My Apologies, Mark Fox

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

IssyBear said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Let me say something controversial - I think the reason that the Wisky strategy DOESN"T work in the Pac-12

1) Bo is a once in a generation coach. You really should read up on how he built that program and the VERY long and deep success he had at lower levels with that approach.
2) I am not convinced that anyone in the Big10 recruits at the level that UCLA, Arizona and Oregon do on a year in-year out basis.

I love this site.

https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-Ten-Conference/2/nba-players

40 Big 10 players in the NBA. 62 Pac12 players in the NBA

Again, repeat after me.

Many (most?) years Cal has to play UCLA, Zona, and Oregon 6 games. Sometimes we only have to play them 5. A very few only 4. To get off the seed of death Cal either has to run the table on a BRUTAL OOC schedule (when they have no drawing power and thus few invites to the made for TV tournies and home/aways in December) OR split those games. If you are on the seed of death (7 through 10) it means, in the current Pod system, you are almost guaranteed a brutal second game should you be able to win the first (essentially a 1 or a 2 getting a near home game where they may not have had to fly and usually have 90% of the fans in the stands - sometimes in a stadium they know and have played in (see Greenville)

Now can the scrappy team from hickory high beat, on any given night, a team of wildcats stuffed with 2 or 3 first round picks? Sure. Why sports are great. But you need more than 1 win. You gotta have 3 or 4 or else...again....seed of death.

I just am at a loss as to why people on this site do not get this. Blue and gold glasses? Pete Newell nostalgia? Forgetting that our conference championship came at a VERY down time for both Zona and UCLA and prior to the true emergence of Nike U.

Now maybe it could be cause some posters are FINE with getting in as an 8. Honestly I find that nearly as depressing as missing the entire tournie cause it isn't fun to watch cal get stripped in the backcourt 3 successive possessions by UCON in a game that essentially was at UCON.

---

Bo Ryan hasn't coached that team for the last four years and they're still doing fine. And the Big Ten is a far better conference than the Pac-12 and has been for a while so I don't get the brutal schedule argument.

Drop the hickory high bull**** for a minute. Ask yourself, can Cal legitimately expect to build a program on top level recruits when we have tougher academics to deal with and don't have the amenities to offer that the competition does? And when we've outright sucked the last few years? How much are donors willing to put up for a new practice facility, another coach buyout, probably another AD?

Yeah, building a program like Wisconsin takes time, takes a good ability to spot talent to develop outside the usual top-100 list, takes a good coaching staff able to develop players, and a strong regional recruiting program. And it isn't clear Fox is a guy who can do that. But this discussion seems totally binary in your mind. Either magically grab top 50 recruits all the time or be an 8 seed at best. But look at last year's results. Purdue had the 34th ranked class in 2017 and 49th in 2018 and was a final four team. Texas Tech was 39th and 33rd. Virginia Tech 18th and 54th. Obviously all those teams had talent. They also had good coaching. And it would be better to get more top ranked players in the mix, which they are doing now. But you have to have a base to build on and we do not. So instead of assuming everyone who favors a longer-term build wants to be scrappy underdogs forever, maybe you should consider if your premise is even relevant right now.

---

The numbers say otherwise. 62 current NBA players from the PAC 12 while 40 from the FOURTEEN team big 10. Big 10 has done better in tournament time - but I think a pretty clear argument that the raw TALENT at the Pac12 has been, based on who is getting paid serious money to play by the best talent evaluaters on the planet, a more talented conference.

Again, we can ALWAYS find a team in any particular year or even a couple of years that does well. Talent develops, a kid is undervalued, a player doesn't play AAU, he grows 6 inches and suddenly is a monster. These are all good stories.

But you are not building a PROGRAM over a set of years because to get off the seed of death (because it is a really hard truth to lean into) that you have to split against.....

