tequila4kapp said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

@Seeing a post about Fox haters piling on and the damage Jones did shows me that a certain element are going to try and set the bar so low you'd need a shovel to trip over it.

No one wants Jones back. No one thinks last season was anything but a bust. But let's not forget where we were EXACTLY when Jones walked out the door.

We ended on a high note. Our last 4 games we beat 15-3 Washington, 8-10 Stanford, 4-14 and took 10-8 CU to the wire in the pac12 tournament. That in no way wipes out the rest of the season, but it was too long a streak to be ignored also.

I think it is fair to say that we were a team that could compete with the bottom half of the conference. I would also say at that point we were not a team that would have expected to have it's doors blown off by USF and Santa Clara.

I don't expect a lot, but I think 5 or 6 wins in conference is reasonable to expect based on how we finished the season. If Knowlton eats $3m in buyouts and increases the salary by $600K, and we don't at least get that, the early returns are a thorough bed crapping.

As for waiting to see how recruiting goes, the number 1 recruiting job was bringing our guys back, and we painfully saw that job on video. And despite the proclamation by many here that the losses didn't matter, the results are evident.

We may very well turn this around and produce reasonable results. This is not a judgment on Fox. This is a judgment on those who seem to think the performance can't be judged this year. It can. I expect competitive games against the bottom half of the conference and WCC teams. Maybe not every night, but most. If this is a Dykes like season I firmly expect to judge it as such. We didn't chuck all that money and more importantly the years to the process to have a team that is worse than the one we had.

---

You post as if you are entitled. If the team isn't winning enough to bring you joy and happiness I respectfully suggest you go away for a while and come back when things are better. Nobody else is setting the bar for you. You have set you own bar and it isn't being met.

There are certain facts about this team that are undeniable, which people can accept or not:
- The team has 5 freshman on the roster. All of them are 3* type talents. 2 of them start at arguably the two positions that take the longest time to really own and excel at, PG and C. The other three apparently aren't ready for meaningful minutes.
- The team has 3 sophomores on the roster. Bradley is good, Kelly has some skills, Gordon hasn't shown much.

Pause here for a second - 8 (EIGHT!) scholarships are in the hands of young guys, only 1 of whom is really able to excel at this level of play.

- The team has 4 upperclassmen in the rotation. Two are transfers from lower level schools, the other two are 3* type talents. To be kind, all of them offer modest production (on average) and none of them has shown the ability to perform at a level a team would normally hope for from its upper class men.

We can ***** and moan all we want about what Fox should have done to keep certain players here. Whatever. They left of their own volition. The harsh reality is the roster is what it is, and given that harsh reality it is stupid to set expectations based on number of wins. This team is not going to win much this year. It is what it is. We can accept that fact and look for other ways to watch and evaluate this year's team or we can expect wins and be miserable.

You mistakenly set expectations for this year based on last year's team. Last year's team doesn't exist any longer. This year's team is at the same developmental stage as McNeil and Suing's freshman years. It isn't fair to compare this team to the end of McNeil and Suing's sophomore seasons, it is going through the growing pains we experienced the prior two seasons. Unless we find upper class transfers who are actual difference makers we are at the beginning of that same two(?) year development cycle. It sucks but at least we have a real coach this time so maybe the development happens faster.

---

Oh just go suck it. I'm entitled because I said a reasonable expectation is 5-6 wins and competing with the bottom half teams most nights? Setting a standard means I should go away?

No one should go away. But if the health of the program is the consideration, the one who should go away is not the one who sets a 5-13 record as a reasonable standard. It is the one who classifies that as "entitled". Your attitude is a lot bigger problem than mine.

When a program that makes MAYBE $1m in profits in a year eats $3m, I think expecting some sign of progress is reasonable.

I thought Cal looked better against Texas than either usf or Santa Clara. Hard to understand, except Texas was at a neutral site . I think Fresno has a losing record. Still bad Memories of Cal vs Fresneck in the ncaa playoffs in Memphis. The jelani Gardner debacle.

