Yeah, I get it. Except it isn't all the same. When the last 2 coaches were here and obviously sucked I don't recall many (any) people just resigned to sucking. There was a lot of conviction that the coach had their fair shot and they weren't good enough and we had to make a change. Somebody stepped up to pay that 3M buyout. Nobody was just "accepting our reality." That is very different from acknowledging we are at the very beginning of a rebuild.OaktownBear said:You have hit on Cal's slogan. "Accepting our reality for 60 years (and counting)"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.
Well these 5 games have shown me a few things
17,998 Views |
189 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by bluesaxe
I think you have described the cycle correctly except for the intermittent "holy hell this team is really good and we can really field competitive teams, why not Cal?" followed by "coach busted for paying players" or "AD lets the coach who just built a top 10 team walk off for reasons no sane person can understand," then followed by the rest.OaktownBear said: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.
1. He absolutely would have done better than in Martin's first year. Martin was 7-11 in conference. I'd bet Monty pulls out 10-8 or at least 9-9. To be clear, "peaked" doesn't mean I think he was going to tank. He had been at 13-5. He was down to 10-8. Didn't feel like 13-5 was coming around again anytime soon. Doesn't mean I don't think he could have sustained around 10-8.SFCityBear said: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.
2. Monty's last year was his worst year at Cal. He had hit highs of 13-5 and had dropped down to 10-8 off that peak.
3. His last year the juniors were Kreklow and Kravish. Love Kravish but he was the only productive player in his class. The sophomores were Wallace and Behrens. Again one productive player. We had Bird as a frosh that we were excited about, but Bird was a legacy recruit. Mathews was solid and exactly the kind of kid you'd think Monty would get. Singer scored a lot of points in a really weak league. He wasn't that highly rated. He was never a good shooter in college. Even his freethrow shooting was below 50% in his first two years. His worst shooting percentage was under Monty. I'm no fan of Martin, but I disagree with your assessment of him being at fault for Singer's struggles. The rest of the class was not highly rated and lived up to that rating. We didn't have a point guard coming back and had one decent big who was also pretty skinny to expect to carry the load.
4. The recruiting class we had coming in was weak.
5. You are mistaken about Rabb. Word in Oakland high school circles was that Rabb would never ever ever ever play for Monty and that while Travis kept us in the hunt in case circumstances changed, it was always with huge obstacles with Monty. Rabb always liked Cal so as soon as Monty departed his interest flipped on like a switch. In addition, people from Marcus Lee's inner circle had been publicly brutal in their assessment of Monty in the recruiting process and laid us not signing Lee directly at Monty's feet.
6. I'll leave it to Monty to state his reasons for leaving if he ever wants to. However, by his own statements he expected to get more play with recruits early on based on his past record and he didn't. Also by his own statements, he was finding the recruiting process with AAU clubs and having to schmooze characters he felt were sleazy distasteful. We were struggling in recruiting and I think that contributed as well.
By the way, I have no intention for this post to be disrespectful to you. You asked why I said he peaked and this is my argument. It is perfectly cool if you disagree.
OaktownBear said:1. He absolutely would have done better than in Martin's first year. Martin was 7-11 in conference. I'd bet Monty pulls out 10-8 or at least 9-9. To be clear, "peaked" doesn't mean I think he was going to tank. He had been at 13-5. He was down to 10-8. Didn't feel like 13-5 was coming around again anytime soon. Doesn't mean I don't think he could have sustained around 10-8.SFCityBear said: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.
2. Monty's last year was his worst year at Cal. He had hit highs of 13-5 and had dropped down to 10-8 off that peak.
3. His last year the juniors were Kreklow and Kravish. Love Kravish but he was the only productive player in his class. The sophomores were Wallace and Behrens. Again one productive player. We had Bird as a frosh that we were excited about, but Bird was a legacy recruit. Mathews was solid and exactly the kind of kid you'd think Monty would get. Singer scored a lot of points in a really weak league. He wasn't that highly rated. He was never a good shooter in college. Even his freethrow shooting was below 50% in his first two years. His worst shooting percentage was under Monty. I'm no fan of Martin, but I disagree with your assessment of him being at fault for Singer's struggles. The rest of the class was not highly rated and lived up to that rating. We didn't have a point guard coming back and had one decent big who was also pretty skinny to expect to carry the load.
4. The recruiting class we had coming in was weak.
5. You are mistaken about Rabb. Word in Oakland high school circles was that Rabb would never ever ever ever play for Monty and that while Travis kept us in the hunt in case circumstances changed, it was always with huge obstacles with Monty. Rabb always liked Cal so as soon as Monty departed his interest flipped on like a switch. In addition, people from Marcus Lee's inner circle had been publicly brutal in their assessment of Monty in the recruiting process and laid us not signing Lee directly at Monty's feet.