A) A team which clearly is a criminal enterprise in Arizona with a leadership who doesn't give a rats ass and which is not a selective (in any stretch of the imagination) R1 institution
2) A team which is an extension of a multi Billion dollar shoe company whose mission is not to educate its players but to promote a brand by winning at any price necessary
3) A school which is frankly in its twilight but which is the preeminent school in a major metro area of 10 million and which has a legacy of NBA stars that are deeply committed to the institution and willing to encourage recruits to put on Bruin Blue

And finally a conference, because it is on the west coast, is somewhat "cheap" and which doesn't travel strongly doesn't get as a strong a November and December schedule as the Big 10, Big 12 or ACC (and increasingly SEC)

These are not facts I am particularly happy about. But they are facts. You don't get to choose the ground you fight on. Simply put - unless Cal has a pathway to having talent ABOUT as good as the top 3 there really isn't a path forward than seeds of death every 3-4 years.

BTW - One of the reasons I mistakenly thought Martin was the guy (and I think could have been the guy except for Williams & Dirks cutting his knees off) was NOT because he recruited Ivan and Brown - it was the guys that got nixed by the admin - hard nosed kids that wanted to play in the East Bay. Think a multitude of Jason Kidds.

And btw - in case you want to have fun. Here is a great piece about an "All Oakland" team. Funny that only ONE of those kids went to Cal.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/35724-what-if-the-nba-all-oakland-team

---

I'm not sure which local kids you think Martin would have landed with administration support. There are not a multitude of Jason Kidds in any town in this universe, but I don't recall East Bay kids who would have gone to Cal absent administration issues. Oscar Frayer? Ben Kone?

That BR list was interesting if you like history, but c'mon. Hook Mitchell? What does he have to do with this discussion? And none of them are even playing any more.

On the bigger issue, you seem to think that I'm advocating not having talent. That's not the case, as I've said repeatedly. But I wouldn't use NBA players as a measure of success. I'd use winning teams as the measure. I really don't care what players do after they leave college for the purpose of this discussion. But more to the point, you don't say how you would get that NBA talent to Cal. You've also argued that such talent predominantly comes from top-50 recruiting targets. They aren't coming here without the investment I mentioned, and even then only after that takes hold. So what's YOUR pathway to talent acquisition? I can't recall you ever describing it. I've named a lot of programs that started by building over time, became successful and now can reload each year. You have not named a single program that has a model you think Cal could use right now, given where Cal is. So how does this magic happen?

---

Lets unpack.

First - I want to be VERY clear (and I have been but I think sometimes you disregard this). It isn't about TEAMS....it is about PROGRAMS. What do I mean by that distinction? Anyone (really) can find lightening in a bottle every now in then. Case in point...DAVIDSON. They went to the Elite 8 in 2008. They haven't won a tournament game sense and have make 4 appearances in 12 years. Yeah - we know who played point for them. What I want is a PROGRAM that does well - over a consistent number of YEARS.

Second - you really haven't give us PROGRAMS. We either hear about Newell or a mistaken data free analysis of Wisconsin. I have tried to show you why the program Bo Ryan built (and now Gard - who was Assistant under Bo for FOURTEEN YEARS) has some very unique qualities rather than just "well coached" (which they are).

Third - Lets be clear since you like twisting words. Martin had 3 years to see if he would work. Arguably really 2 and a case could be made for 1.5 since the first year is tough and he had checked out by about January 15th the last. Again, we heard of at least FIVE kids that martin wanted that the admin nixed. Maybe they should have. I don't know. But I do know that it is a hard measure to judge him against when Williams/Dirks wanted him to recruit "their way" (and sometimes I think yours).

Fourth - you rightly ask me my pathway. It is owning the East Bay - and lets make a VERY fine point of it since apparently I have to hit you over the head with a 2 by 4 - that means being an attractive school and program to African American kids from Northern California that sadly sometimes are NOT made to feel welcome on Cal's campus when compared to UCLA, Arizona and USC. Sad but very true. But that is the pathway and it needs to be leaned into hard if you wish to compete. I put that list to show that unlike a lot of schools (UCLA being a prime example) that own their backyard for the best talent Cal has rarely done so. Lets imagine what the program would have looked like if, for example, Monty hadn't been a putz and gotten Aaron Gordon - a kid from a family of ****ing engineers of all things - to consider Cal and then paired Gordon with Raab and Brown. My heart goes pitter pat.