Hoping for a win and better play.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear barrister: cuonzo & Jones ( an possibly Fox) are not causes. They are symptoms. The causes off cal malaise are the regents & administrators ( and most faculty members) who decreed in the very early 1960's that Cal would no longer emphasize major sports. And, the current student body would rather study on a sat afternoon than go across the street to watch Cal play in the Rose Bowl. There is no trajectory visible to the naked eye which is going to reverse this trend. I used to walk down telegraph ave on my way to Haas and watched with dismay as thousands ( it seemed) of Cal students were walking in the opposite direction. many students have no or very little affiliation with the bay area or with the storied cal sports history of yesteryear. when you go to a game at Haas, if you look in the recreational facility, you will see hundreds of students riding bikes . Many of them are not even aware that Cal is playing. Here's something to watch for: If thge AD is nowhere to be found at most of the games this year, that will be a clue that he would rather not face questions from concerned fans. I rarely saw Mike Williams at the games. I rarely saw the Chancellor who hired him. Time to go to bed.

---

Monty was successful, albeit in a horrific Pac conference.

It's hard to sustain success when you're not a blue blood with a pipeline of players who want to go there regardless of coach.

Recruiting cyclical. One good class doesn't guarantee another good class. One good season doesn't guarantee another. A coach has got to recruit. Cal has the resources and platform to be successful. It takes a coach who can start to convince better players to come here. A culture, a program.

bearister said:

---

My wish list:

1. Hold onto rebounds;

2. Make open layups;

3. Make free throws;

4. Minimize turnovers;

5. Don't shoot 3's if you are a low percentage shooter;

6. Hold onto the ball when it is passed to you;

7. Play as hard as you can on defense.

If we lose because the other team is better, so be it. We just have to stop contributing so much to our own destruction.

---

Best post of this thread! Since all of these reflect the players (which I agree with), I'll add a couple of wish lists for the Staff:

1) Improve ability to control the pace of the game. It can help mitigate talent deficiencies and honestly help mitigate the blow out scores (which are demoralizing)

2) Don't lose the heart/attitude of this team. It's not easy, but worth the effort for the players and the fans

3) Focus more on player development, so that we have P12 competent talent in the near future (i.e end of season and next year). Demonstrate some incremental (albeit small) improvement for young players that can be seen every few games. As an example - Lars - focus on one thing like defensive rebounding position. So we don't give up so many ORebs within two feet of his location (this is my personal biggest Lars criticism and easily correctable - its mostly footwork and focus).

"Are you saying that Thieman has basketball I.Q, dexterity and presence? Not the guy I'm watching."

No I am not - Thieman's undeveloped skill is prodigious, hence my diminished hope for an improvement in the team's quality of play and widening disappointment in the performance and potential of the team .

Glimpses of Thorpe just indicate that he is not an improvement and likely worse. Cal BB is in a sad, sad state.

IMHO the root cause of our current situation was Martin's failure to recruit enough good players. I liked Brown and Rabb and Moore and Mullins but we got a total of only 5 years between them. When they departed and Montgomery's players graduated we were in trouble.

I'm no fan of Jones but he did rebuild the roster with (including Brown, Thorpe, and Smith) a sufficient number of decent prospects. I agree with Oaktown that Jones' team had become presentable by the end of his second season. That team had no seniors and only one junior who played much (Austin) so my expectations were that we would continue this fall pretty much where we left off last spring.

I did not object to Jones' firing because I thought despite adequate recruiting he had not shown any coaching ability. I was expecting (hoping) his successor would be able to build on what Jones' team had managed to accomplish. But I wouldn't call what I'm seeing an improvement from the end of last season. It's starting to look like a total rebuild, not necessarily for the better, certainly not in the short term.

I have nothing bad to say about McNeill, Sueing, Vanover, or any current players who may decide to transfer. It's tough enough to handle the demands of Cal academics and high-major athletics without the chaos of radical changes in coaching. I wish all of those young men the best.

I don't. They abandoned their teammates.

st said:

---

I'm no fan of Jones but he did rebuild the roster with (including Brown, Thorpe, and Smith) a sufficient number of decent prospects. I agree with Oaktown that Jones' team had become presentable by the end of his second season. That team had no seniors and only one junior who played much (Austin) so my expectations were that we would continue this fall pretty much where we left off last spring.

---

Jones (no fan here) should also get (some, most of the) credit for Matt Bradley.

Bradley told Daniels and Gershon the following with regard to his decision: "I just felt like coach [Wyking] Jones is a great coach. He's been recruiting me for a while now. I just got the offer. He always had an interest in me and I always had an interest in Cal."

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2713063-4-star-wing-prospect-matt-bradley-commits-to-cal

oskidunker said:

---

I don't. They abandoned their teammates.

