm not suggesting that anything you are saying is wrong, just that the frequency and tone of your posting seems like you're rooting for CalmBball to fail Maybe that's your intent, but it didn't seem that way in the past. Maybe it's social media, millenniials, polar politics, environmental degradation, avocado toast, pumpkin spice veggie burgers or one of the other ails of the era.socaltownie said:
Last five games, 1 and 4
A) Fox's tough guy approach is NOT going to work with a team this talent deficient. Great that he is getting them to work but also clear that they do NOT have WCC talent, much less Pac-12
B) I REALLY fear (and you can just look at the body language) that the team is ready to quit on him. They know they are overmatched. They are not happy. Scary thing is that some of them, if they act now, might be eligible for in 2021 for spring semester schools.
C) If he can't recruit (and nothing says he can) we will be looking for a new coach in about 4 years. Yahoo!! Isn't it cool how we totally screwed up everything that Monty had built? We are back to the very darkest of dark ages.
Go Bears!
You have 3000 people coming to each game. I'd start worrying about the people that don't care. Right now, this board is starting to look like an old cable access channel or a youtube channel with 72 views. For those of you who know youth sports, it looks like a TeamSnap page for a 10 year old soccer team. "I'm just here to see how Timmy develops. Who has snack duty next game?"
You are rapidly dwindling down to the 10 people who just enjoy going out to the gym and watching the team. Bless them. We need those fans, but you need some other people to care.
We have posts proclaiming that they care more about the journey no matter where it leads, that they go to see guys develop and not results. We have moved from the experience at Haas which has some relevance to threads reviewing the atmosphere at Santa Clara. If I ever get to the point where I care about Santa Clara's facility, and I haven't blown my brains out because I literally have no life, I'm glad to know that they have Coke and hot dogs at the snack bar.
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.
Oaktown, i read your post, but honestly can't figure out what you are saying
but I can speak to posting about the Santa Clara game day experience. I love going to college campuses, and do so when ever I can, whether it's for just a walk through campus, a lunch in the student union ... or to watch a sporting event
I also see like to see if there is day game things they do that are interesting, and that perhaps Cal can adopt.
Guess that's not your thing, but no worries
I think it is great that is your thing. No it isn't my thing. I'm sorry to be insulting. My problem is not that you posted that. My problem is that you posted it and it isn't virtually lost in all the great talk and excitement about the Cal basketball program or even the passionate consternation about the Cal basketball program. I meant it when I said we need fans like you. I love that there are fans that travel and enjoy doing so and seeing other schools, etc. However, on healthy board, reviewing the game day experience at a local WCC team should frankly be a thread that is barely noticed except by the handful of people that have a similar but I would say very narrow interest.
There have been multiple posts lately of a critical nature that have been marginalized with the "gee, you seem angry dude" response. My point is we are diminishing to the point where we are down to fans like you who love the journey. And with all due respect, there aren't enough of you to support the program. We need the fans who actually want to see victories as a primary part of the experience.
You have hit on Cal's slogan. "Accepting our reality for 60 years (and counting)"
Why do you say Monty had peaked? He had just landed his first highly rated recruit in Jabari Bird, who began getting injured from the get-go, and Jordan Mathews who gave Cal 2 good years and ended up in the NCAA championship game starting for Gonzaga, Rooks, and Singer, and he had Wallace and Kravish on the roster. I think he at least was keeping Cal in the hunt for Rabb. I think Singer, who had averaged something like 35 points in high school was badly mismanaged by Martin, and he lost all confidence in his shot. I don't think Rooks learned much of anything under Martin either. I think Monty left because of burnout, and it was that shove of Allen Crabbe, that probably made him think he had lost his cool, and maybe it was time to retire. I think if he had stayed the next season, he would have had a better record than Cuonzo had that year.OaktownBear said:I think the thing that people don't realize is that it is in a funny way hard for a coach to sustain that "above average" level. Look at Braun. He came in and took us to a Sweet Sixteen with Bozeman's guys. He kept the program afloat rebuilding a depleted roster and facing sanctions with two 8-10 conference records and culminating with a national championship. (sarcasm intended). Brought in Freshman that went to the NIT and 3 straight years of tourney teams going 11-7, 12-6, 13-5 and a couple first round wins. I don't think Braun was a great coach, but that was a reasonable result at that point in his career. He parlayed that into a great recruiting class on paper that just didn't work out. One more tourney team and then finishing with two 6-12 seasons.BeachedBear said:This is the nut, right there. Embracing mediocrity. That's why I called it my best case scenario (aka Hope). There IS a good place for Cal in Mens Basketball. It's not Kentucky or Kansas (or even Duke). But there are many unique attributes to Cal that can support a level of success that is better than any of us have seen since, well, ever*. It requires a functional support network (university, athletic department, community & donors) that are on the same page, embrace the unique positives, mitigate the negatives and can make decisions at the right time and adapt. Which includes not settling for a B-OaktownBear said:
If things actually went as you say and Fox stabilized the program, Cal will wait until it is thoroughly destabilized again until they move on.
*I believe Cal could sustain a program that regularly (4 out every 5 seasons) is in the tourney and competes for the conference title. it schedules half of its OOC schedule against national contenders and wins its share. It makes the finals of pre-season tournaments and wins its share. It also makes it to the sweet 16 more than once a generation and most importantly . . . Everyone believes that the team can compete with any other and with a little luck and a good run could make it past the second weekend. Results wise, that's most like Oregon and Arizona today (less recently, Stanford at Monty's peak & UCLA at times). And I think its possible without the scandal.
I think the thing is, if you are on the upswing you can sell that you are building a program. Once you plateau, your ceiling is hit, kids think you aren't going to get to the next level, so now you can't get the players you got on the rise. Some coaches do it. But it is hard. Fans see it too. Let's be honest. We kind of knew Monty had peaked when he left and a lot of people saw that as an opportunity to step up - which it was, but opportunity was stomped all over.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Get Great Reviews from Big Game Visitors
by Jim McGill
Bears Hammer Mercyhurst, 81-55.
by Jim McGill
Ultimate Insider Podcast E100: Stanford Wrap-up, SMU Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
From the Other Sideline: Cal vs SMU Preview
by Jim McGill
Cal Takes Down Arizona
by Cal Athletics