---

I don't think you get my point or what I wish for. Your first sentence is exactly what I've been saying. What I wish for is a coach to build a program that is sustainably successful. I mentioned winning teams as a measure of success as a point of disagreement with you defining success as players sent to the NBA. I did not say a winning year or two is enough. My point was I don't give a damn if individual players go to the NBA - I care if they win here. I want a winning program here. The question is how to make that happen given where we are now, which as you've admitted has problems.

I have never brought up Pete Newell. Not once. Ever. Other than to say his teams would be demolished by any modern team. I used Wisconsin as one example of five or six different schools, because they are PROGRAMS who began by building a foundation, because they recruit to the culture they've instilled and the style they play. Because it took time and none were originally built on highly ranked recruiting classes. Because they had coaches who were given enough leeway to do that. Because they started at a place where they couldn't necessarily compete for the top 50 or top 100 players and still managed to have success. Don't get fixated on the one coach you seem to think is unique. He's not.

I've also said we should own the East Bay, and for that matter the Bay Area. But to do that we need to be in a place where those players should even want to consider Cal. As nice an idea as "owning" the local area is, the kids who can come to Cal, deal with academics and make an impact are not numerous (true of any area you name). And for those that do exist, why would they want to come to Cal? We are a sub-par program with sub-par facilities, tough academics and a tough admissions process. So we're probably not going to be high on the lists of the players you want unless we've changed those things. How do you do that?

My view is that you have to start by identifying players who are more diamonds in the rough and develop them, and those kids have to buy into the culture you're trying to instill. Do that, have some success, and players will have more reason to consider coming here. Once again, I'm not saying Fox is the right guy to do that, but I think the program needs to be on better footing with some continuity before there's something to sell to those kids.

Now, I'd rather have a bunch of money come flowing in, we build great facilities, we get awesome administrative support, have a huge budget for assistants, travel, recruiting, and all the stuff the schools you mentioned earlier already have. Then you might be able to jump straight to playing against the big boys. But I don't see that happening, which is why I'm looking at it the way I do.

Aaron Gordon would have been a great get. Monty was not a good recruiter. I don't think anyone is arguing over that one.

---

I couldn't agree more. Udub just had their prized 10 star freshmen declare for the NBA draft and is expected to go early in the first round. Udub finished last in the PAC-12. Sports journalists in Seattle are asking if Udub should finally abandon the one-and-done approach they have been following in recent years.

Just a few years ago, we had a team with 4 players that went on to play some in the NBA. We lost in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament.

---

our team with the 4 nba players got us a 4 seed. our team that lost in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament only had 2 nba players

but I get your point

---

What you said is true, but that team also had Jordan Mathews who transferred to Gonzaga and started for the Zags as they won the WCC, won the WCC tournament, and finished as NCAA Runnerup. losing only to UNC in the final.

---

if your point is that we should have beat hawaii anyway, then I agree. the problem was at PG. Singer did well, but he got in early foul trouble and sat. Coach then tried Chauca who could not compete, and even tried Brown at PG, and we know how that went.

in addition, the lack of having wallace and bird forced coach to play role players domingo and roger more. Of the 3 lightly used players to play to fill the gap of the starters going down, here was their stats:

Roger 26 minutes - 0-5 shooting, 3-6 FT, 2 RB, 2 ASSTs, 1 TO, 2 FLs - 3 pts
Domingo 14 minutes - 0-4 shooting, 2 RB, 1 TO, 1 FL - 0 pts
Chauca 8 minutes - 0-2 shooting, 1 RB, 1 ASST, 1 TO, 1 FL - 0 pts

That's 48 minutes going 0-11 shooting - 3 pts

Mathews who you mentioned played 31 minutes - 9-15, including 3-8 from 3, 2-2 FT, 4 RBs, 1 ASST, 1 Steal, 1 TO, 3 fouls - 23 pts

Singer 30 minutes - 5-9, 5 RBs, 0 ASSTs, 2 Steal, 5 fouls

King/Rooks combo 36 minutes - 3-4, 5-9 FTs, 5 RBs, 1 BLK, 2 TOs, 4 fouls - 11 pts