6. I'll leave it to Monty to state his reasons for leaving if he ever wants to. However, by his own statements he expected to get more play with recruits early on based on his past record and he didn't. Also by his own statements, he was finding the recruiting process with AAU clubs and having to schmooze characters he felt were sleazy distasteful. We were struggling in recruiting and I think that contributed as well.
By the way, I have no intention for this post to be disrespectful to you. You asked why I said he peaked and this is my argument. It is perfectly cool if you disagree.
Also, the televised and nationally publicized "shove" of Allen Crabbe, one of Monty's better recruits, did nothing to help Monty's already bad recruiting rep. Travis took over ingame coaching of Solomon because Monty's yelling was not effective.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
Take care of your Chicken
Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
Take care of your Chicken
socaltownie said:
If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal.
Well, there wasn't. The result was that in order to compete with other schools Cal had to accept some marginal students and at one point the GSR was only 20% for men's basketball. That's atrocious.
Since Cal got more strict the GSR has been rising. That's a good thing. I don't think going back to 15% graduation rates is something most of us would support no matter what the results on the court are.
Actually, the GPA requirement has been loosened somewhat.
Get ready to hold onto your hat but that is the way this works. If Cal has kids that are NBA qualified and going to get drafted expect them to drop out their senior year and that hurts your GSR. It is a function of the calendar and the difficulty of Cal students to be "graduation ready" in December of their Senior Year.dimitrig said:socaltownie said:
If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal.
Well, there wasn't. The result was that in order to compete with other schools Cal had to accept some marginal students and at one point the GSR was only 20% for men's basketball. That's atrocious.
Since Cal got more strict the GSR has been rising. That's a good thing. I don't think going back to 15% graduation rates is something most of us would support no matter what the results on the court are.
Take care of your Chicken
UrsaMajor said:
Actually, the GPA requirement has been loosened somewhat.
Can you share details?
socaltownie said:Get ready to hold onto your hat but that is the way this works. If Cal has kids that are NBA qualified and going to get drafted expect them to drop out their senior year and that hurts your GSR. It is a function of the calendar and the difficulty of Cal students to be "graduation ready" in December of their Senior Year.dimitrig said:socaltownie said:
If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal.
Well, there wasn't. The result was that in order to compete with other schools Cal had to accept some marginal students and at one point the GSR was only 20% for men's basketball. That's atrocious.
Since Cal got more strict the GSR has been rising. That's a good thing. I don't think going back to 15% graduation rates is something most of us would support no matter what the results on the court are.
Kids that go to the NBA do not count against APR if they leave school academically eligible. Not sure about GSR.
The issue is, as I understand it, is that kids at places like Kentucky "game" the system so that they load up on credits in the summer and the fall terms so that their load is either zero or close to zero in the spring and thus when they leave in April to get to the combine they are not dinged.dimitrig said:socaltownie said:Get ready to hold onto your hat but that is the way this works. If Cal has kids that are NBA qualified and going to get drafted expect them to drop out their senior year and that hurts your GSR. It is a function of the calendar and the difficulty of Cal students to be "graduation ready" in December of their Senior Year.dimitrig said:socaltownie said:
If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal.
Well, there wasn't. The result was that in order to compete with other schools Cal had to accept some marginal students and at one point the GSR was only 20% for men's basketball. That's atrocious.
Since Cal got more strict the GSR has been rising. That's a good thing. I don't think going back to 15% graduation rates is something most of us would support no matter what the results on the court are.
Kids that go to the NBA do not count against APR if they leave school academically eligible. Not sure about GSR.
Take care of your Chicken
socaltownie said:The issue is, as I understand it, is that kids at places like Kentucky "game" the system so that they load up on credits in the summer and the fall terms so that their load is either zero or close to zero in the spring and thus when they leave in April to get to the combine they are not dinged.dimitrig said:socaltownie said:Get ready to hold onto your hat but that is the way this works. If Cal has kids that are NBA qualified and going to get drafted expect them to drop out their senior year and that hurts your GSR. It is a function of the calendar and the difficulty of Cal students to be "graduation ready" in December of their Senior Year.dimitrig said:socaltownie said:
If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal.
Well, there wasn't. The result was that in order to compete with other schools Cal had to accept some marginal students and at one point the GSR was only 20% for men's basketball. That's atrocious.
Since Cal got more strict the GSR has been rising. That's a good thing. I don't think going back to 15% graduation rates is something most of us would support no matter what the results on the court are.
