SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

SFCityBear 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)

---

---

59bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Austin had a very good game against LSJU but I don't think any of us see him as what we want (or need) at PG.

---

sluggo said:

---

59bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Austin had a very good game against LSJU but I don't think any of us see him as what we want (or need) at PG.

---

Actually, I don't think Cal needs a point guard because Cal does not run a structured offense. Running a high pick and roll and having everyone else spread out does not require a floor general. Someone does have to bring the ball up the floor and hopefully that player is not a liability off the ball.

To run the Fox offense, Cal needs slashers and shooters more than a point guard.

Sluggo

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

sluggo said:

---

59bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Austin had a very good game against LSJU but I don't think any of us see him as what we want (or need) at PG.

---

Actually, I don't think Cal needs a point guard because Cal does not run a structured offense. Running a high pick and roll and having everyone else spread out does not require a floor general. Someone does have to bring the ball up the floor and hopefully that player is not a liability off the ball.

To run the Fox offense, Cal needs slashers and shooters more than a point guard.

Sluggo

---

There's a chicken and egg issue here. Without a true point guard (Austin can slash and finish, but he's not a consistent distributor; Brown is too inexperienced and can't shoot yet) it may be that Fox is running this offense out of necessity. Give him a true pg and the offense might look different.

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

sluggo said:

---

59bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Austin had a very good game against LSJU but I don't think any of us see him as what we want (or need) at PG.

---

Actually, I don't think Cal needs a point guard because Cal does not run a structured offense. Running a high pick and roll and having everyone else spread out does not require a floor general. Someone does have to bring the ball up the floor and hopefully that player is not a liability off the ball.

To run the Fox offense, Cal needs slashers and shooters more than a point guard.

Sluggo

---

There's a chicken and egg issue here. Without a true point guard (Austin can slash and finish, but he's not a consistent distributor; Brown is too inexperienced and can't shoot yet) it may be that Fox is running this offense out of necessity. Give him a true pg and the offense might look different.

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

sluggo said:

---

59bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Austin had a very good game against LSJU but I don't think any of us see him as what we want (or need) at PG.

---

Actually, I don't think Cal needs a point guard because Cal does not run a structured offense. Running a high pick and roll and having everyone else spread out does not require a floor general. Someone does have to bring the ball up the floor and hopefully that player is not a liability off the ball.


Sluggo

---

Seriously, this is college basketball. No team in any league is going anywhere without an average to better than average point guard.

---

heartofthebear said:

---

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.

---

south bender said:

---

Good, informative post!

Thanks!

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

sluggo said:

---

59bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

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.

---

Austin had a very good game against LSJU but I don't think any of us see him as what we want (or need) at PG.

---

Actually, I don't think Cal needs a point guard because Cal does not run a structured offense. Running a high pick and roll and having everyone else spread out does not require a floor general. Someone does have to bring the ball up the floor and hopefully that player is not a liability off the ball.


Sluggo

---

Seriously, this is college basketball. No team in any league is going anywhere without an average to better than average point guard.

---

RW

---

SFCityBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

SFCityBear 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)

---

---

At the risk of too many words on a page, I'll respond to your paragraphs individually. But I think what you are missing overall - is that the other P12 coaches are generally successful or at least doing OK. Furthermore, Cal has dropped to such a dismal level in comparison, that FOX not only needs to be OK, but demonstrate a steep trajectory, just to catch up. Look, I think FOX is an improvement over Jones, but I don't see the evidence that he is the coach of the future (yet).

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.

Haase: Roughly .500 in EACH of his first three years with an NIT appearance in year 2. He also had some decent talent when he arrived. Ernie Kent: Most agree that WSU took too long (also with Bone - but that's WSU). Comparing Cal to WSU sort of supports my point about Cal's desire to compete at the top. IF WSU is our bar - then FOX may be the man. Tres Tinkle - is only in his 4th year at OSU and is not the coach. His father, Wayne was over .500 in both of his first two season and went to the NCAA tourney. All of the other coaches have done something in their first TWO seasons to warrant more time. FOX is only in his first season - and I am not advocating that he be let go. Just opining that he does not appear to have enough of what it takes to get us there.