Rabb 38 minutes - 5-11, 3-4 FTs, 12 RBs, 2 ASSTs, 1 BLK, 1 TO, 3 fouls - 13 pts

Brown 17 minutes - 1-6, 2-2 FTs, 2 RBs, 7 TOs, 5 fouls - 4 pts

----

Hawaii

G Smith 6-8, 7-8 FTs - 19 pts
G Bobbitt 7-16, 2-4 FTs, 7 RBs, 4 ASSTs - 17 pts
F Jankovic 5-9, 6-6 FTs, 5 RBs, 16 pts

1. So their senior PG outplayed our senior backup guard and our two rarely used PGs (Chauca and Brown)
2. Jankovic played Rabb even
3. Mathews was the only one who really showed up
4. Our bench played horribly
5. Brown played the worst game of his college career (and only 17 minutes)

AND our coach did a terrible job

I still believe that we win going away if we had Wallace for the game. If we had both Wallace and Bird, we would have gone to the sweet sixteen

---

Yeah, the people that continually point to the Hawaii loss as somehow showing that having McDonald's All Americans like Brown, Rabb and Bird is not a viable path ignore what actually happened.

---

"People" is a plural term indicating more than one. I believe the word you were looking for is "person".

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

IssyBear said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Let me say something controversial - I think the reason that the Wisky strategy DOESN"T work in the Pac-12

1) Bo is a once in a generation coach. You really should read up on how he built that program and the VERY long and deep success he had at lower levels with that approach.
2) I am not convinced that anyone in the Big10 recruits at the level that UCLA, Arizona and Oregon do on a year in-year out basis.

I love this site.

https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-Ten-Conference/2/nba-players

40 Big 10 players in the NBA. 62 Pac12 players in the NBA

Again, repeat after me.

Many (most?) years Cal has to play UCLA, Zona, and Oregon 6 games. Sometimes we only have to play them 5. A very few only 4. To get off the seed of death Cal either has to run the table on a BRUTAL OOC schedule (when they have no drawing power and thus few invites to the made for TV tournies and home/aways in December) OR split those games. If you are on the seed of death (7 through 10) it means, in the current Pod system, you are almost guaranteed a brutal second game should you be able to win the first (essentially a 1 or a 2 getting a near home game where they may not have had to fly and usually have 90% of the fans in the stands - sometimes in a stadium they know and have played in (see Greenville)

Now can the scrappy team from hickory high beat, on any given night, a team of wildcats stuffed with 2 or 3 first round picks? Sure. Why sports are great. But you need more than 1 win. You gotta have 3 or 4 or else...again....seed of death.

I just am at a loss as to why people on this site do not get this. Blue and gold glasses? Pete Newell nostalgia? Forgetting that our conference championship came at a VERY down time for both Zona and UCLA and prior to the true emergence of Nike U.

Now maybe it could be cause some posters are FINE with getting in as an 8. Honestly I find that nearly as depressing as missing the entire tournie cause it isn't fun to watch cal get stripped in the backcourt 3 successive possessions by UCON in a game that essentially was at UCON.

---

Bo Ryan hasn't coached that team for the last four years and they're still doing fine. And the Big Ten is a far better conference than the Pac-12 and has been for a while so I don't get the brutal schedule argument.

Drop the hickory high bull**** for a minute. Ask yourself, can Cal legitimately expect to build a program on top level recruits when we have tougher academics to deal with and don't have the amenities to offer that the competition does? And when we've outright sucked the last few years? How much are donors willing to put up for a new practice facility, another coach buyout, probably another AD?

Yeah, building a program like Wisconsin takes time, takes a good ability to spot talent to develop outside the usual top-100 list, takes a good coaching staff able to develop players, and a strong regional recruiting program. And it isn't clear Fox is a guy who can do that. But this discussion seems totally binary in your mind. Either magically grab top 50 recruits all the time or be an 8 seed at best. But look at last year's results. Purdue had the 34th ranked class in 2017 and 49th in 2018 and was a final four team. Texas Tech was 39th and 33rd. Virginia Tech 18th and 54th. Obviously all those teams had talent. They also had good coaching. And it would be better to get more top ranked players in the mix, which they are doing now. But you have to have a base to build on and we do not. So instead of assuming everyone who favors a longer-term build wants to be scrappy underdogs forever, maybe you should consider if your premise is even relevant right now.