Kids that go to the NBA do not count against APR if they leave school academically eligible. Not sure about GSR.
Might be true. We can play that game, too, can't we?
can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
I have seen PLENTY of support for those three propositions by posters on this board who then go on to suggest that "diamond in the rough" and "coaching" will solve all ills and 4 starts aint great cause look at Mr. Fuji Water and losing to Hawaii.HoopDreams said:can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
Take care of your Chicken
I think you might be misunderstanding what people are sayingsocaltownie said:I have seen PLENTY of support for those three propositions by posters on this board who then go on to suggest that "diamond in the rough" and "coaching" will solve all ills and 4 starts aint great cause look at Mr. Fuji Water and losing to Hawaii.HoopDreams said:can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
many people might agree that A, B or C, or some combo are disadvantages for Cal
however that does not mean that all Cal fans are losers because they can see a path to improve the program
Speaking of 4 stars (I think you meant that instead of "4 starts"), there are a number of posters here who feel the main reason the water guy and Cal lost to Hawaii was the fact that both 4-star Ty Wallace and 5 star Jabari Bird missed the game with injuries. Cal played the game with 5 stars Brown and Rabb, 4 star (by some recruiting services but not in RCSI Composite rankings) Stephen Domingo. Wallace was "great" in the eyes of those fans, because had he played they felt Cal would likely have won. Many believed that without the injuries, Cal would have gone deep in the tournament. I am not one of those.socaltownie said:I have seen PLENTY of support for those three propositions by posters on this board who then go on to suggest that "diamond in the rough" and "coaching" will solve all ills and 4 starts aint great cause look at Mr. Fuji Water and losing to Hawaii.HoopDreams said:can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
For those who think 5 stars are the great hope, I'd point out that 5-star Jalen Brown had the worst game of his college career against Hawaii. 5-star Rabb played well as expected, but without the fine play of 3 stars Mathews and Singer, that game would have been a blowout for Hawaii (which was basically a team of 2-stars and the unranked). 4-star Domingo played 14 minutes, but did not score.
I'm done with this. You are venting gripes, not addressing anything I actually said and are attributing opinions to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed because apparently you're pissed at the world.socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
You do realize directly above SFB just essentially argued that stars do not matter.bluesaxe said:I'm done with this. You are venting gripes, not addressing anything I actually said and are attributing opinions to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed because apparently you're pissed at the world.socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
Take care of your Chicken
I wasn't arguing that at all. Of course stars matter, talented star players matter, much more so than subjective "star" ratings assigned by judges or panels of experts. As I posted a few years back a spreadsheet detailing the accomplishments of the top 100 RCSI Composite ranked players of one year for their 4 years of eligibility, and I found that only 40% of them either lived up to their ranking as an individual star, or helped their team to some real success in their college careers. 5-star players were a little more likely to live up to their ranking than 4-star players. That was just one class, and so it is anecdotal evidence. But until someone proves different, I'll believe that recruit rankings of the star players is maybe 40-50% accurate. Looking at that 2016 roster, 5 stars Rabb and Brown lived up to their recruit rankings as to individual performance, but Bird did not, IMO. 4-star Wallace lived up to his ranking, but Domingo did not. Mathews lived up to his 3-star ranking, or even a 4 star ranking, but Singer did not live up to his 3 star ranking, except defensively, where he became a tiger, again IMO. None of those players helped Cal to any great team success.socaltownie said:You do realize directly above SFB just essentially argued that stars do not matter.bluesaxe said:I'm done with this. You are venting gripes, not addressing anything I actually said and are attributing opinions to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed because apparently you're pissed at the world.socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
We still have to recruit the star players, but we need to carefully evaluate them for their fit at Cal, and in our team's system, and for need, and not just sign him because has 5-stars after his name in recruit rankings.
