I'm not a big basketball fan (maybe it's because I'm short) but I do pay attention to the Bears.
For those of you that are basketball fans, I thought I would point out that, under Mark Fox, the Bears are now averaging 62.6 points a game.

I bring this up because, while the victory over Furd was impressive, it did nothing to change a trend that is disturbing to me...and maybe you too---Lack of scoring.

As primarily a football fan, explaining how bad the Cal offense is took some doing because there were many folks that just didn't get it.

So, let me try again on the basketball board. Cal is now scoring an average of 62.6 points/game, #334 of 350 teams in the nation in scoring average. To be near the bottom in scoring in football is one thing. But in basketball, which includes all kinds of small schools and fringe leagues, to be near the bottom is really something.

Let me add something if this doesn't concern you. Our somewhat anemic HC of last year did better at 68.4 last year and 67.7 the year before. I really didn't think it could get much worse.

Still not sure? How about this, coach Fox's points/game is the worst offensive average at Cal since the 3 point shot was instituted in 1986. Even before then, there were only a handful of seasons where the average was worse than 62.6. According to one sports stats archive, Cal has only had 11 such seasons since such tabulations began in 1948. All but 2 of those were prior to when Cal basketball joined what was then the pac-8 in 1968. Those 2 were under one HC, Dick Kuchen. I realize it has not been a full season but the trend is getting worse over time. The 62.6 point average is actually inflated by some high scoring games against pushovers earlier in the season. Since conference play started, Cal is actually averaging about 55 points/game.

I realize that coach Fox's emphasis is on defense. Fine, but points allowed is only the 9th best at Cal since 1986. I"ll give him this, his defense is significantly better than Wyking Jones', who, ironically, had the worst tenure on defense of any coach at Cal since 1986. It's not really that hard to do that. And his 67.7 point/game allowed ranks only tied for #138 and puts him only 7th in the conference, which is merely average defensively.

I hope I have not offended by coming on here and ragging on a HC in his first season, but I would not do it if the performance was not historically bad. In my several decades following Cal sports, a coach who starts out historically bad and actually performs worse than the rather poor coach he replaced, does not improve enough to make amends. Coach Fox may be a very nice person and he might have some real coaching advantages, but this is very concerning to me. I mean only Texas A&M and S. Florida are the only notable schools below Cal in scoring.

Does it concern you? If not, why?
Please convince me why coach Fox is the coach of the future for Cal basketball. And don't say it's because he just beat Furd. Furd is not a basketball powerhouse unless women are playing.

I wouldn't be overly concerned with points per game as the primary judge of the team's success or troubles.

Fox's style is similar in many ways to Tony Bennett's at UVA which has been the best team in the ACC probably over the last 5 years. Their scoring ranks?

This year: 351st out of 353 (Ongoing)
Last year: 210th out of 353 (35 wins and a national title)
2017: 314th out of 353 (31 wins and #1 tourney seed)
2016: 317th our of 351 (23 wins)
2015: 232nd our of 351 (29 wins)

Was just about to say the same thing.

Heart knows better than to use PPG. Cal is also ranked in the 300's in pace of play (which is not necessarily bad)

While PPG is a flawed stat, cal's offensive efficiency numbers are awful and that is a huge concern.

Thanks folks.
I've learned something and feel a bit better.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

I wouldn't be overly concerned with points per game as the primary judge of the team's success or troubles.

Fox's style is similar in many ways to Tony Bennett's at UVA which has been the best team in the ACC probably over the last 5 years. Their scoring ranks?

This year: 351st out of 353 (Ongoing)
Last year: 210th out of 353 (35 wins and a national title)
2017: 314th out of 353 (31 wins and #1 tourney seed)
2016: 317th our of 351 (23 wins)
2015: 232nd our of 351 (29 wins)

---

Great post!

Fox's team is clearly outperforming expectations.

The cup is half full!

