I think, without question, Fox will rebuild the program to respectable. One cannot see yet how he gets Cal to the Final Four, but one can see that teaching and coaching will get them to the top half of the league.

Nice post MB! One Paris reflection: I notice that during the early to middle parts of a game that Paris can have a tendency to be sloppy and miss gut layups and launch bricks that barely hit the apparatus, HOWEVER, with that said, he has proved to me that he digs deep and is a clutch player at crunch time. When the game is on the line, those contorting layups drop and those outside shots find net..

MoragaBear said:

---

F

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two?

---

+1. Ultimately the only time Cal has made ANY sort of noise in the tournament is when they have had elite players. We can go endlessly around the WHY but simple fact - without at least 1 or 2 kids WORTHY of being DRAFTED Cal is going to have a hard time getting any better than the seed of death.

I dont care about the tourney. I just want to win home games.

MoragaBear said:

---

Fox can clearly coach. He gets his players far better shots than Martin and Jones did and they defend more intelligently, in general.

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two? Can he keep the players buy-in and not lose them with his no-nonsense (sometimes hardass) style? Can he get them to defend the perimeter consistently? And can he teach the silly mistakes out of the team, especially the sloppy, careless turnovers? They can't afford to give away possessions as an offensively-challenged team and they need to consistently play efficiently to have a chance at a decent season with the talent level they presently have.

16 games into the season, they've won as many games as each of the last two seasons in 31 and 32 games.

---

Nice post. Fox is definitely a competent X and O coach and it appears he has buy-in from the players who stayed. We don't know if Fox is the long term answer, but we likely won't know that for a few more years since he (unlike Wyking) is good enough to at least avoid proving he isn't right away.

oskidunker said:

---

I dont care about the tourney. I just want to win home games.

---

To each his own, but when March Madness starts, I want my team in it (ideally, past the first weekend).

OT - OSu 82, uA 65.

socaltownie said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

F

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two?

---

+1. Ultimately the only time Cal has made ANY sort of noise in the tournament is when they have had elite players. We can go endlessly around the WHY but simple fact - without at least 1 or 2 kids WORTHY of being DRAFTED Cal is going to have a hard time getting any better than the seed of death.

---

Not true. Again, I give you the NCAA of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, with ZERO elite players. I'm not saying you can regularly do that today, but it is doable. You don't have to go back any farther than 2019 to find a team that made it to the NCAA Championship game: Texas Tech, who had ONLY ONE top 100 ranked recruit, #31 ranked Brandone Francis, and he was not good enough as 6th man to crack the starting lineup of FIVE players, ALL UNRANKED in the RCSI list of the top 100 recruits. And again, look at Stanford, which is a better team today without the elite Okpala, than they were with him last season. It is not the talent you have, it is what kind of talent, that is are they willing to work together and complement each other, and it is the coach who molds them into a team. Without a good coach, elites are just nothing but possible future draft picks, not a team. Didn't Cuonzo teach us anything? Didn't Ben Braun's 2003 class teach us anything? Yes, Bozeman had a little success in your tourney, but that was largely due to having the ultimate quarterback and team player, Jason Kidd. It was like having a good coach on the floor playing the games. Not a usual situation.

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

F

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two?

---

+1. Ultimately the only time Cal has made ANY sort of noise in the tournament is when they have had elite players. We can go endlessly around the WHY but simple fact - without at least 1 or 2 kids WORTHY of being DRAFTED Cal is going to have a hard time getting any better than the seed of death.

---

Not true. Again, I give you the NCAA of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, with ZERO elite players. I'm not saying you can regularly do that today, but it is doable. You don't have to go back any farther than 2019 to find a team that made it to the NCAA Championship game: Texas Tech, who had ONLY ONE top 100 ranked recruit, #31 ranked Brandone Francis, and he was not good enough as 6th man to crack the starting lineup of FIVE players, ALL UNRANKED in the RCSI list of the top 100 recruits. And again, look at Stanford, which is a better team today without the elite Okpala, than they were with him last season. It is not the talent you have, it is what kind of talent, that is are they willing to work together and complement each other, and it is the coach who molds them into a team. Without a good coach, elites are just nothing but possible future draft picks, not a team. Didn't Cuonzo teach us anything? Didn't Ben Braun's 2003 class teach us anything? Yes, Bozeman had a little success in your tourney, but that was largely due to having the ultimate quarterback and team player, Jason Kidd. It was like having a good coach on the floor playing the games. Not a usual situation.

---

https://i.redd.it/aja9o1wtl5l21.png

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

F

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two?

---

+1. Ultimately the only time Cal has made ANY sort of noise in the tournament is when they have had elite players. We can go endlessly around the WHY but simple fact - without at least 1 or 2 kids WORTHY of being DRAFTED Cal is going to have a hard time getting any better than the seed of death.

---

Not true. Again, I give you the NCAA of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, with ZERO elite players. I'm not saying you can regularly do that today, but it is doable. You don't have to go back any farther than 2019 to find a team that made it to the NCAA Championship game: Texas Tech, who had ONLY ONE top 100 ranked recruit, #31 ranked Brandone Francis, and he was not good enough as 6th man to crack the starting lineup of FIVE players, ALL UNRANKED in the RCSI list of the top 100 recruits. And again, look at Stanford, which is a better team today without the elite Okpala, than they were with him last season. It is not the talent you have, it is what kind of talent, that is are they willing to work together and complement each other, and it is the coach who molds them into a team. Without a good coach, elites are just nothing but possible future draft picks, not a team. Didn't Cuonzo teach us anything? Didn't Ben Braun's 2003 class teach us anything? Yes, Bozeman had a little success in your tourney, but that was largely due to having the ultimate quarterback and team player, Jason Kidd. It was like having a good coach on the floor playing the games. Not a usual situation.