---

I don't know the details, but I expect they left due to what for different reasons each thought had become an intolerable situation. People change jobs all the time without leaving their workmates feeling abandoned. I would too if my job situation became intolerable. (So far it hasn't, I've worked at the same place for 47 years.)

Open request here for the community to analyze Bun Boy's career stats and make your best argument why it is unrealistic to believe Lars can meet or exceed:

Jimbo Lull Stats, News, Bio | ESPN


https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4066748/jimbo-lull





*In my opinion Bun Boy stuck a Bowie knife in the Bears in that game

My expectations are lowering by the day.

At this point, I'd just like to see the team playing with enthusiasm and accepting coaching. If Fox is "losing" the team -- and hopefully he isn't, but it seems possible -- he has eleven months to shuffle the roster and get guys in there who want to play. Hopefully, he'll be able to get the guys on THIS team to show something. That's his job.

i want to see the staff develop Kuany and Thorpe to the point where they are earning at least 10 min./game by mid-January.

Maybe we can win at least one more conference game than last season, if we need some absolute standard. My goodness, but that is a low bar I just set.

Really too bad Vanover left. Last February/early March, he was starting to get me excited about Cal basketball again.

If it makes anyone feel better, DeCuire has the Griz at 4-5, including a loss to Montana Tech which is an NAIA school.

Everyone should come out Wednesday to see Cal beat Fresno. Good chance of a win and should be favored.

Vanover put up 7.5 points and 3 boards a game for the Bears. Will Lars get Vanover love if he puts those numbers up? Someone said he wishes the departing players all the best. I wish none of them I'll will. I am simply indifferent towards them like they are towards Cal. Similar to how I feel about the Vegas Raiders ( thank God in my twilight years my psyche is spared the pain of rooting for such a wretchedly horrible football team). That entire football institution needs to be bulldozed and the ground salted so that nothing grows back).

oskidunker said:

---

Everyone should come out Wednesday to see Cal beat Fresno. Good chance of a win and should be favored.

---

... also you can expect cheap tickets and easy parking!

Big C said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Everyone should come out Wednesday to see Cal beat Fresno. Good chance of a win and should be favored.

---

... also you can expect cheap tickets and easy parking!

---

I will be there for the Christian Brothers' bloodletting Saturday.

bearister said:

---

Vanover put up 7.5 points and 3 boards a game for the Bears. Will Lars get Vanover love if he puts those numbers up? Someone said he wishes the departing players all the best. I wish none of them I'll will. I am simply indifferent towards them like they are towards Cal. Similar to how I feel about the Vegas Raiders ( thank God in my twilight years my psyche is spared the pain of rooting for such a wretchedly horrible football team). That entire football institution needs to be bulldozed and the ground salted so that nothing grows back).

---

Vanover put up 12 and 5 per game over his last 11. Lars does that, people will be ecstatic.

OaktownBear said:

---

Seeing a post about Fox haters piling on and the damage Jones did shows me that a certain element are going to try and set the bar so low you'd need a shovel to trip over it.

No one wants Jones back. No one thinks last season was anything but a bust. But let's not forget where we were EXACTLY when Jones walked out the door.

We ended on a high note. Our last 4 games we beat 15-3 Washington, 8-10 Stanford, 4-14 and took 10-8 CU to the wire in the pac12 tournament. That in no way wipes out the rest of the season, but it was too long a streak to be ignored also.

I think it is fair to say that we were a team that could compete with the bottom half of the conference. I would also say at that point we were not a team that would have expected to have it's doors blown off by USF and Santa Clara.

I don't expect a lot, but I think 5 or 6 wins in conference is reasonable to expect based on how we finished the season. If Knowlton eats $3m in buyouts and increases the salary by $600K, and we don't at least get that, the early returns are a thorough bed crapping.

As for waiting to see how recruiting goes, the number 1 recruiting job was bringing our guys back, and we painfully saw that job on video. And despite the proclamation by many here that the losses didn't matter, the results are evident.

We may very well turn this around and produce reasonable results. This is not a judgment on Fox. This is a judgment on those who seem to think the performance can't be judged this year. It can. I expect competitive games against the bottom half of the conference and WCC teams. Maybe not every night, but most. If this is a Dykes like season I firmly expect to judge it as such. We didn't chuck all that money and more importantly the years to the process to have a team that is worse than the one we had.