Fox lost three offensive stalwarts in McNeil, Vanover and Sueing. We need to see if Bradley stays and who else arrives next fall. We badly need a scoring PG who can hit from the perimeter with consistency. The passing lanes need to be open at all times in order to facilitate any offensive scheme. I'm concerned about his ability to recruit consistently. We shall see.

Yes, the Bears have room for improvement on offense. With that said: St. Patrick's Day, 1994, NCCA Round I, Wisconsin Green Bay 61, California (J. Kidd, L. Murray) 57.

To reiterate: 1) personnel; 2) pace; 3) emphasis on defensive efficiency. It's likely Fox will never be a run 'n gun proponent but as long as he has a roster lacking size, speed and marksmen, deliberation will be the emphasis. In some ways his approach takes me back to the Newell era of my undergrad days during which Joe Hagler held the ball near mid-court for 8 minutes in a notorious tactic against USF. Thankfully, the shot clock spares us such nonsense now. Yesterday's game was painful to watch as both teams were pretty awful on offense but that seems to be college basketball this season. Still, if the choice is a dull win or an exciting loss (or the past 2 years of blowout losses) the answer seems obvious.

heartofthebear said:

---

. . .

Please convince me why coach Fox is the coach of the future for Cal basketball. . . ..

---

I think you're premise (or request) is flawed. I don't think many consider him to be the coach of the future.

I would suggest that FOX is our current coach and deserves the support of the fans. Whether he is the coach of the future will not be determined for a couple of years. My feeling at this point (based on results and recruiting) is that he will not be the coach when the current recruits graduate.

If he is not significantly better than Jones, he will NEED to be replaced in the next year or two. That may not seem fair, but such is the nature of modern P12 bball,

If he is better than Jones but not significantly, he will likely be considered a program stabilizer, but be replaced by someone with more upside.

If he IS significantly better than Jones, then it falls to the Administration to decide how it wants to compete in P12 bball. I would not be surprised if the answer turns out to be something like "We want to be respectable, but are not willing to invest in competing against Oregon and Arizona for championships". That is probably the only way FOX survives beyond year 3.

If the administration wants to compete, then FOX will likely be considered a program stabilizer and be replaced by a coach with more upside and recruiting chops. (Yes, this is the same result as above)

i like watching up tempobball. im happy for the stanford win but would like to see more athletic players that can shoot and score in cal unifornms. being selected for the ncaa tourney with no scoring ability is not in the cards.

I think that stabilization is happening, but my biggest concern for the future is Fox's recruiting chops, which, so far don't seem especially strong, which will result in meh basketball for as long as he is here.

As to his style- ugh. Strong defense, weaker offense doesn't make for exciting basketball. I'd love to see more baskets. Its more of the same that we had with Martin, which was ugly, although I think this coach will have worse hydration and fewer Bakersfield-style defeats.

Does Fox hurt or help Bradley's draft value?

TLDR version. Our offense is really bad and practically unwatchable, but until we get some more talent on the team, it's hard to know how much of it is due to lack of talent.

Honestly, it's a miracle we already have 3 conference wins. This is not a good team.

Austin took advantage of Terry the freshman time and time again. The strategy won the game. Not a good team? Letssee how this year plays out. The defense is good. The offense is challenged but has won because of good play calling.

oski003 said:

---

Does Fox hurt or help Bradley's draft value?

---

Probably neither. Bradley's lack of length and explosive quickness hurts his draft value, but everything else about him helps his draft value.

BeachedBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

. . .

Please convince me why coach Fox is the coach of the future for Cal basketball. . . ..

---

I think you're premise (or request) is flawed. I don't think many consider him to be the coach of the future.

I would suggest that FOX is our current coach and deserves the support of the fans. Whether he is the coach of the future will not be determined for a couple of years. My feeling at this point (based on results and recruiting) is that he will not be the coach when the current recruits graduate.

If he is not significantly better than Jones, he will NEED to be replaced in the next year or two. That may not seem fair, but such is the nature of modern P12 bball,

If he is better than Jones but not significantly, he will likely be considered a program stabilizer, but be replaced by someone with more upside.