---

You really continue to not understand. So I am going to dumb it down. IN 1960 the average NBA salary was $12,000.....which is the purchasing power of about $105,000 in today's dollars. (rounding in both cases). Ergo - being an elite basketball player was a "nice" thing but didn't get you really out of the middle class. And, in all likelihood, a kid was BETTER off, even with solid hoop skills, of going to a place like Cal and trying to become a lawyer, banker or accountant (and I hear that Plastics were SOLID!!!)

The rise of the NBA and multi-millionaires (even for non-starters) has fundamentally changed the game. The players are bigger, stronger, better conditioned and have EVERY incentive to work MUCH harder on their game. Now for a kid that is almost a lock to be drafted there is every reason NOT to spend time away from the game.

That has fundamentally changed the competitive landscape Cal faces.

Or put more snidely - that 1960 team goes 0 and 36 against today's NCAA. I have watched the tapes. It is clear as day.

PS - I want to see your ranking source for hoop recruits from the late 1950s. It is almost comical to believe that there was anything approaching today's services in an era where recruiting was hyper local and very few HS teams traveled. The idea that there would be "top 100" lists stretches the limits of what I can believe.

SCT, I am guessing that the sweep of the Washingtons stretches the limits of what you previously could have imagined!

Just as, also,has Fox's coaching!

Go Bears!

south bender said:

---

SCT, I am guessing that the sweep of the Washingtons stretches the limits of what you previously could have imagined!

Just as, also,has Fox's coaching!

Go Bears!

---

No way I thought we would beat the Fuskies. Now lets be honest - we played them to OT victory when their starting pg just was lost (forever?) to grades. Stuff like that happens (and we were down our best defender) so I am not putting an asterix on it but I am taking that into consideration when considering anointing fox the greatest coach of all time ;-)

MoragaBear said:

---

Fox can clearly coach. He gets his players far better shots than Martin and Jones did and they defend more intelligently, in general.

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two? Can he keep the players buy-in and not lose them with his no-nonsense (sometimes hardass) style? Can he get them to defend the perimeter consistently? And can he teach the silly mistakes out of the team, especially the sloppy, careless turnovers? They can't afford to give away possessions as an offensively-challenged team and they need to consistently play efficiently to have a chance at a decent season with the talent level they presently have.

16 games into the season, they've won as many games as each of the last two seasons in 31 and 32 games.

---

Excellent synopsis MB - I think your questions are the same as mine. Last weekend was generally positive - not just the wins, but the ability of the team to adjust during a game and address turnovers and defensive lapses. The prior couple weeks were generally negative, however - as they were NOT able to adapt enough.

It will be fun to see how the team performs the next three weekends. LA schools - A split would be great (UCLA is lost right now but USC is quietly near the top of the conference). Stanford - playing well, but not invincible - can we get revenge? Oregon schools at bay area - last weekend's team splits this, the team from holiday break gets blown out.

I think going 2 out of 5 over that stretch would be great.

Wow - it is really painful to write that last statement and actually mean it - shows how far this program has fallen and how far we still have to go to be relevant again.

I don't know what it is with us and the Syracuse zone. Remember one year under Cuonzo at MSG we carved up Syracuse? Then we play our best game against UW last year. Then we play them well last Sat. Seems to me with their athleticism and length, zone would be doing us a favor.

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

F

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two?

---

+1. Ultimately the only time Cal has made ANY sort of noise in the tournament is when they have had elite players. We can go endlessly around the WHY but simple fact - without at least 1 or 2 kids WORTHY of being DRAFTED Cal is going to have a hard time getting any better than the seed of death.

---

Not true. Again, I give you the NCAA of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, with ZERO elite players. I'm not saying you can regularly do that today, but it is doable. You don't have to go back any farther than 2019 to find a team that made it to the NCAA Championship game: Texas Tech, who had ONLY ONE top 100 ranked recruit, #31 ranked Brandone Francis, and he was not good enough as 6th man to crack the starting lineup of FIVE players, ALL UNRANKED in the RCSI list of the top 100 recruits. And again, look at Stanford, which is a better team today without the elite Okpala, than they were with him last season. It is not the talent you have, it is what kind of talent, that is are they willing to work together and complement each other, and it is the coach who molds them into a team. Without a good coach, elites are just nothing but possible future draft picks, not a team. Didn't Cuonzo teach us anything? Didn't Ben Braun's 2003 class teach us anything? Yes, Bozeman had a little success in your tourney, but that was largely due to having the ultimate quarterback and team player, Jason Kidd. It was like having a good coach on the floor playing the games. Not a usual situation.

---

Just where did you find the list of elite high school players for 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 or even 1970 for that matter....I don't think anyone was ranking HS players back in the good old days....One man saying it doesn't make it true (I think I heard someone on this board say this a few times)...

BeachedBear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

Fox can clearly coach. He gets his players far better shots than Martin and Jones did and they defend more intelligently, in general.

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two? Can he keep the players buy-in and not lose them with his no-nonsense (sometimes hardass) style? Can he get them to defend the perimeter consistently? And can he teach the silly mistakes out of the team, especially the sloppy, careless turnovers? They can't afford to give away possessions as an offensively-challenged team and they need to consistently play efficiently to have a chance at a decent season with the talent level they presently have.