---

Fox is an experienced coach os right their I expect more. The talent level has not changed that much. Still a young team. Absent injuries, I expect some conference wins, especially towards season end when players have more playing experience, the defense to look better (low standard) than under Jones, and better offensive movement. A lot of my expectations are not things that will show-up in stats, but in eye test that there is player and scheme development. What I really want to see is something that tells me a year or so from now this is a program that can be much more competitive. Tehre are going to be mistakes with all these young players, and the conference looks improved to my surprise, so wins/losses won't tell the whole story, But watching Jones' teams you could tell there was no hope. Hoping to lose that feeling.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

If it makes anyone feel better, DeCuire has the Griz at 4-5, including a loss to Montana Tech which is an NAIA school.

---

DeCuire lost 4 starters from last year and is starting 3 freshmen....4 of Montana's loses were to Stanford, New Mexico, Arkansas and Washington....I don't think we would have beaten any of those teams either....Montana is ranked 199 versus Cal's ranking of 141 in the Massey ratings....Sagarin has UM at 146 and Cal at 181....DeCuire has proven to be able to recruit at or above the Big Sky level...Fox....the jury is still out.... Personally, I would prefer DeCuire but that was obvious last spring....Fox has to recruit better than what I've seen so far to win me over but what do I know.....Just been involved in basketball for over 50 years.....

bearmanpg said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

If it makes anyone feel better, DeCuire has the Griz at 4-5, including a loss to Montana Tech which is an NAIA school.

---

DeCuire lost 4 starters from last year and is starting 3 freshmen....4 of Montana's loses were to Stanford, New Mexico, Arkansas and Washington....I don't think we would have beaten any of those teams either....Montana is ranked 199 versus Cal's ranking of 141 in the Massey ratings....Sagarin has UM at 146 and Cal at 181....DeCuire has proven to be able to recruit at or above the Big Sky level...Fox....the jury is still out.... Personally, I would prefer DeCuire but that was obvious last spring....Fox has to recruit better than what I've seen so far to win me over but what do I know.....Just been involved in basketball for over 50 years.....

---

Fair enough but their two stars and leading scorers are both seniors. It's an upper classman lineup which you neglected to mention. Not many ranked teams or even P12 teams can say that.

socaltownie said:

---

So it has to be solved on recruiting trail and the early results...well...suck (oh no, I used that word again)

---

I don't mind you saying a player sucks. A little deeper analysis would be nice, but saying a player isn't good isn't beyond the pale.

Wearing a shirt to a game that says a player sucks? Make sure to make a companion shirt you can wear on all the other days that says "I suck."

TheSouseFamily said:

---

The letdown lies with the freshman and the apparent gap between practice performance and games.

---

Never ever ever put any weight on practice reports. I have read so many hopelessly dew-eyed optimistic practice reports over the years that never amount to anything that I just wait for games and make my own judgments. Even the coaches are guilty of this. Remember Wilcox and the coaches gushing about Deng during last year's bow practices? He had a lot of tackles this year, but he was nowhere near the impact player they were talking about.

Always judge players on games, not practice hype.

GBear4Life said:

---

Cal's players are worse than last year, agreed?

So why would anybody expect a better team?

Basic logic, unless you subscribe to this theory where a coach is the only causal principle for W-L.

This year doesn't matter (figuratively). But since everyone attributed the poor season last year to WJ incompetency, they can't logically claim different anywhere else, so they're forced to be outraged at the new HC when Cal sucks again.

---

Your stupidity is infinite and tiresome

bearister said:

---

Wyking Jones' win percentage was .340.

---

I can't believe it's that high. It felt worse than that.

OaktownBear said:

---

Seeing a post about Fox haters piling on and the damage Jones did shows me that a certain element are going to try and set the bar so low you'd need a shovel to trip over it.

---

The results this year are not that important to me. I'm more concerned about the recruiting results. Even for a last place team, they are pretty disappointing. Those guys better end up better than their offer sheets say they are or we're gonna be repeating this conversation a lot.

In terms of actual game action, I just want to see the players improve over the course of the season. If that's leads to some wins, that's great, but in a sport where 68 teams make the postseason tournament, there's not a big difference to me between a 10 win team and a 15 win team.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

bearister said:

---

Wyking Jones' win percentage was .340.

---

I can't believe it's that high. It felt worse than that.

---

Wyking Jones' win percentage was not .340, at least not as Cal's head coach.

He went 16-47. 16/(16+47) = 16/63 = 0.254.