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.

Let me repeat: FOX is only in his first season - and I am not advocating that he be let go. Just opining that he does not appear to have enough.

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.

His first class is admirable, given the situation he inherited. But it is not a competitive load of talent. His second class seems to be more projects and also will not be the type to build a competitive program. As for Monty's first class, there was a lot of tempered criticism, but that is typical of first year. But my sense is based on the second class and who Cal seems to be talking to. Again, I am not advocating that FOX is not doing his job, just pointing out that there is little to no evidence that he is a plus recruiter - which is what Cal needs to restore its reputation and dig out of a hole.

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.

Well, Monty stepping in for Braun was very serendipitous. I'm not sure it reflected a level of investment or savvy that you see in programs at the top of the conference. But it is also the exception, not the pattern. I actually think your last comment/opinion is very valid and telling. Savvy and capability of the AD is more an indicator than Admin will. My guess is that if the AD can find a good coach, the Admin will pay the freight. which brings me back to the original point. If FOX is meh at the end of season two, what should a savvy AD do? Extend him for another three years or look to improve? Sounds like you're saying the former and I'm hoping for the latter.

---

In order to answer you and shorten this discussion, I'll have to select just a few of your points, where we seem to disagree. I am pleased that you have found some things to enjoy in our last two games vs Stanford and Oregon, and hopefully you will find more and more things to enjoy and maybe lighten up on your prediction that Fox won't have done enough in two years to satisfy.

I am not "missing overall - that the other PAC12 coaches are generally successful or generally doing OK" Maybe it would be better to compare what the PAC12 admins have done when a coach does poorly in his first two years only, and not his entire conference career. Let's look at some of the other PAC12 coaches and what they did in their first two years, not how they are doing now, or have done in all the years in their current job:

Larry Kristowiak: 6-25 in year one, 11th place in the PAC, 15-18 in year two, 10th place in the PAC12 and he was not fired.
Andy Enfield: 11-21 in year one, 12th place, 12-20 in year two, 12th place, and he was not fired.
Bobby Hurley: 15-17 in year one, 11th place, 15-18 in year two, 8th place, and he was not fired.

I appreciate you correcting my error that it was Wayne Tinkle not Tres Tinkle who is the coach at Oregon State, but I think you know who I meant. You had mentioned Wayne Tinkle having good success in his first two years at Oregon State, which is true. His success was built on two factors: Craig Robinson had signed future star Gary Payton II out of JC, who would turn out to be one of the best point guards in the country, and adding son Tres Tinkle to the roster. At the end of Tinkle's second season, Payton graduated, and the next season Tres Tinkle got hurt, and Tinkle's third OSU team went 5-27. He has gone 52-64 in the 4 seasons since since Payton graduated. His son Tres will graduate after this season, and then I'm not sure he can reach .500 without an influx of talent.

As for recruiting, I am puzzled why Fox signed these two players so early. Fox was not blessed with a first year roster like say, Jerod Haase was at Stanford, and he has to recruit for need at certain positions. Cal especially needs scorers. It could be that most of the players at the spots he wanted to fill are gone. Coaches recruit a player for years, often starting before the kid gets to high school, and Fox has been out of the game for a year, possible losing touch with some recruits he was tracking.

The only PAC12 coach I could find who had been fired in modern times after his first two seasons, which turned out poorly, was Wyking Jones. I honestly don't think Knowlton would pull the trigger after only 2 seasons, and fire Fox, unless he had years nearly comparable to the ones Jones had, which was chaos on the floor. I can appreciate your desire to see Cal succeed faster than slower, and I too, hope it happens, and I hope it happens under Fox. Way too early to tell. One thing I see already is some serious improvement in some of the players we have. Austin's defense much better, Thorpe is improving, Bradley seems to be getting less shots blocked in the paint, with this fadeaway one handed shot. Anticevich's development has really been something - now he just needs consistency. Thiemann is improving slowly. Brown is more under control. JHD had improved some before he got hurt. Kelly seems to have improved his rebounding, and maybe more. I see a little light at the end of the tunnel.

---