If he IS significantly better than Jones, then it falls to the Administration to decide how it wants to compete in P12 bball. I would not be surprised if the answer turns out to be something like "We want to be respectable, but are not willing to invest in competing against Oregon and Arizona for championships". That is probably the only way FOX survives beyond year 3.

If the administration wants to compete, then FOX will likely be considered a program stabilizer and be replaced by a coach with more upside and recruiting chops. (Yes, this is the same result as above)

---

My fear is that "stabilization" will be viewed as "improvement" and will get Fox an extension (as it always has In the past) and Cal will be mediocre and playing boring basketball for many years. I think Fox is good enough to get us to .500 in conference in which case I don't see Knowlton getting rid of him, ever. It will always be "next year."

I do hope Fox greatly exceeds this pessimistic view, but only time will tell.

It has probably been adequately pointed out, but how well this team scores is not an indicator of Fox's coaching or whether he is the coach for the future. Fox does not have the personnel to score, lacking shooting, speed, and size. Having a slow pace that reduces scoring further below what our lack of offensive talent could achieve with an average pace probably gives us the best chance of winning for now.

The question about Fox and the future has nothing to do with whether the 2019-20 Bears can score, and everything to do with how Fox can recruit.

Cal8285 said:

---

It has probably been adequately pointed out, but how well this team scores is not an indicator of Fox's coaching or whether he is the coach for the future. Fox does not have the personnel to score, lacking shooting, speed, and size. Having a slow pace that reduces scoring further below what our lack of offensive talent could achieve with an average pace probably gives us the best chance of winning for now.

The question about Fox and the future has nothing to do with whether the 2019-20 Bears can score, and everything to do with how Fox can recruit.

---

Yes: 1) recruit 2) make effective use of the talent he recruits.

We need someone to replace Austin. Not sure he is on the roster.

i think fox is doing a good job with sub par talent. hopefully he and staff can recruit better athletes who can score and create.

calgo430 said:

---

i think fox is doing a good job with sub par talent....

---

Golf coaches pray to be in that situation.

BeachedBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

. . .

Please convince me why coach Fox is the coach of the future for Cal basketball. . . ..

---

I think you're premise (or request) is flawed. I don't think many consider him to be the coach of the future.

I would suggest that FOX is our current coach and deserves the support of the fans. Whether he is the coach of the future will not be determined for a couple of years. My feeling at this point (based on results and recruiting) is that he will not be the coach when the current recruits graduate.

If he is not significantly better than Jones, he will NEED to be replaced in the next year or two. That may not seem fair, but such is the nature of modern P12 bball,

If he is better than Jones but not significantly, he will likely be considered a program stabilizer, but be replaced by someone with more upside.

If he IS significantly better than Jones, then it falls to the Administration to decide how it wants to compete in P12 bball. I would not be surprised if the answer turns out to be something like "We want to be respectable, but are not willing to invest in competing against Oregon and Arizona for championships". That is probably the only way FOX survives beyond year 3.

If the administration wants to compete, then FOX will likely be considered a program stabilizer and be replaced by a coach with more upside and recruiting chops. (Yes, this is the same result as above)

---

I agree with a lot of what you say. But I see a distinction between Cal deserving our support and a Cal coach deserving our support. In fact I think that, in order to support Cal, you sometimes have to not support the coach. But maybe that is just me. Anyway, I don't think that Fox automatically deserves our support just because he works for Cal. But I am not saying he should not be supported either. In general, underperforming coaches are not deserving of our support.

dear Heartofthebear: The main reason that Cal doesn't score a lot of points is because there is only one shooter on the team who shoots with any consistency. Editors note: This is not a good recipe for scoring a lot of points. I, too, am short, but, I love the game. Actually, your opening sentence was pretty funny.

calumnus said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

. . .

Please convince me why coach Fox is the coach of the future for Cal basketball. . . ..

---

I think you're premise (or request) is flawed. I don't think many consider him to be the coach of the future.