In the Pac-12, he went 5-31. 5/(5+31) = 5/36 = 0.139.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyking_Jones

Edited to add, maybe .340 came from taking the 16-47 win-loss record and calculating 16/47 = 0.340? Of course that's not how winning percentages work or else going 5-5 would mean a 1.000 winning percentage.

OneKeg said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

bearister said:

---

Wyking Jones' win percentage was .340.

---

I can't believe it's that high. It felt worse than that.

---

Wyking Jones' win percentage was not .340, at least not as Cal's head coach.

He went 16-47. 16/(16+47) = 16/63 = 0.254.

In the Pac-12, he went 5-31. 5/(5+31) = 5/36 = 0.139.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyking_Jones

Edited to add, maybe .340 came from taking the 16-47 win-loss record and calculating 16/47 = 0.340? Of course that's not how winning percentages work or else going 5-5 would mean a 1.000 winning percentage.

---

Good call. And good instincts on the math.

I don't know whether to feel good for saying that felt too high or bad because it was so depressingly worse.

OaktownBear said:

---

You are right that it is unfair to point to a couple wins to argue we shouldn't be bad this year. It is also unfair to misrepresent what people say. I didn't say we shouldn't be bad. I said 5 or 6 wins in conference and be competitive with the bottom half of conference most nights. That is a bad team. Not an expectation of a good team.

If you disagree with my post and think it is unfair, I'm cool with that. But this is a consistent response to anyone trying to set a standard - respond by implying they have set some much higher standard. That is why I'm clear in my first post what my standard is. So if you think I'm unfair, then you think an expectation that of 5-6 wins and competitive games against the bottom half is unfair, not 20 wins as Aun responded or "good" as you responded.

I think it is unfair to completely write off the end of last year as a couple anomalous games. The team got better and played for it well for four straight games. That does not wipe out the rest of the season. It does show improvement. I would have expected a reasonable goal for this year with that team would have been a .500 record in conference give or take a game.

I also think completely laying off commentary on recruiting is not warranted. Recruiting job one was to keep the guys we had, and if we did that we wouldn't have a third cluster season. I do not in any way think we should have gotten quality new comers. I do think it is fair to question whether we fill our roster with 4 year commitments to players that are unlikely to increase our fortunes.

My criticism here, except for recruiting, is not for Fox. It is for Knowlton. We needed to improve and quick. We have had repeated roster defections and we needed to stop that bleeding. That meant we needed to hire a coach that players would want to play for. Fox just isn't that guy.

It isn't really a matter of what it is "fair" to expect from Fox. Frankly, I don't think it is "fair" to expect him to ever turn this program around. He has a team that no one wants to play for. Somehow he has to get out on the recruiting trail and change minds. That is a tough sell and while he is certainly the right guy in some situations, I would question whether Knowlton fully picked the right guy for our situation vs. picking a "good coach". I'll be frank, being completely fair to Fox, I cannot envision how he is getting from here to there. And if we are where we were last year or worse, we will see the limitations of what his coaching can do over Jones coaching with this talent. Which is he is a much better coach but it really doesn't make a difference with our personnel deficiencies so the question is how he is addressing that. With the roster we have and the recruits coming in where are we going with this?

So yes, I think to sell this program to recruits we need to show SOME improvement. 5-6 wins would be a start. If there is no improvement, what is he going to sell. So yes, I think if we can't be competitive with the bottom half of our conference and win 5 or 6 games, Knowlton crapped the bed. Whether it is fair to expect better of Fox or not. Because Knowlton needed to hire a coach that it WOULD be fair to expect 5-6 wins out of.

---

Fair enough on your first point. I would simply say that what last year's team did at the end with a completely different set of players is irrelevant to what we should do this year. I also look at this year's team and don't think an "expectation" of 5-6 conference wins fits the facts too well. Those wins you point to from last year were the only conference wins of the entire season. The players who led those wins are gone. The players who replaced them were essentially emergency signings needed to put a team together. I don't know why we should expect more wins from worse talent in an improved conference. If we do, I'd consider that a good job by the coaching staff, though not what I want to expect from this program now or in the future. Jones was not coaching "this talent," in my view. He was coaching better talent with worse results.