I linked above. One of the services went back. 5 stars have a 60% chance of being drafted; 4 stars about 20%; 3 stars 1 in 36. Data pulled from about 15 years of rating services.SFCityBear said:I wasn't arguing that at all. Of course stars matter, talented star players matter, much more so than subjective "star" ratings assigned by judges or panels of experts. As I posted a few years back a spreadsheet detailing the accomplishments of the top 100 RCSI Composite ranked players of one year for their 4 years of eligibility, and I found that only 40% of them either lived up to their ranking as an individual star, or helped their team to some real success in their college careers. 5-star players were a little more likely to live up to their ranking than 4-star players. That was just one class, and so it is anecdotal evidence. But until someone proves different, I'll believe that recruit rankings of the star players is maybe 40-50% accurate. Looking at that 2016 roster, 5 stars Rabb and Brown lived up to their recruit rankings as to individual performance, but Bird did not, IMO. 4-star Wallace lived up to his ranking, but Domingo did not. Mathews lived up to his 3-star ranking, or even a 4 star ranking, but Singer did not live up to his 3 star ranking, except defensively, where he became a tiger, again IMO. None of those players helped Cal to any great team success.socaltownie said:You do realize directly above SFB just essentially argued that stars do not matter.bluesaxe said:I'm done with this. You are venting gripes, not addressing anything I actually said and are attributing opinions to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed because apparently you're pissed at the world.socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
We still have to recruit the star players, but we need to carefully evaluate them for their fit at Cal, and in our team's system, and for need, and not just sign him because has 5-stars after his name in recruit rankings.
Take care of your Chicken
OK. Respond to him then. I don't agree that they don't matter.socaltownie said:You do realize directly above SFB just essentially argued that stars do not matter.bluesaxe said:I'm done with this. You are venting gripes, not addressing anything I actually said and are attributing opinions to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed because apparently you're pissed at the world.socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
For those who think 5 stars aren't the great hope I'd point out that 1 star, 5 foot 3 Joe Bloggs didn't make the tournament. Because one game of anecdotal evidence proves a point.SFCityBear said:Speaking of 4 stars (I think you meant that instead of "4 starts"), there are a number of posters here who feel the main reason the water guy and Cal lost to Hawaii was the fact that both 4-star Ty Wallace and 5 star Jabari Bird missed the game with injuries. Cal played the game with 5 stars Brown and Rabb, 4 star (by some recruiting services but not in RCSI Composite rankings) Stephen Domingo. Wallace was "great" in the eyes of those fans, because had he played they felt Cal would likely have won. Many believed that without the injuries, Cal would have gone deep in the tournament. I am not one of those.socaltownie said:I have seen PLENTY of support for those three propositions by posters on this board who then go on to suggest that "diamond in the rough" and "coaching" will solve all ills and 4 starts aint great cause look at Mr. Fuji Water and losing to Hawaii.HoopDreams said:can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
For those who think 5 stars are the great hope, I'd point out that 5-star Jalen Brown had the worst game of his college career against Hawaii. 5-star Rabb played well as expected, but without the fine play of 3 stars Mathews and Singer, that game would have been a blowout for Hawaii (which was basically a team of 2-stars and the unranked). 4-star Domingo played 14 minutes, but did not score.
OaktownBear said:For those who think 5 stars aren't the great hope I'd point out that 1 star, 5 foot 3 Joe Bloggs didn't make the tournament. Because one game of anecdotal evidence proves a point.SFCityBear said:Speaking of 4 stars (I think you meant that instead of "4 starts"), there are a number of posters here who feel the main reason the water guy and Cal lost to Hawaii was the fact that both 4-star Ty Wallace and 5 star Jabari Bird missed the game with injuries. Cal played the game with 5 stars Brown and Rabb, 4 star (by some recruiting services but not in RCSI Composite rankings) Stephen Domingo. Wallace was "great" in the eyes of those fans, because had he played they felt Cal would likely have won. Many believed that without the injuries, Cal would have gone deep in the tournament. I am not one of those.socaltownie said:I have seen PLENTY of support for those three propositions by posters on this board who then go on to suggest that "diamond in the rough" and "coaching" will solve all ills and 4 starts aint great cause look at Mr. Fuji Water and losing to Hawaii.HoopDreams said:can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
For those who think 5 stars are the great hope, I'd point out that 5-star Jalen Brown had the worst game of his college career against Hawaii. 5-star Rabb played well as expected, but without the fine play of 3 stars Mathews and Singer, that game would have been a blowout for Hawaii (which was basically a team of 2-stars and the unranked). 4-star Domingo played 14 minutes, but did not score.
The season ended badly under extenuating circumstances, but undefeated at Haas, #4 seed despite consensus horrible coaching? That is as good a testimonial for recruiting as the primary factor for success as you can point to.
I have an example from the peach basket era that directly refutues your single data point.OaktownBear said:For those who think 5 stars aren't the great hope I'd point out that 1 star, 5 foot 3 Joe Bloggs didn't make the tournament. Because one game of anecdotal evidence proves a point.SFCityBear said:
Speaking of 4 stars (I think you meant that instead of "4 starts"), there are a number of posters here who feel the main reason the water guy and Cal lost to Hawaii was the fact that both 4-star Ty Wallace and 5 star Jabari Bird missed the game with injuries. Cal played the game with 5 stars Brown and Rabb, 4 star (by some recruiting services but not in RCSI Composite rankings) Stephen Domingo. Wallace was "great" in the eyes of those fans, because had he played they felt Cal would likely have won. Many believed that without the injuries, Cal would have gone deep in the tournament. I am not one of those.