16 games into the season, they've won as many games as each of the last two seasons in 31 and 32 games.

---

Excellent synopsis MB - I think your questions are the same as mine. Last weekend was generally positive - not just the wins, but the ability of the team to adjust during a game and address turnovers and defensive lapses. The prior couple weeks were generally negative, however - as they were NOT able to adapt enough.

It will be fun to see how the team performs the next three weekends. LA schools - A split would be great (UCLA is lost right now but USC is quietly near the top of the conference). Stanford - playing well, but not invincible - can we get revenge? Oregon schools at bay area - last weekend's team splits this, the team from holiday break gets blown out.

I think going 2-5 over that stretch would be great.

Wow - it is really painful to write that last statement and actually mean it - shows how far this program has fallen and how far we still have to go to be relevant again.

---

2-3 (FIFY) over the next 5 games would indeed be great. After watching the first ten minutes of the WSU game though, I was quickly losing hope they would win a single Pac-12 game. 4 wins before the halfway point would be ahead of most expectations. Yes, long road back to relevancy.

Aside from the adjustments that many have mentioned, I think the most noticeable change is that the team seems to now believe that they CAN win, so they don't fold when the opponents make a run. This is a huge thing, because a loser mentality is more or less natural after the disaster of 2 years under WJ.

btw, I hear Jay John say that when things were going south, players would look to WJ for answers and he had none other than "play hard." Fox, OTOH, has specific instructions about what to do differently so the players don't feel lost.

UrsaMajor said:

---

btw, I hear Jay John say that when things were going south, players would look to WJ for answers and he had none other than "play hard."

---

Did Martin have more than that to say?

smokeyrover said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

Fox can clearly coach. He gets his players far better shots than Martin and Jones did and they defend more intelligently, in general.

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two? Can he keep the players buy-in and not lose them with his no-nonsense (sometimes hardass) style? Can he get them to defend the perimeter consistently? And can he teach the silly mistakes out of the team, especially the sloppy, careless turnovers? They can't afford to give away possessions as an offensively-challenged team and they need to consistently play efficiently to have a chance at a decent season with the talent level they presently have.

16 games into the season, they've won as many games as each of the last two seasons in 31 and 32 games.

---

Excellent synopsis MB - I think your questions are the same as mine. Last weekend was generally positive - not just the wins, but the ability of the team to adjust during a game and address turnovers and defensive lapses. The prior couple weeks were generally negative, however - as they were NOT able to adapt enough.

It will be fun to see how the team performs the next three weekends. LA schools - A split would be great (UCLA is lost right now but USC is quietly near the top of the conference). Stanford - playing well, but not invincible - can we get revenge? Oregon schools at bay area - last weekend's team splits this, the team from holiday break gets blown out.

I think going 2-5 over that stretch would be great.

Wow - it is really painful to write that last statement and actually mean it - shows how far this program has fallen and how far we still have to go to be relevant again.

---

2-3 (FIFY) over the next 5 games would indeed be great. After watching the first ten minutes of the WSU game though, I was quickly losing hope they would win a single Pac-12 game. 4 wins before the halfway point would be ahead of most expectations. Yes, long road back to relevancy.

---

The bar isn't set too high for this year: 6-12 in conference and not finishing dead last would be a significant step forward, both relative to the WJ era and also considering the roster. Then, let's get some players.

stu said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

btw, I hear Jay John say that when things were going south, players would look to WJ for answers and he had none other than "play hard."

---

Did Martin have more than that to say?

---

Yes he did. He said, "I'll take 7 more of those, please."

UrsaMajor said:

---

Aside from the adjustments that many have mentioned, I think the most noticeable change is that the team seems to now believe that they CAN win, so they don't fold when the opponents make a run. This is a huge thing, because a loser mentality is more or less natural after the disaster of 2 years under WJ.

btw, I hear Jay John say that when things were going south, players would look to WJ for answers and he had none other than "play hard." Fox, OTOH, has specific instructions about what to do differently so the players don't feel lost.

---

You can see that. I don't think any of us doubt that Fox has good basektball chops. You don't get hired to work with the national program if you don't and his peers in the profession are effusive.

The real question is can he recruit in a conference with Altman, Donut boy, and U$C. Now the good news is that they all might get hit with sancations. The realistic one is that CAl will be the one punished because...well...things ;-)

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

F

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two?

---

+1. Ultimately the only time Cal has made ANY sort of noise in the tournament is when they have had elite players. We can go endlessly around the WHY but simple fact - without at least 1 or 2 kids WORTHY of being DRAFTED Cal is going to have a hard time getting any better than the seed of death.

---

Not true. Again, I give you the NCAA of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, with ZERO elite players. I'm not saying you can regularly do that today, but it is doable. You don't have to go back any farther than 2019 to find a team that made it to the NCAA Championship game: Texas Tech, who had ONLY ONE top 100 ranked recruit, #31 ranked Brandone Francis, and he was not good enough as 6th man to crack the starting lineup of FIVE players, ALL UNRANKED in the RCSI list of the top 100 recruits. And again, look at Stanford, which is a better team today without the elite Okpala, than they were with him last season. It is not the talent you have, it is what kind of talent, that is are they willing to work together and complement each other, and it is the coach who molds them into a team. Without a good coach, elites are just nothing but possible future draft picks, not a team. Didn't Cuonzo teach us anything? Didn't Ben Braun's 2003 class teach us anything? Yes, Bozeman had a little success in your tourney, but that was largely due to having the ultimate quarterback and team player, Jason Kidd. It was like having a good coach on the floor playing the games. Not a usual situation.