Yes, the process to hire Fox seemed slipshod and ill-informed. It seemed like Knowlton didn't actually plan to make a change until forced. That's bad leadership. And Fox may not be the guy to get us from here to there, as you say. But in my view, what's been missing from this program for a long time is any kind of continuity. We've had class imbalances, lack of upperclass talent, too much disruption, too many coaching changes, and whether he's the guy or or not we need someone to build something for the longer term. It may just be getting back to being middle of the pack and providing a base for a more dynamic coach to work with, but even that would take a few years. I don't see any short-term solutions given where we are.

bearister said:

---

Open request here for the community to analyze Bun Boy's career stats and make your best argument why it is unrealistic to believe Lars can meet or exceed:

Jimbo Lull Stats, News, Bio | ESPN


https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4066748/jimbo-lull





*In my opinion Bun Boy stuck a Bowie knife in the Bears in that game

---

If you can show me the tape of Bun Boy failing to dunk the rock from 1 foot out in his Frosh year and instead putting up some weak aZZ layup that got blocks I am HAPPY to revise my opinion of Lars.

bluesaxe said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

You are right that it is unfair to point to a couple wins to argue we shouldn't be bad this year. It is also unfair to misrepresent what people say. I didn't say we shouldn't be bad. I said 5 or 6 wins in conference and be competitive with the bottom half of conference most nights. That is a bad team. Not an expectation of a good team.

If you disagree with my post and think it is unfair, I'm cool with that. But this is a consistent response to anyone trying to set a standard - respond by implying they have set some much higher standard. That is why I'm clear in my first post what my standard is. So if you think I'm unfair, then you think an expectation that of 5-6 wins and competitive games against the bottom half is unfair, not 20 wins as Aun responded or "good" as you responded.

I think it is unfair to completely write off the end of last year as a couple anomalous games. The team got better and played for it well for four straight games. That does not wipe out the rest of the season. It does show improvement. I would have expected a reasonable goal for this year with that team would have been a .500 record in conference give or take a game.

I also think completely laying off commentary on recruiting is not warranted. Recruiting job one was to keep the guys we had, and if we did that we wouldn't have a third cluster season. I do not in any way think we should have gotten quality new comers. I do think it is fair to question whether we fill our roster with 4 year commitments to players that are unlikely to increase our fortunes.

My criticism here, except for recruiting, is not for Fox. It is for Knowlton. We needed to improve and quick. We have had repeated roster defections and we needed to stop that bleeding. That meant we needed to hire a coach that players would want to play for. Fox just isn't that guy.

It isn't really a matter of what it is "fair" to expect from Fox. Frankly, I don't think it is "fair" to expect him to ever turn this program around. He has a team that no one wants to play for. Somehow he has to get out on the recruiting trail and change minds. That is a tough sell and while he is certainly the right guy in some situations, I would question whether Knowlton fully picked the right guy for our situation vs. picking a "good coach". I'll be frank, being completely fair to Fox, I cannot envision how he is getting from here to there. And if we are where we were last year or worse, we will see the limitations of what his coaching can do over Jones coaching with this talent. Which is he is a much better coach but it really doesn't make a difference with our personnel deficiencies so the question is how he is addressing that. With the roster we have and the recruits coming in where are we going with this?

So yes, I think to sell this program to recruits we need to show SOME improvement. 5-6 wins would be a start. If there is no improvement, what is he going to sell. So yes, I think if we can't be competitive with the bottom half of our conference and win 5 or 6 games, Knowlton crapped the bed. Whether it is fair to expect better of Fox or not. Because Knowlton needed to hire a coach that it WOULD be fair to expect 5-6 wins out of.

---

Fair enough on your first point. I would simply say that what last year's team did at the end with a completely different set of players is irrelevant to what we should do this year. I also look at this year's team and don't think an "expectation" of 5-6 conference wins fits the facts too well. Those wins you point to from last year were the only conference wins of the entire season. The players who led those wins are gone. The players who replaced them were essentially emergency signings needed to put a team together. I don't know why we should expect more wins from worse talent in an improved conference. If we do, I'd consider that a good job by the coaching staff, though not what I want to expect from this program now or in the future. Jones was not coaching "this talent," in my view. He was coaching better talent with worse results.

Yes, the process to hire Fox seemed slipshod and ill-informed. It seemed like Knowlton didn't actually plan to make a change until forced. That's bad leadership. And Fox may not be the guy to get us from here to there, as you say. But in my view, what's been missing from this program for a long time is any kind of continuity. We've had class imbalances, lack of upperclass talent, too much disruption, too many coaching changes, and whether he's the guy or or not we need someone to build something for the longer term. It may just be getting back to being middle of the pack and providing a base for a more dynamic coach to work with, but even that would take a few years. I don't see any short-term solutions given where we are.