For those who think 5 stars are the great hope, I'd point out that 5-star Jalen Brown had the worst game of his college career against Hawaii. 5-star Rabb played well as expected, but without the fine play of 3 stars Mathews and Singer, that game would have been a blowout for Hawaii (which was basically a team of 2-stars and the unranked). 4-star Domingo played 14 minutes, but did not score.
Consensus horrible coaching? Hardly. I couldn't get that idiot Reef from CGB with all of his stupid metrics to admit that Cuonzo had no actual offensive system, even a year after he was gone. Of course, he was also a big Don Coleman backer, so take it with a grain of salt.calumnus said:
The season ended badly under extenuating circumstances, but undefeated at Haas, #4 seed despite consensus horrible coaching? That is as good a testimonial for recruiting as the primary factor for success as you can point to.
Glass Joe said:Consensus horrible coaching? Hardly. I couldn't get that idiot Reef from CGB with all of his stupid metrics to admit that Cuonzo had no actual offensive system, even a year after he was gone. Of course, he was also a big Don Coleman backer, so take it with a grain of salt.calumnus said:
The season ended badly under extenuating circumstances, but undefeated at Haas, #4 seed despite consensus horrible coaching? That is as good a testimonial for recruiting as the primary factor for success as you can point to.
Consensus of everyone on this board at this time.
Cuonzo's coaching was not completely without merit. He did install a pretty good defense and instill some fire in his players to get after it defensively. It was all help defense, but some players did improve their individual defense. Sam Singer made the most improvement in defense, IMO.calumnus said:Glass Joe said:Consensus horrible coaching? Hardly. I couldn't get that idiot Reef from CGB with all of his stupid metrics to admit that Cuonzo had no actual offensive system, even a year after he was gone. Of course, he was also a big Don Coleman backer, so take it with a grain of salt.calumnus said:
The season ended badly under extenuating circumstances, but undefeated at Haas, #4 seed despite consensus horrible coaching? That is as good a testimonial for recruiting as the primary factor for success as you can point to.
Consensus of everyone on this board at this time.
I couldn't find your link. I'll expand on the criteria in my spreadsheet for the one year, which was the class of 2009. I did the spreadsheet in 2015 or so, so it would track the full college career of all 100 players, which for some took 5 or 6 years to finish, due to injuries, redshirts, etc. I found that 60 players had had a successful career as individual players, but that only 40 players had actually helped their teams to some serious success. My criteria for a successful team would be achieving one of the following, by making a significant contribution as a member of the team's rotation (top 7 or 8 players in terms of minutes) for one of their seasons in college:socaltownie said:I linked above. One of the services went back. 5 stars have a 60% chance of being drafted; 4 stars about 20%; 3 stars 1 in 36. Data pulled from about 15 years of rating services.SFCityBear said:I wasn't arguing that at all. Of course stars matter, talented star players matter, much more so than subjective "star" ratings assigned by judges or panels of experts. As I posted a few years back a spreadsheet detailing the accomplishments of the top 100 RCSI Composite ranked players of one year for their 4 years of eligibility, and I found that only 40% of them either lived up to their ranking as an individual star, or helped their team to some real success in their college careers. 5-star players were a little more likely to live up to their ranking than 4-star players. That was just one class, and so it is anecdotal evidence. But until someone proves different, I'll believe that recruit rankings of the star players is maybe 40-50% accurate. Looking at that 2016 roster, 5 stars Rabb and Brown lived up to their recruit rankings as to individual performance, but Bird did not, IMO. 4-star Wallace lived up to his ranking, but Domingo did not. Mathews lived up to his 3-star ranking, or even a 4 star ranking, but Singer did not live up to his 3 star ranking, except defensively, where he became a tiger, again IMO. None of those players helped Cal to any great team success.socaltownie said:You do realize directly above SFB just essentially argued that stars do not matter.bluesaxe said:I'm done with this. You are venting gripes, not addressing anything I actually said and are attributing opinions to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed because apparently you're pissed at the world.socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
We still have to recruit the star players, but we need to carefully evaluate them for their fit at Cal, and in our team's system, and for need, and not just sign him because has 5-stars after his name in recruit rankings.