---

The numbers say otherwise. 62 current NBA players from the PAC 12 while 40 from the FOURTEEN team big 10. Big 10 has done better in tournament time - but I think a pretty clear argument that the raw TALENT at the Pac12 has been, based on who is getting paid serious money to play by the best talent evaluaters on the planet, a more talented conference.

Again, we can ALWAYS find a team in any particular year or even a couple of years that does well. Talent develops, a kid is undervalued, a player doesn't play AAU, he grows 6 inches and suddenly is a monster. These are all good stories.

But you are not building a PROGRAM over a set of years because to get off the seed of death (because it is a really hard truth to lean into) that you have to split against.....

A) A team which clearly is a criminal enterprise in Arizona with a leadership who doesn't give a rats ass and which is not a selective (in any stretch of the imagination) R1 institution
2) A team which is an extension of a multi Billion dollar shoe company whose mission is not to educate its players but to promote a brand by winning at any price necessary
3) A school which is frankly in its twilight but which is the preeminent school in a major metro area of 10 million and which has a legacy of NBA stars that are deeply committed to the institution and willing to encourage recruits to put on Bruin Blue

And finally a conference, because it is on the west coast, is somewhat "cheap" and which doesn't travel strongly doesn't get as a strong a November and December schedule as the Big 10, Big 12 or ACC (and increasingly SEC)

These are not facts I am particularly happy about. But they are facts. You don't get to choose the ground you fight on. Simply put - unless Cal has a pathway to having talent ABOUT as good as the top 3 there really isn't a path forward than seeds of death every 3-4 years.

BTW - One of the reasons I mistakenly thought Martin was the guy (and I think could have been the guy except for Williams & Dirks cutting his knees off) was NOT because he recruited Ivan and Brown - it was the guys that got nixed by the admin - hard nosed kids that wanted to play in the East Bay. Think a multitude of Jason Kidds.

And btw - in case you want to have fun. Here is a great piece about an "All Oakland" team. Funny that only ONE of those kids went to Cal.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/35724-what-if-the-nba-all-oakland-team

---

I'm not sure which local kids you think Martin would have landed with administration support. There are not a multitude of Jason Kidds in any town in this universe, but I don't recall East Bay kids who would have gone to Cal absent administration issues. Oscar Frayer? Ben Kone?

That BR list was interesting if you like history, but c'mon. Hook Mitchell? What does he have to do with this discussion? And none of them are even playing any more.

On the bigger issue, you seem to think that I'm advocating not having talent. That's not the case, as I've said repeatedly. But I wouldn't use NBA players as a measure of success. I'd use winning teams as the measure. I really don't care what players do after they leave college for the purpose of this discussion. But more to the point, you don't say how you would get that NBA talent to Cal. You've also argued that such talent predominantly comes from top-50 recruiting targets. They aren't coming here without the investment I mentioned, and even then only after that takes hold. So what's YOUR pathway to talent acquisition? I can't recall you ever describing it. I've named a lot of programs that started by building over time, became successful and now can reload each year. You have not named a single program that has a model you think Cal could use right now, given where Cal is. So how does this magic happen?

---

Lets unpack.

First - I want to be VERY clear (and I have been but I think sometimes you disregard this). It isn't about TEAMS....it is about PROGRAMS. What do I mean by that distinction? Anyone (really) can find lightening in a bottle every now in then. Case in point...DAVIDSON. They went to the Elite 8 in 2008. They haven't won a tournament game sense and have make 4 appearances in 12 years. Yeah - we know who played point for them. What I want is a PROGRAM that does well - over a consistent number of YEARS.

Second - you really haven't give us PROGRAMS. We either hear about Newell or a mistaken data free analysis of Wisconsin. I have tried to show you why the program Bo Ryan built (and now Gard - who was Assistant under Bo for FOURTEEN YEARS) has some very unique qualities rather than just "well coached" (which they are).

Third - Lets be clear since you like twisting words. Martin had 3 years to see if he would work. Arguably really 2 and a case could be made for 1.5 since the first year is tough and he had checked out by about January 15th the last. Again, we heard of at least FIVE kids that martin wanted that the admin nixed. Maybe they should have. I don't know. But I do know that it is a hard measure to judge him against when Williams/Dirks wanted him to recruit "their way" (and sometimes I think yours).