---

To be clear, I'm not arguing for making a coaching change. I'm arguing that the last one appears ill conceived and if we don't compete with the bottom dwellers, that appearance will be more solidified. I am not looking at Fox at this point and what is fair for Fox to achieve. I'm looking square at Knowlton.

I think it is fair to hold Knowlton to the standard set by the end of last year regardless of who left.

1. Those players hadn't left yet. We have some revisionist history going on here. Those guys were on the team when the hire took place. They met with the new coach. They left after the new coach had ample opportunity to convince them to stay. When they left, many of the same people who are citing their departure as the reason we suck were saying they weren't very good and their departure didn't matter and they shouldn't let the door hit them on the ass. I know because I was busy calling them idiots. Those guys weren't gone when Knowlton made his hire.

2. Knowlton could have looked for a coach that would maximize our chances of keeping those guys and who might be able to bring some recruits with him or turn some late recruits. He didn't. As a result, we lost those guys and got emergency recruits that were of questionable quality.

3. So we chose to go the "get a solid x's and o's" guy. To answer your question about why should we expect more wins with worse talent, wasn't the point that was almost universally agreed to that we had the worst coach in the history of our school, maybe the conference? Sorry, but if we chose to go coaching over recruiting, I expect the coach to be able to go over to CCSF, pull those guys off the floor and drub Wyking Jones with it.

So yes, I think Knowlton needed to hire a coach that could either a) keep the guys we had and recruit; b) outcoach Wyking Jones; or c) do a combination of some amount of each of those at least enough so we are where we were at the end of last season.

I stand by my opinion that if we don't do that, it is a bed crapping by Knowlton. Notice I said IF. It is a standard, not a conclusion.

I agree with the need for continuity. Which makes making the right decision in the first place all the more important.

The Vanover and Sueing losses make this team worse than last year. McNeil is not a difference maker. I wonder how Jones is spending his $1M this year.

caltagjohnson said:

---

The Vanover and Sueing losses make this team worse than last year. McNeil is not a difference maker. I wonder how Jones is spending his $1M this year.

---

Exactly. How is this lost upon people?

Lost on who?

GBear4Life said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

The Vanover and Sueing losses make this team worse than last year. McNeil is not a difference maker. I wonder how Jones is spending his $1M this year.

---

Exactly. How is this lost upon people?

---

Yeah - Not sure JUSTICE makes the team that much better but Vannover surely would.

OaktownBear said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

You are right that it is unfair to point to a couple wins to argue we shouldn't be bad this year. It is also unfair to misrepresent what people say. I didn't say we shouldn't be bad. I said 5 or 6 wins in conference and be competitive with the bottom half of conference most nights. That is a bad team. Not an expectation of a good team.

If you disagree with my post and think it is unfair, I'm cool with that. But this is a consistent response to anyone trying to set a standard - respond by implying they have set some much higher standard. That is why I'm clear in my first post what my standard is. So if you think I'm unfair, then you think an expectation that of 5-6 wins and competitive games against the bottom half is unfair, not 20 wins as Aun responded or "good" as you responded.

I think it is unfair to completely write off the end of last year as a couple anomalous games. The team got better and played for it well for four straight games. That does not wipe out the rest of the season. It does show improvement. I would have expected a reasonable goal for this year with that team would have been a .500 record in conference give or take a game.

I also think completely laying off commentary on recruiting is not warranted. Recruiting job one was to keep the guys we had, and if we did that we wouldn't have a third cluster season. I do not in any way think we should have gotten quality new comers. I do think it is fair to question whether we fill our roster with 4 year commitments to players that are unlikely to increase our fortunes.

My criticism here, except for recruiting, is not for Fox. It is for Knowlton. We needed to improve and quick. We have had repeated roster defections and we needed to stop that bleeding. That meant we needed to hire a coach that players would want to play for. Fox just isn't that guy.

It isn't really a matter of what it is "fair" to expect from Fox. Frankly, I don't think it is "fair" to expect him to ever turn this program around. He has a team that no one wants to play for. Somehow he has to get out on the recruiting trail and change minds. That is a tough sell and while he is certainly the right guy in some situations, I would question whether Knowlton fully picked the right guy for our situation vs. picking a "good coach". I'll be frank, being completely fair to Fox, I cannot envision how he is getting from here to there. And if we are where we were last year or worse, we will see the limitations of what his coaching can do over Jones coaching with this talent. Which is he is a much better coach but it really doesn't make a difference with our personnel deficiencies so the question is how he is addressing that. With the roster we have and the recruits coming in where are we going with this?