1. A 25 win season
2. A Conference Championship
3. A Conference Tournament Championship
4. Reaching the Sweet 16 in the NCAA
If a player had achieved any of those things, I felt he had helped his team and had been worth the effort to be highly recruited. I realize that getting drafted is an achievement, but I don't really give a rat's behind about what a Cal player does in the NBA. There are some fans who seem to be more excited about what a player does in the NBA after he leaves Cal, than they are excited about what he does while he is playing for Cal. I did the spreadsheet solely to find out how many top recruits help their college teams, if at all. If someone tells me a player was drafted, I'll ask, "Yes, but did he help his college team?"
I grant your point, those are nice things to have done, but for serious team success, which we are all looking for, I think that season's results are a lowering of the bar. For me, at least. I left that season disappointed about the injuries of course, but also disappointed in the coaching and the way we looked. I was disappointed in the stars. I allowed myself to be sucked into the hype of recruit rankings somewhat, even though I knew Rabb and Brown were freshmen. I expected them to be really dominant, and they were not. They were OK, and if they had stayed 3 or 4 years, I think they would have improved enough for their team to be very successful. Great players won't stay that long now, as the NBA is more or less free to poach college teams' best players before they graduate. Which is why I am dubious about drafting the one and dones. Only a few freshmen are good enough to bring great success to a college team right away, or good enough to get drafted as a freshman.calumnus said:OaktownBear said:For those who think 5 stars aren't the great hope I'd point out that 1 star, 5 foot 3 Joe Bloggs didn't make the tournament. Because one game of anecdotal evidence proves a point.SFCityBear said:Speaking of 4 stars (I think you meant that instead of "4 starts"), there are a number of posters here who feel the main reason the water guy and Cal lost to Hawaii was the fact that both 4-star Ty Wallace and 5 star Jabari Bird missed the game with injuries. Cal played the game with 5 stars Brown and Rabb, 4 star (by some recruiting services but not in RCSI Composite rankings) Stephen Domingo. Wallace was "great" in the eyes of those fans, because had he played they felt Cal would likely have won. Many believed that without the injuries, Cal would have gone deep in the tournament. I am not one of those.socaltownie said:I have seen PLENTY of support for those three propositions by posters on this board who then go on to suggest that "diamond in the rough" and "coaching" will solve all ills and 4 starts aint great cause look at Mr. Fuji Water and losing to Hawaii.HoopDreams said:can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
For those who think 5 stars are the great hope, I'd point out that 5-star Jalen Brown had the worst game of his college career against Hawaii. 5-star Rabb played well as expected, but without the fine play of 3 stars Mathews and Singer, that game would have been a blowout for Hawaii (which was basically a team of 2-stars and the unranked). 4-star Domingo played 14 minutes, but did not score.
The season ended badly under extenuating circumstances, but undefeated at Haas, #4 seed despite consensus horrible coaching? That is as good a testimonial for recruiting as the primary factor for success as you can point to.
If you would like more than one game, let's look at Cal's teams with the most top recruits. Recruit rankings have only been around for less than 30 years, so I'll add my own guesses for some of the rankings:OaktownBear said:For those who think 5 stars aren't the great hope I'd point out that 1 star, 5 foot 3 Joe Bloggs didn't make the tournament. Because one game of anecdotal evidence proves a point.SFCityBear said:Speaking of 4 stars (I think you meant that instead of "4 starts"), there are a number of posters here who feel the main reason the water guy and Cal lost to Hawaii was the fact that both 4-star Ty Wallace and 5 star Jabari Bird missed the game with injuries. Cal played the game with 5 stars Brown and Rabb, 4 star (by some recruiting services but not in RCSI Composite rankings) Stephen Domingo. Wallace was "great" in the eyes of those fans, because had he played they felt Cal would likely have won. Many believed that without the injuries, Cal would have gone deep in the tournament. I am not one of those.socaltownie said:I have seen PLENTY of support for those three propositions by posters on this board who then go on to suggest that "diamond in the rough" and "coaching" will solve all ills and 4 starts aint great cause look at Mr. Fuji Water and losing to Hawaii.HoopDreams said:can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
For those who think 5 stars are the great hope, I'd point out that 5-star Jalen Brown had the worst game of his college career against Hawaii. 5-star Rabb played well as expected, but without the fine play of 3 stars Mathews and Singer, that game would have been a blowout for Hawaii (which was basically a team of 2-stars and the unranked). 4-star Domingo played 14 minutes, but did not score.