I would suggest that FOX is our current coach and deserves the support of the fans. Whether he is the coach of the future will not be determined for a couple of years. My feeling at this point (based on results and recruiting) is that he will not be the coach when the current recruits graduate.

If he is not significantly better than Jones, he will NEED to be replaced in the next year or two. That may not seem fair, but such is the nature of modern P12 bball,

If he is better than Jones but not significantly, he will likely be considered a program stabilizer, but be replaced by someone with more upside.

If he IS significantly better than Jones, then it falls to the Administration to decide how it wants to compete in P12 bball. I would not be surprised if the answer turns out to be something like "We want to be respectable, but are not willing to invest in competing against Oregon and Arizona for championships". That is probably the only way FOX survives beyond year 3.

If the administration wants to compete, then FOX will likely be considered a program stabilizer and be replaced by a coach with more upside and recruiting chops. (Yes, this is the same result as above)

---

My fear is that "stabilization" will be viewed as "improvement" and will get Fox an extension (as it always has In the past) and Cal will be mediocre and playing boring basketball for many years. I think Fox is good enough to get us to .500 in conference in which case I don't see Knowlton getting rid of him, ever. It will always be "next year."

I do hope Fox greatly exceeds this pessimistic view, but only time will tell.

---

I share your fear. Because . . . Cal

heartofthebear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

. . .

Please convince me why coach Fox is the coach of the future for Cal basketball. . . ..

---

I think you're premise (or request) is flawed. I don't think many consider him to be the coach of the future.

I would suggest that FOX is our current coach and deserves the support of the fans. Whether he is the coach of the future will not be determined for a couple of years. My feeling at this point (based on results and recruiting) is that he will not be the coach when the current recruits graduate.

If he is not significantly better than Jones, he will NEED to be replaced in the next year or two. That may not seem fair, but such is the nature of modern P12 bball,

If he is better than Jones but not significantly, he will likely be considered a program stabilizer, but be replaced by someone with more upside.

If he IS significantly better than Jones, then it falls to the Administration to decide how it wants to compete in P12 bball. I would not be surprised if the answer turns out to be something like "We want to be respectable, but are not willing to invest in competing against Oregon and Arizona for championships". That is probably the only way FOX survives beyond year 3.

If the administration wants to compete, then FOX will likely be considered a program stabilizer and be replaced by a coach with more upside and recruiting chops. (Yes, this is the same result as above)

---

I agree with a lot of what you say. But I see a distinction between Cal deserving our support and a Cal coach deserving our support. In fact I think that, in order to support Cal, you sometimes have to not support the coach. But maybe that is just me. Anyway, I don't think that Fox automatically deserves our support just because he works for Cal. But I am not saying he should not be supported either. In general, underperforming coaches are not deserving of our support.

---

I like this. And have to admit that I might feel differently is FOX was paid a salary in line with other Berkeley employees or even had some history with the institution. But he's a hired gun (as all P12 coaches are) - and expectations need to be commensurate with that role. As you point out, the program and players are not, so their support can and should be different.

Civil Bear said:

---

I like watching Cal win.

If and when that happens again I'll start worrying about how.

---

I agree. My priority is a winning Cal team.

I am happy to watch slow pound-it-out grinding ball as long as the Bears are competitive with the best teams. Good defense is fun to watch and tends to be more reliable than offense. Style is less important than substance.

I would not want to see a high scoring team that does not play defense and loses most game 90-78.

oskidunker said:

---

We need someone to replace Austin. Not sure he is on the roster.

---

You should have watched the Cal-Stanford game. Check the number on the uniform of the guy on the line putting Cal ahead in the last 3 seconds by making two free throws. I think you will find him on the roster.

Isnt he a senior?

I am guessing SFCB was reading the comment about replacing Austin, as if it meant immediate replacement, not meaning next year...

BeachedBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

. . .

Please convince me why coach Fox is the coach of the future for Cal basketball. . . ..

---

I think you're premise (or request) is flawed. I don't think many consider him to be the coach of the future.