So yes, I think to sell this program to recruits we need to show SOME improvement. 5-6 wins would be a start. If there is no improvement, what is he going to sell. So yes, I think if we can't be competitive with the bottom half of our conference and win 5 or 6 games, Knowlton crapped the bed. Whether it is fair to expect better of Fox or not. Because Knowlton needed to hire a coach that it WOULD be fair to expect 5-6 wins out of.

---

Fair enough on your first point. I would simply say that what last year's team did at the end with a completely different set of players is irrelevant to what we should do this year. I also look at this year's team and don't think an "expectation" of 5-6 conference wins fits the facts too well. Those wins you point to from last year were the only conference wins of the entire season. The players who led those wins are gone. The players who replaced them were essentially emergency signings needed to put a team together. I don't know why we should expect more wins from worse talent in an improved conference. If we do, I'd consider that a good job by the coaching staff, though not what I want to expect from this program now or in the future. Jones was not coaching "this talent," in my view. He was coaching better talent with worse results.

Yes, the process to hire Fox seemed slipshod and ill-informed. It seemed like Knowlton didn't actually plan to make a change until forced. That's bad leadership. And Fox may not be the guy to get us from here to there, as you say. But in my view, what's been missing from this program for a long time is any kind of continuity. We've had class imbalances, lack of upperclass talent, too much disruption, too many coaching changes, and whether he's the guy or or not we need someone to build something for the longer term. It may just be getting back to being middle of the pack and providing a base for a more dynamic coach to work with, but even that would take a few years. I don't see any short-term solutions given where we are.

---

To be clear, I'm not arguing for making a coaching change. I'm arguing that the last one appears ill conceived and if we don't compete with the bottom dwellers, that appearance will be more solidified. I am not looking at Fox at this point and what is fair for Fox to achieve. I'm looking square at Knowlton.

I think it is fair to hold Knowlton to the standard set by the end of last year regardless of who left.

1. Those players hadn't left yet. We have some revisionist history going on here. Those guys were on the team when the hire took place. They met with the new coach. They left after the new coach had ample opportunity to convince them to stay. When they left, many of the same people who are citing their departure as the reason we suck were saying they weren't very good and their departure didn't matter and they shouldn't let the door hit them on the ass. I know because I was busy calling them idiots. Those guys weren't gone when Knowlton made his hire.

2. Knowlton could have looked for a coach that would maximize our chances of keeping those guys and who might be able to bring some recruits with him or turn some late recruits. He didn't. As a result, we lost those guys and got emergency recruits that were of questionable quality.

3. So we chose to go the "get a solid x's and o's" guy. To answer your question about why should we expect more wins with worse talent, wasn't the point that was almost universally agreed to that we had the worst coach in the history of our school, maybe the conference? Sorry, but if we chose to go coaching over recruiting, I expect the coach to be able to go over to CCSF, pull those guys off the floor and drub Wyking Jones with it.

So yes, I think Knowlton needed to hire a coach that could either a) keep the guys we had and recruit; b) outcoach Wyking Jones; or c) do a combination of some amount of each of those at least enough so we are where we were at the end of last season.

I stand by my opinion that if we don't do that, it is a bed crapping by Knowlton. Notice I said IF. It is a standard, not a conclusion.

I agree with the need for continuity. Which makes making the right decision in the first place all the more important.

---

I'm not disagreeing at all on Knowlton's handling of this. It wasn't at all adequate.

But I recall reports that players told him they were leaving if Wyking stayed as well. And I suspect that other issues could have been in play. For example, imo the most important guy we lost was Vanover. Was he comfortable in Berkeley, after being raised in Arkansas? Maybe, but his return to home base might suggest otherwise. McNeill did something similar. Maybe the guy was out there who could have convinced them all to stay, but it may be that those guys all had different ideas about what they were looking for. It's hard for me to assume that there's a guy who we could have hired who would have fixed every issue with those guys.

Where we probably agree is that I doubt Knowlton knew enough about what the players wanted or disliked to know what might work best or that he knew enough about the talent pool of younger coaches to make the call.