2016: Brown 5*, Rabb 5*, Bird 5*, Wallace 4*, Domingo 4*, Mathews 4* or 3* Record 23-11, 3rd in PAC12
2014: Bird 5*, Wallace 4* Mathews 4* or 3* Record 21-14, 3rd in PAC12 Record 21-14, 3rd in PAC12
2009: Powe 5*, McGuire 4*, Ubaka 4*, Kately 4*or 3* , Tamir 4*, Midgley 4* Record 13-15, 4th place PAC10
1997: Gray 5*, Marks 5*, Grigsby 4*, Stewart 4* or 3*, Duck 4* or 3* Record 23-9, 3rd in PAC10, Sweet 16
1993: Kidd 5*, Murray 5*, Grigsby 4*, Hendrick 4* Record 21-9, 2nd in PAC10, Sweet 16
1971: Ridgle 5*, Chenier 5*, Charles Johnson 5*, Truitt 5*, Coughran 4* Record 16-9, 3rd in PAC8
1955: Mckeen 5*, Friend 5* Record 9-16, 4th in PCC Southern Division
So if 3rd place conference finishes and 2 sweet 16s for these 7 teams, some with good coaching and some without, is our objective, then highly-rated recruits are the way to go. Personally, I'd rather start with a coach I could trust. A good coach should be a steadying influence in an ever-changing roster, replete with many injuries, transfers and players leaving early for the NBA. And let the coach recruit the best players for the needs he has. I'd like Cal to have better results than any of these teams had, much better results.
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.statistics.20160604.04.html#Sec3
Increase your N.
Increase your N.
Take care of your Chicken
SFCityBear said:If you would like more than one game, let's look at Cal's teams with the most top recruits. Recruit rankings have only been around for less than 30 years, so I'll add my own guesses for some of the rankings:OaktownBear said:For those who think 5 stars aren't the great hope I'd point out that 1 star, 5 foot 3 Joe Bloggs didn't make the tournament. Because one game of anecdotal evidence proves a point.SFCityBear said:Speaking of 4 stars (I think you meant that instead of "4 starts"), there are a number of posters here who feel the main reason the water guy and Cal lost to Hawaii was the fact that both 4-star Ty Wallace and 5 star Jabari Bird missed the game with injuries. Cal played the game with 5 stars Brown and Rabb, 4 star (by some recruiting services but not in RCSI Composite rankings) Stephen Domingo. Wallace was "great" in the eyes of those fans, because had he played they felt Cal would likely have won. Many believed that without the injuries, Cal would have gone deep in the tournament. I am not one of those.socaltownie said:I have seen PLENTY of support for those three propositions by posters on this board who then go on to suggest that "diamond in the rough" and "coaching" will solve all ills and 4 starts aint great cause look at Mr. Fuji Water and losing to Hawaii.HoopDreams said:can we get a raise of hands, who thinks all three (A, B and C)?socaltownie said:Fair enough. You ask about "What Fox can do right now."bluesaxe said:Oh JFC, get off your high horse dude. I never said anything close to "we just need to find a great teacher." I never said any of that. I'm pointing out that we aren't going to get the 5 stars, but that talent exists elsewhere that can be developed. I'm not saying that a good coach can take ****ty players and win. I'm saying that there is talent other than five stars that we need to find. I'm saying that because of WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS NOW we aren't going to be in a position to do anything but look for those gems in the rough for now. I asked if you can explain why that isn't true in another post. You didn't. I'm talking about what Fox can do right now to get THIS program into position to actually compete for some of that other talent. You don't seem to want to hear that. Again, explain why Juwan Howard at Michigan, a team that was in the national finals a couple of years ago, the Sweet 16 last year, and whose coach left for the NBA instead of being fired two of the worst years in history is particularly relevant to where we are now. Even Memphis, which has had a tourney drought, at least had winning records the last five years. And is very likely to end up in more NCAA trouble I predict.socaltownie said:Again, as I pointed out. 3 star players have a less than 1 in 35 chance of being drafted. 5 stars a 60% chance. You can name the one in 35. Good for you.bluesaxe said:I agree with most of what you're saying, but a couple of points.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).
I haven't seen one argument that talent doesn't matter. I have seen arguments about realistic options for acquiring and developing that talent, and maybe what "talent" actually is. I'd also argue that it's the team that matters, not individuals, and if the talent doesn't fit together you'll have problems. Martin's best team is a good example of pieces that did not mesh well compounded by a coach who couldn't figure out how to minimize that problem. But you need talent, which we currently lack.
On who develops lower ranked recruits, I haven't seen anyone do a deep dive on that but Derrick Williams was a three-star (Arizona), Russel Westbrook was a three-star (UCLA), Wesley Johnson was a two-star (Iowa State), Ekpe Udoh was a three-star (Michigan), Joe Alexander a three-star (West Va.), Frank Kaminsky a three-star (Wisc.) All those guys were first round picks. You also obviously have guys like Gordon Hayward, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard, Paul George who were with mid-majors, but it would be interesting to test your hypothesis on that.