---

You really continue to not understand. So I am going to dumb it down. IN 1960 the average NBA salary was $12,000.....which is the purchasing power of about $105,000 in today's dollars. (rounding in both cases). Ergo - being an elite basketball player was a "nice" thing but didn't get you really out of the middle class. And, in all likelihood, a kid was BETTER off, even with solid hoop skills, of going to a place like Cal and trying to become a lawyer, banker or accountant (and I hear that Plastics were SOLID!!!)

The rise of the NBA and multi-millionaires (even for non-starters) has fundamentally changed the game. The players are bigger, stronger, better conditioned and have EVERY incentive to work MUCH harder on their game. Now for a kid that is almost a lock to be drafted there is every reason NOT to spend time away from the game.

That has fundamentally changed the competitive landscape Cal faces.

Or put more snidely - that 1960 team goes 0 and 36 against today's NCAA. I have watched the tapes. It is clear as day.

PS - I want to see your ranking source for hoop recruits from the late 1950s. It is almost comical to believe that there was anything approaching today's services in an era where recruiting was hyper local and very few HS teams traveled. The idea that there would be "top 100" lists stretches the limits of what I can believe.

---

You've either completely misunderstood my point, or you have completely understood it, and decided to change my post into your own argument that the basketball teams and players of today's generation are far better than the teams and players of my generation, a thinly veiled attack to try and discredit all that has gone before today in basketball history, which is has nothing whatever to do with my post, and a non-sequitur.

Your devotion to elite players, highly rated recruits, is little short of a religion. You almost worship these players, and the gurus who rank them are the high priests of your religion.

Let me try again to make this clear, "dumbing it down" for you, as you put it. I was simply saying that you incorrectly stated that no Cal teams had ever been successful with out having elite players. It was either a mistake or a flat out lie. If it is the latter, I resent it. Those teams had success against the elite teams with the elite players of their day. just like Texas Tech and Wisconsin had success against the teams with elite players today.

I NEVER SAID THAT THERE WAS A RECRUIT RANKING SYSTEM IN THE 1950s. That is putting words in my mouth and should be beneath you. I referred to "elite players of the day." Every college coach knew who the elite high school players of the day were, just like coaches know who they are today. Recruit rankings are a recent development, and are at most 20 years old. I'll bet coaches don't even look at recruit rankings, because they already know who the best players are, just like they always have. They know who they were before they become seniors and get ranked. They have to know, and start recruiting them long before they become seniors, in order to woo them successfully. Their coaching careers depended on it. If they don't get them, or can't coach without them, they are soon out of work.

Basketball was mostly provincial in the 1950s, and most recruits stayed home in their states to go to college. Both Cal's and UCLA's teams were built from the California recruiting base, but many coaches recruited nationally. Cal competed against John Wooden, and Wooden was signing players like Fred Saughter of Topeka Kansas, Ken Washington of South Carolina, Walt Hazzard of Philadelphia, John McIntosh of Kentucky, Lew Alcindor of NYC (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to you), Lucius Allen of Kansas City, Henry Bibby of North Carolina, Richard Washington of Portland Oregon, and Andre McCarter of Philadelphia. Cal had very few out of state recruits. Newell beat the teams of Wooden from 1957-1960 with mostly home-grown recruits. But they were not chopped liver. When I tried out for the Cal frosh in 1959, there where 18 slots, and 17 players already had scholarships before the tryouts began. And just about every one of those 17 players was all-league in high school, and several were MVPs of their leagues. Many were two- and three-sport all-stars in high school. But none were what we called elite recruits.

Not only coaches knew who all the elite recruits were. Anybody who played knew. Any kid who went to the Saturday matinee at the local theatre, and watched a newsreel, knew who Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, or Robin Freeman was in high school. I went to high school in the era of Tom Meschery and Fred LaCour. Both were named first team high school All-Americans by Parade or Street and Smith, I don't remember which. Both were named the best basketball player in California, and LaCour won the award twice. College coaches came to their games. LaCour was the first west coast player to be invited to the high school all-star game in Lexington, Ky. He dominated the game, and was named MVP. And many coaches tried to sign him. Then there was the Tournament of Champions at Berkeley's Harmon Gym, where thousands (and plenty of college coaches) came to watch the best players in Northern California, and later in the entire state come to play. So you better believe we all knew who the best recruits were. The best players in the TOC went on to play for UCLA, Cal, USF, St Marys, and many other schools, as Bay Area colleges dominated the NCAA and NIT for a 10 year run. Recruit rankings of services today are mostly for the fans, to make known to them who the elite recruits are likely to be, but the coaches already know who these recruits are. You think John Calipari needs to have a service tell him who the top 10 recruits will be next year? Hell, he has been on the kids he wants for 3 years already, in most cases. He has some of them locked in already, before the rankings even become public. Parade Magazine started naming HS all-American teams in 1964 or so, so we all knew who the elite players in the nation were.

My point was, and my argument is, that Cal and Newell were successful in the NCAA several times without landing the elite recruits OF THAT PERIOD. Pete had no Baylor, no Chamberlain, West, or Robertson. I think that can be done today, just not nearly as often. I think Cal is in the same place it was back then, a difficult school to recruit for, and an administration that will never agree to have Cal known first as a basketball or football school, and second for academics and research. We are not and never will be USC, Alabama, Kentucky, Duke, or Kansas. I gave you the example of Texas Tech last year getting to the NCAA Final. Here is another: Wisconsin in 2015. Great coach, but only two top 100 players. They started, but the team's best player by far was Kaminsky, a four year player who got better year by year. I think Cal should still focus on having a great coach, but recruit 2 Kaminskys for every one elite-ranked player they pursue. The elite players are not coming here en masse, like Kentucky or even UCLA.