I would suggest that FOX is our current coach and deserves the support of the fans. Whether he is the coach of the future will not be determined for a couple of years. My feeling at this point (based on results and recruiting) is that he will not be the coach when the current recruits graduate.

If he is not significantly better than Jones, he will NEED to be replaced in the next year or two. That may not seem fair, but such is the nature of modern P12 bball,

If he is better than Jones but not significantly, he will likely be considered a program stabilizer, but be replaced by someone with more upside.

If he IS significantly better than Jones, then it falls to the Administration to decide how it wants to compete in P12 bball. I would not be surprised if the answer turns out to be something like "We want to be respectable, but are not willing to invest in competing against Oregon and Arizona for championships". That is probably the only way FOX survives beyond year 3.

If the administration wants to compete, then FOX will likely be considered a program stabilizer and be replaced by a coach with more upside and recruiting chops. (Yes, this is the same result as above)

---

I can understand your points, but I feel you have a dream about what you would like the PAC12 to be, which is not the way it is now. What is this "modern P12 bball" of which you speak? Teams are not going around firing coaches after two or three years who are not as successful as your idea of success, are they? The only PAC12 coach I know of who had been fired after 2 years of no acceptable results is Wyking Jones. I don't see any PAC 12 coach who has been fired after 3 years of no acceptable results. Even the one school which might have a greater demand for success than you do, UCLA, waited 6 years to fire Steve Alford. Jerod Haase was not fired after 3 less than stellar seasons. It took fellow bottom dweller, WSU 5 years to fire Ernie Kent for poor team performance, and they took 5 years to fire Ken Bone before that, for the same reason. Tres Tinkle has been at OSU for 6 seasons, with mediocre performance, and he hasn't been fired. What has Bobby Hurley done that is so great? He is in his 5th year at ASU. Tad Boyle, who is a pretty good coach, is in his 10th year, and his best P12 finish was 3rd one year, Kristowiak in 8 years has two 2nd place finishes and one sweet 16 to show for it. Enfield at USC is in his 7th year with two 2nd place finishes in the PAC12, and two fast exits from the NCAA to show for that.

If you think teams will fire a coach after 2 or 3 years of not meeting expectations, there just seems to be no precedent for it in the modern PAC12. Unless you consider Cal firing Jones to be the precedent. So maybe we would do the same with Fox, but Jones sets a pretty low bar for incompetence, and I think you can agree that Fox is likely a better coach than Jones, even with the minimal sample of results so far. I think most schools in the PAC12 will give a coach, any coach unless they are as bad as Jones, five years to show some success. Show some, and you likely will get 10 or more years at your job. Witness Boyle, Kristowiak and Romar. Unless it is UCLA. They demand a lot, and even then Alford got six years, although two 2nds in the PAC, and 3 sweet 16s was not good enough for UCLA, and Alford was gone.

As to your comment about Fox's recruiting, are you basing your judgment on his first class, or are you basing it also on his recruiting at his previous coaching jobs? I think this class is pretty good for a first class, which traditionally in college basketball, made with slim pickings available for the incoming coach, by the time he gets hired, usually in April. Montgomery got only Jorge, who was unranked at the time of signing, as far as I could find out at the time. Seeley was over-rated but did have a ranking, and was not entirely Monty's recruit, as Braun had first signed him. Fans did not seem too critical of Monty's first class. Cuonzo got Okoroh and Chauca, and fans seemed so optimistic about the years to come, that there did not seem to be as much criticism of Cuonzo's first class in his first season as there is now of Fox's first class. Maybe they were thinking ahead to landing Rabb, and gave Cuonzo a pass on his first class.

It was not long ago, that Cal was "willing to invest in competing against Arizona and Oregon" when they hired Mike Montgomery. He competed pretty well against Arizona and beat Dana Altman and Oregon like drum - Cal and Monty never lost to him in 6 years, I think. Oregon did not become a very good team until Monty retired. I think it is less the Admin not willing to invest, than it is having an AD savvy enough to find a good coach. Just an opinion.