I'm just hoping Fox can get the program to a point where it's respectable and stable, and then we'll see if Cal can make the right decision. Your best-case scenario seems right, but it is best case and that's a bit sad.
But again, the problem is that it is a dangerous myth ("we just need to find that great teacher and all will be OK") No. You need, in the modern game, a guy who can RECRUIT.
And, I want to underscore this, look at Juwan Howard . Do you really want to make the argument that a guy who has never coached in college is a "great teacher?" Of COURSE NOT. You know what he is doing? KILLING it on the recruiting trail - especially with instate talent.
This is the kind of hire that you make it you want to win. Michigan gets that. Memphis gets it. GTown gets it. Cal gets Mark Fox.
I get that you don't like the last hire. I don't either. But I'm not talking about that.
1) Explain to JK that absent a practice facility the program is dead in the water and can not compete. Explain that to alumni as well. Disabuse them of the idea that with "good coaching" he can take Germans who have a vertical jump of 0.5 inches and turn them into all world Pac-12 centers.
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
2) Explain to the powers that be that Cal currently is competing with 1 arm and 2 legs tied behind back when it comes to especially the grad school transfer rules. Absent changes we will NOT do better there and that it is a critical piece of the puzzle
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
3) Explain to the powers that be that the GPA rule is ridiculous. Cal should NOT compete lower or HIGHER than either Washington or UCLA (the other 2 decent PUBLIC R1s in our conference). If there is no GPA rule at UCLA there should not be one at Cal
Now I don't expect him to do that but a boy can dream a week before xmas
All three of the above DEEPLY hamper our recruiting. But we have TOO many people (on this board especially) that believe
A) We don't need a practice facility cause a hoop and a black top is OK for me so it is OK for them...and they should be studying ANYWAY
B ) That we don't want to "cheapen" cal's grad schools and hey, a great teacher can "coach em up" and especially those 3 starts that are going to stay 4 years
C) Less support but still some. God forbid we take a "dumb azz".
The problem (and why I am mad) is that too many Cal "fans" buy A-C and then say "Well with a good coach that watches Newell tapes we can win titles....and lets face it...that is all that matters since I went to school before the tournament blew up so who cares anyway." I get that everyone is a stakeholder. WHat pisses me off is not recognizing that life is about trade offs and that searching for unicorns is usually a search that doesn't work. If we want to win we have to recruit. End of story.
let's just say everyone on this board agrees with you. how about you make the first $10M donation to pay for part of the practice facility? I'll support that!
For those who think 5 stars are the great hope, I'd point out that 5-star Jalen Brown had the worst game of his college career against Hawaii. 5-star Rabb played well as expected, but without the fine play of 3 stars Mathews and Singer, that game would have been a blowout for Hawaii (which was basically a team of 2-stars and the unranked). 4-star Domingo played 14 minutes, but did not score.
2016: Brown 5*, Rabb 5*, Bird 5*, Wallace 4*, Domingo 4*, Mathews 4* or 3* Record 23-11, 3rd in PAC12
2014: Bird 5*, Wallace 4* Mathews 4* or 3* Record 21-14, 3rd in PAC12 Record 21-14, 3rd in PAC12
2009: Powe 5*, McGuire 4*, Ubaka 4*, Kately 4*or 3* , Tamir 4*, Midgley 4* Record 13-15, 4th place PAC10
1997: Gray 5*, Marks 5*, Grigsby 4*, Stewart 4* or 3*, Duck 4* or 3* Record 23-9, 3rd in PAC10, Sweet 16
1993: Kidd 5*, Murray 5*, Grigsby 4*, Hendrick 4* Record 21-9, 2nd in PAC10, Sweet 16
1971: Ridgle 5*, Chenier 5*, Charles Johnson 5*, Truitt 5*, Coughran 4* Record 16-9, 3rd in PAC8
1955: Mckeen 5*, Friend 5* Record 9-16, 4th in PCC Southern Division
So if 3rd place conference finishes and 2 sweet 16s for these 7 teams, some with good coaching and some without, is our objective, then highly-rated recruits are the way to go. Personally, I'd rather start with a coach I could trust. A good coach should be a steadying influence in an ever-changing roster, replete with many injuries, transfers and players leaving early for the NBA. And let the coach recruit the best players for the needs he has. I'd like Cal to have better results than any of these teams had, much better results.
And where did we finish when we didn't have those recruits?
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