As to your self-described "snide" remark about the players of my day losing 0 to 36 vs the NCAA, as I've said before, it depends on what rules you use. If you use today's rules, and today's refs, you are right, because the players of my day were forced to dribble without carrying the ball, drive to the rim without charging, and make a layup without traveling. We spent our whole lives practicing these skills, which are obsolete today. Trying to guard a player of today who can break down any defender on the dribble, all because of a rule change, or crash into a defender inside an artificial semicircle is patently unfair. Conversely, if the players of today were forced to play by the rules of my day, with the refs of my day, those players have spent thousands of hours practicing how to carry a basketball, travel with it, and crash into a defender and still score a basket. They would get called for so many fouls and violations, those players would be lucky to score at all, and the games would be so boring that most fans would not be buying tickets.

And then there is the three point shot. That has changed the game completely. If today's players were only awarded two points for a long shot, instead of three, their coaches would be forced to have them shoot few threes and more twos, and change their game, since most of them are not as proficient with hooks or mid range jumpers.

And there is the question of stamina, which was much more relevant in the game I played, where players, especially under Newell, had to play 40 minutes without a time out, except for free throws. Today with dozens of timeouts per game, players seldom have to go full out for more than 3-4 minutes. Today's players would have to train to increase stamina, if they wanted to compete against the players of my day by our rules.

I think the great players of either era could adapt, but it would take a year or two of practice at least to become proficient in the skills of the other era. It is fun to talk about, but as I said, irrelevant to the discussion, which was whether teams without any or many elite players can compete today against teams today of many elite players. I think they can, just like they always could and sometimes did, and still do once in a while today.

bearmanpg said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

F

My questions would be: Can he recruit well enough to build a tourney team, including pulling in an occasional elite player or two?

---

+1. Ultimately the only time Cal has made ANY sort of noise in the tournament is when they have had elite players. We can go endlessly around the WHY but simple fact - without at least 1 or 2 kids WORTHY of being DRAFTED Cal is going to have a hard time getting any better than the seed of death.

---

Not true. Again, I give you the NCAA of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, with ZERO elite players. I'm not saying you can regularly do that today, but it is doable. You don't have to go back any farther than 2019 to find a team that made it to the NCAA Championship game: Texas Tech, who had ONLY ONE top 100 ranked recruit, #31 ranked Brandone Francis, and he was not good enough as 6th man to crack the starting lineup of FIVE players, ALL UNRANKED in the RCSI list of the top 100 recruits. And again, look at Stanford, which is a better team today without the elite Okpala, than they were with him last season. It is not the talent you have, it is what kind of talent, that is are they willing to work together and complement each other, and it is the coach who molds them into a team. Without a good coach, elites are just nothing but possible future draft picks, not a team. Didn't Cuonzo teach us anything? Didn't Ben Braun's 2003 class teach us anything? Yes, Bozeman had a little success in your tourney, but that was largely due to having the ultimate quarterback and team player, Jason Kidd. It was like having a good coach on the floor playing the games. Not a usual situation.

---

Just where did you find the list of elite high school players for 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 or even 1970 for that matter....I don't think anyone was ranking HS players back in the good old days....One man saying it doesn't make it true (I think I heard someone on this board say this a few times)...

---

I never said there was a list of elite high school players for those years, and I never said anyone was ranking HS players back in those days. Read what I wrote, and not what SocalTownie says I wrote. I've answered this in my latest post in reply to SCT, which you can also read. The coaches in those days all knew who the elite players were, it was just not publicly listed by anyone. And the kids playing all knew who the best HS players were, locally, at least, and many of the best national ones. Recruit ranking is to my mind just a service to let fans know who the elite players are, in their opinion, and it is not particularly accurate, IMO.

stu said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

btw, I hear Jay John say that when things were going south, players would look to WJ for answers and he had none other than "play hard."

---

Did Martin have more than that to say?

---

Who's Martin?

My hobby, when I'm not arguing for well-played basketball, is amateur radio. And for us operators, "73" means "best regards". So, my friend, 73 to you, and happy new year.

First, I misread your post because of the block paragrahs of 1000 words. I now see you were referring to texas tech. Again, my mistake.

Second, the problem with your meta-narrative is that it just isn't true. There just are NOT programs that are sustaining a high level of excellence (and lets define that - 60%+ appearances in the show over a 10 year period with at least 2 trips beyond weekend 1 in that stretch. The tournament is the greatest sporting event in the world because there is ALWAYS the spunky cinderella that makes it to the SS every year. Good for them. But I would immediately note that nearly every Cinderella turns back to a peasant girl the next year. On VERY RARE occasions you get something like a Butler or a Zaga. But that is very rare and I am pretty sure Mark Fox isn't Mark Few or Brad Stevens.

Third, again - the late 1950s are so distinctly different as to be a different game. I simply do not believe your argument. And I would note that you are starting to mix and match when you bring in KAJ - he entered UCLA in 1966. By that time Newell was gone, Cal was irrelevant and the NBA was starting its slog toward minting millionaries. As you know, KAJ signed at about 1.4 million in 1969 - equal in today's dollars to a 9.8 mllion contact. Still VERY low for the first round pick but some good Chicken to take care of. I would note the guy that you waxed about, Fred Lacour, had a 4 year NBA career, finishing up at Wilkes-Barre -- suggesting the state of professional basketball in that era.

Fourth, lets talk about "fixation on 4 stars." NO ONE is arguing that cal will compete, head to head, against the Kentucky's of the world. Not the UCLAs. But it is simply the fact that when Cal has made noise in the MODERN tournament (with one exception which may not be an exception) it was when they had at least one guy, if not two, that were going to be drafted. Maybe not high. Maybe not stick, but one of the top 60 players that year eligible and interested in playing professionally and making bank. The rest of the team can be Theo level. They can nicely complement your pieces, but you got to have the stars.

Fifth, why this is important is that Cal doesn't play in the WCC. You can BE a Saint Mary's there because you get 20 games in your conference against schools that DON"T have that kind of talent. Running the table with a well coached group can net you a decent (but not pod protected) seed where you can get at least 1 game where you are not an underdog. Indeed, you could be on the 6/13 line and be in GREAT shape to sneak a win rather than the 7-10 seed of death. But if you are NOT winning 24-25-26 games in a P5 conference, when you go up against teams WITH future NBA talent - you get stuck on the death line. Fun times. I remember Cal getting the "fun" of playing OK in Oklahoma City. Almost traveled for that one. Fun Fun times.

Sixth, but most importantly your narrative is DEEPLY dangerous and needs to be Squashed where ever it appears. There are too many people, with either power or $$ or both at Cal that believe "Well we will just coach up these mechanical engineering students with a brilliant reincarnation of Pete N and get 'em" This is poppycock, but leads to things like hiring an idiot like Wyking Jones ("Continuity - gotta make sure we build on what they learned last year."), admission standards different than the rest of the conference ("Hey, can't have kids like Money sully the Cal name", and not building a practice facility ("They need to be studying, not practicing their jumper." )** This has been the bane of this university over and over again.....and if I am the only voice in the wilderness I will keep fighting against it - or encourage them to drop to D2 and be done with the farce.

I like you. I do. But I will also fight you when you hint that Cal does not need raw talent and that "coaching" is all that is required. This isn't to say we don't need both. It isn't to argue we should be Kentucky.....but we DAMM well need to keep kids like Aaron Gordon home and go after kids from the California that can play at the next level.

* The exception to the "We need NBA players" COULD be the first Braun team that went to the SS. Got into the tournament as a 5 seed That said, Ed Grey played for a year before his personal problems got him and Yogi Stewart played 8. Tony G. is, of course, one of the greatest athletes to ever play in the NFL so kinda gets an asterix there as well.

** These are not your quotes. They are things frequently heard by those criticizing actually acting like a p5 school that wants to win.

socaltownie said:

---

First, I misread your post because of the block paragrahs of 1000 words. I now see you were referring to texas tech. Again, my mistake.

Second, the problem with your meta-narrative is that it just isn't true. There just are NOT programs that are sustaining a high level of excellence (and lets define that - 60%+ appearances in the show over a 10 year period with at least 2 trips beyond weekend 1 in that stretch. The tournament is the greatest sporting event in the world because there is ALWAYS the spunky cinderella that makes it to the SS every year. Good for them. But I would immediately note that nearly every Cinderella turns back to a peasant girl the next year. On VERY RARE occasions you get something like a Butler or a Zaga. But that is very rare and I am pretty sure Mark Fox isn't Mark Few or Brad Stevens.

Third, again - the late 1950s are so distinctly different as to be a different game. I simply do not believe your argument. And I would note that you are starting to mix and match when you bring in KAJ - he entered UCLA in 1966. By that time Newell was gone, Cal was irrelevant and the NBA was starting its slog toward minting millionaries. As you know, KAJ signed at about 1.4 million in 1969 - equal in today's dollars to a 9.8 mllion contact. Still VERY low for the first round pick but some good Chicken to take care of. I would note the guy that you waxed about, Fred Lacour, had a 4 year NBA career, finishing up at Wilkes-Barre -- suggesting the state of professional basketball in that era.

Fourth, lets talk about "fixation on 4 stars." NO ONE is arguing that cal will compete, head to head, against the Kentucky's of the world. Not the UCLAs. But it is simply the fact that when Cal has made noise in the MODERN tournament (with one exception which may not be an exception) it was when they had at least one guy, if not two, that were going to be drafted. Maybe not high. Maybe not stick, but one of the top 60 players that year eligible and interested in playing professionally and making bank. The rest of the team can be Theo level. They can nicely complement your pieces, but you got to have the stars.

Fifth, why this is important is that Cal doesn't play in the WCC. You can BE a Saint Mary's there because you get 20 games in your conference against schools that DON"T have that kind of talent. Running the table with a well coached group can net you a decent (but not pod protected) seed where you can get at least 1 game where you are not an underdog. Indeed, you could be on the 6/13 line and be in GREAT shape to sneak a win rather than the 7-10 seed of death. But if you are NOT winning 24-25-26 games in a P5 conference, when you go up against teams WITH future NBA talent - you get stuck on the death line. Fun times. I remember Cal getting the "fun" of playing OK in Oklahoma City. Almost traveled for that one. Fun Fun times.

Sixth, but most importantly your narrative is DEEPLY dangerous and needs to be Squashed where ever it appears. There are too many people, with either power or $$ or both at Cal that believe "Well we will just coach up these mechanical engineering students with a brilliant reincarnation of Pete N and get 'em" This is poppycock, but leads to things like hiring an idiot like Wyking Jones ("Continuity - gotta make sure we build on what they learned last year."), admission standards different than the rest of the conference ("Hey, can't have kids like Money sully the Cal name", and not building a practice facility ("They need to be studying, not practicing their jumper." )** This has been the bane of this university over and over again.....and if I am the only voice in the wilderness I will keep fighting against it - or encourage them to drop to D2 and be done with the farce.

I like you. I do. But I will also fight you when you hint that Cal does not need raw talent and that "coaching" is all that is required. This isn't to say we don't need both. It isn't to argue we should be Kentucky.....but we DAMM well need to keep kids like Aaron Gordon home and go after kids from the California that can play at the next level.

* The exception to the "We need NBA players" COULD be the first Braun team that went to the SS. Got into the tournament as a 5 seed That said, Ed Grey played for a year before his personal problems got him and Yogi Stewart played 8. Tony G. is, of course, one of the greatest athletes to ever play in the NFL so kinda gets an asterix there as well.

** These are not your quotes. They are things frequently heard by those criticizing actually acting like a p5 school that wants to win.

---

I keep trying to focus on one thing, that selecting a good coach is the most important thing you can do when shaping a basketball program. It may be less important than it was in the '50s, when much of the game was being created and massaged and modified, and the elite one-on-one player was not nearly as prevalent as today, but the coach is still very important. One of the big reasons the loaded-with-talent Cal team of 2016 flopped, was beside the key injuries, that the Cal coach was badly outcoached by the Hawaii coach in the NCAA. Lots of fans use the injury excuse for that loss, but the elite players, Rabb and Brown still played, and could not lay a glove on a team of unranked and barely ranked recruits.

I did not realize that your dream was to have a program at Cal that would draw elite players every year to Cal and bring your measure of success in the NCAA in most years. Now that I know that, I feel I was right to challenge you on elite recruits being the solution to Cal's problems, because what you are pursuing and dreaming about is what we used to call "a pipe dream", or " pie in the sky". I believe it ain't gonna happen for you. As I wrote, the Cal Administration is never going to allow Cal to become a basketball school first, and an academic and research institute second. My first focus is to see us play well. Second to win the conference. Third, to get to the final four. That is it. If we just play well, I'm happy.

So what is wrong with being a Cinderella once every 15 years, say? Can't you live with that? I mean the modern NCAA is set up for the loaded teams to get upset along the way, which happens to some every year. Small school fans, or schools with lesser programs, live for these upsets. Like our upset of Duke, or of Villanova.

You misunderstood my including Abdul-Jabbar in the list of out of state recruits which Wooden landed. It was just a list to point out that Wooden must have known that these kids were elite players of their day, enough to want them on his team, instead of maybe a lesser player from California. My point was that he didn't have to look at a list from a ranking service to know where he could find the elite players, and he found plenty of them. Newell, on the other hand, recruited almost entirely from California, and he got the kind of players he wanted. Larry Friend was his first big recruit from LACC, who went on to become an All-American, and later lead the ABA in three-point shooting.

You made a derogatory statement about Newell coaching mechanical engineers. He never had any mechanical engineers on his teams. Most of his players were jocks, and not studying subjects requiring a lot of work. Denny Fitzpatrick was a Civil Engineering student, I believe, but I knew nearly all the players and I know of no other engineers on the team.

You also made a statement about the short NBA career of Fred LaCour as characterizing the state of the NBA, which was well, nuts. What the hell do you know about LaCour or the NBA of those days? Next to nothing. One of my golf partners grew up with Freddie, and was his best friend, and was with him in the hospital when he died. Perhaps you don't know it, but both college and pro basketball were racist institutions back then, very discriminatory. Fred was not a Black, but was a Creole, whose parents came from the Louisiana Bayou country. He faced discrimination for the first time when he was drafted by the St Louis Hawks. Fans threw stuff at him, and told him, "******, go home." Teammate Cliff Hagan, an NBA All-Star, but a blatant racist, rode him and rode him. He would never pass the ball to LaCour. LaCour was considered Black, and as such, was unable to eat meals with the team. He had to stay a hotel separate from the team. This was not the friendly climate he experienced as a kid growing up in San Francisco. LaCour began to date a White girl, and the owners kicked him off the team because he refused to stop. They traded him for nothing. The whole experience really affected Freddie. He did not have the strength of character of Jackie Robinson or Bill Russell, or Wilt, and he took to gambling and drinking, and washed out of pro basketball, and died of cancer a few years later. Those were the times. Even our beloved Cal discriminated, and Newell had a hard time integrating the team. He recruited just 3 Black players over 6 years, but of those, only Earl Robinson was successful at Cal. Those were Cal's very first Black players, and Newell met with resistance from the administration. So when you say it was a different game back then, you are right. So instead of quickly maligning a player like Freddie or the NBA of those days, do a little checking before you do so. One player's bad experience does not describe the whole league of those days.

And who has a "fixation on 4-stars?" I have no fixation on anything except getting a good coach and complementing that with good players. I have no better than 50% trust in recruit rankings. The top 25 are fairly accurate, the bottom 25 of the top 100 are not very accurate. I have no idea what you mean by raw talent. Talent is good. Raw talent, I assume is talent that needs coaching up.

As to Aaron Gordon, a program that is well established like Duke or KY can afford to take one year players. A program starting at rock bottom like Cuonzo left us, can not afford to look at one year players. We need 4 year players to build some sort of continuity, success, and reputation, like Bennett did at Virginia. Then you can toy with recruiting the one-year kids, like Bennett did. Otherwise, they bring you nothing much.

Yours Truly,

DEEPLY DANGEROUS

SFCity:

One quick question. You say that Newell had resistance from the administration for recruiting black players, and I have no reason to doubt that. Yet, we had black football players from the 20's or so. Do you understand the difference?

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity:

One quick question. You say that Newell had resistance from the administration for recruiting black players, and I have no reason to doubt that. Yet, we had black football players from the 20's or so. Do you understand the difference?

---

Ursa Major,

I have wondered about that myself. I started attending Cal games around 1948, and the only black football player I remember from my early years was Sam Williams, a really good athlete. He played quarterback, halfback, and either linebacker or defensive back from 1951-54. He would have started at QB if Pappy didn't have Paul Larson, an All-American who led the nation in total offense. I do know that Walter Gordon was the first black All-American football player, and he played at Cal 1914-1918. I looked into it a bit, but could not find other blacks who played football at Cal between Gordon and Williams. Archie Williams '39 was a great track man at Cal. But in the earliest days of basketball black college players were mostly playing at the small black colleges, and were not allowed to play for any major prorgrams.

After more poking around, looking for why there were no black basketball players at Cal, during years when there may have been black footballers at Cal, what I may have found is that many of the nation's colleges the experience was the same as Cal - that integration of football preceded that of basketball. Actually Cal with Gordon may have been the first school in the conference to have a black football player, beginning in 1914. UW had Hamilton Greene '23, USC had Brice Taylor '25, In 1926, Oregon repealed its law excluding blacks from entering the state, and the U of Oregon had Bobbie Robinson and Charles Williams playing football. In 1939, UCLA had Jackie Robinson, Kenny Washington, Woody Strode, and Ray Bartlett plaing football, and Robinson may have been UCLA's first black basketballer.

In basketball, integration of college teams came slower. From the Wikipedia, Columbia's George Gregory was the first black All-American basketball player in 1931. From the 1920s to 1947, very few blacks were allowed to play major college basketball. One exception was Jackie Robinson who led UCLA in scoring for two years. Another UCLA recruit was Don Barksdale, who would become the first black to be named to the Consensus All-American team in 1947. What irks me is Barksdale went to Berkeley High, and was cut from the team three straight years, because the coach did not want two blacks on his team at the same time. Barksdale continued to play on the playgrounds, and went it Marin JC. How Cal let a recruit like Barksdale slip through their hands and let UCLA pick him up is disappointing.

In 1947, the Big Ten still had a gentlemen's agreement which banned black players from the conference, but William Garrett broke the agreement and played for Indiana, enduring all the derision and discrimination in college that Fred Lacour had endured in the NBA. I should add that in the midst of that discrimination, Bob Petit became a good friend to Fred LaCour, and tried to help Fred deal with the situation.

And according to Wiki, our arch rival, John Wooden, was coaching Indiana State in 1947, and was instrumental in integrating the post season tournaments. The most important small college post season tournament, the NAIB tournamnent did not allow black players. Wooden had a black player, and refused to accept the invitation to the tournament. In 1948, the NAIB reversed its rule and allowed black players, and Indiana State accepted a bid. Two years later the NIT and NCAA also decided to accept teams with black players. So when Cal went to the Final Four in 1946, the NCAA was not accepting teams with black players.

My own opinion is that whites may have feared that blacks would dominate the game of basketball, more so than they would in football, so integration took longer. Why Berkeley was 15 years or so behind UCLA in recruiting black basketball players, I don't know. Based on Barksdale's experience at Berkeley high, I'd have to wonder what discrimination in general was like in Berkeley and at Cal. Was Barksdale recruited by Cal? Newell was the first to sign black basketballers, There was one black freshman in 1959, Dub Washington, who tried out for the Cal team and made it, but he was not recruited by Herrerias. Herrerias and his assistant Jim Padgett who made the biggest advances in integrating the Cal team. Herrerias best known for Bob Presley, Howard Holt, Charlie Perkins, Clarence Johnson, Charles Johnson, and Padgett for Trent Gaines, Ansley Truitt, Phil Chenier, and Jackie Ridgle. That was all in the late 1960s, a few years after Loyola of Chicago teams had won the NCAA with 4 black starters.in 1960, and Texas Western winning the NCAA with 5 black starters.

SFCB, you referenced Woody Strode. He was the Man!









..and a modern actor that channels Woody Strode in both demeanor and looks, Lance Reddick:

bearister said:

---

SFCB, you referenced Woody Strode. He was the Man!









..and a modern actor that channels Woody Strode in both demeanor and looks, Lance Reddick:

---

It was interesting to find out that he played football at UCLA, and played it with some other good athletes. And the bow and arrow was a good look.

FYI, the movies were The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, The Professionals, Sergeant Rutledge, and Spartacus.

SFCity:

Thank you for all that research! I agree with your speculation about the fear of blacks dominating basketball. Another (related) factor is that 3 black players = a majority of the starting lineup in basketball but only 27% in football (in the pre-unlimited substitution era). Phil Woolpert at USF was a pioneer in having more than 1 or 2 blacks on the court at the same time. (If I'm not mistaken, USF's football team with Ollie Matsen--from Washington High!--declined a bid to the Sugar Bowl because they were told they couldn't play their African Americans).

Your mention of Texas Western (now UTEP) reminds me of the ironic fact that Cal was the last NCAA championship team that was all-white.

It always made me quietly snicker that guys of my dad's generation (and guys 10 years or so younger than him) got to pop off about being D 1 basketball players at renown programs....but had the color barrier been lifted most of them would have been little more than above average intramural players during my days at Cal.