Fourth - you rightly ask me my pathway. It is owning the East Bay - and lets make a VERY fine point of it since apparently I have to hit you over the head with a 2 by 4 - that means being an attractive school and program to African American kids from Northern California that sadly sometimes are NOT made to feel welcome on Cal's campus when compared to UCLA, Arizona and USC. Sad but very true. But that is the pathway and it needs to be leaned into hard if you wish to compete. I put that list to show that unlike a lot of schools (UCLA being a prime example) that own their backyard for the best talent Cal has rarely done so. Lets imagine what the program would have looked like if, for example, Monty hadn't been a putz and gotten Aaron Gordon - a kid from a family of ****ing engineers of all things - to consider Cal and then paired Gordon with Raab and Brown. My heart goes pitter pat.

---

I don't think you get my point or what I wish for. Your first sentence is exactly what I've been saying. What I wish for is a coach to build a program that is sustainably successful. I mentioned winning teams as a measure of success as a point of disagreement with you defining success as players sent to the NBA. I did not say a winning year or two is enough. My point was I don't give a damn if individual players go to the NBA - I care if they win here. I want a winning program here. The question is how to make that happen given where we are now, which as you've admitted has problems.

I have never brought up Pete Newell. Not once. Ever. Other than to say his teams would be demolished by any modern team. I used Wisconsin as one example of five or six different schools, because they are PROGRAMS who began by building a foundation, because they recruit to the culture they've instilled and the style they play. Because it took time and none were originally built on highly ranked recruiting classes. Because they had coaches who were given enough leeway to do that. Because they started at a place where they couldn't necessarily compete for the top 50 or top 100 players and still managed to have success. Don't get fixated on the one coach you seem to think is unique. He's not.

I've also said we should own the East Bay, and for that matter the Bay Area. But to do that we need to be in a place where those players should even want to consider Cal. As nice an idea as "owning" the local area is, the kids who can come to Cal, deal with academics and make an impact are not numerous (true of any area you name). And for those that do exist, why would they want to come to Cal? We are a sub-par program with sub-par facilities, tough academics and a tough admissions process. So we're probably not going to be high on the lists of the players you want unless we've changed those things. How do you do that?

My view is that you have to start by identifying players who are more diamonds in the rough and develop them, and those kids have to buy into the culture you're trying to instill. Do that, have some success, and players will have more reason to consider coming here. Once again, I'm not saying Fox is the right guy to do that, but I think the program needs to be on better footing with some continuity before there's something to sell to those kids.

Now, I'd rather have a bunch of money come flowing in, we build great facilities, we get awesome administrative support, have a huge budget for assistants, travel, recruiting, and all the stuff the schools you mentioned earlier already have. Then you might be able to jump straight to playing against the big boys. But I don't see that happening, which is why I'm looking at it the way I do.

Aaron Gordon would have been a great get. Monty was not a good recruiter. I don't think anyone is arguing over that one.

---

I couldn't agree more. Udub just had their prized 10 star freshmen declare for the NBA draft and is expected to go early in the first round. Udub finished last in the PAC-12. Sports journalists in Seattle are asking if Udub should finally abandon the one-and-done approach they have been following in recent years.

Just a few years ago, we had a team with 4 players that went on to play some in the NBA. We lost in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament.

---

our team with the 4 nba players got us a 4 seed. our team that lost in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament only had 2 nba players

but I get your point

---

What you said is true, but that team also had Jordan Mathews who transferred to Gonzaga and started for the Zags as they won the WCC, won the WCC tournament, and finished as NCAA Runnerup. losing only to UNC in the final.

---

if your point is that we should have beat hawaii anyway, then I agree. the problem was at PG. Singer did well, but he got in early foul trouble and sat. Coach then tried Chauca who could not compete, and even tried Brown at PG, and we know how that went.

in addition, the lack of having wallace and bird forced coach to play role players domingo and roger more. Of the 3 lightly used players to play to fill the gap of the starters going down, here was their stats:

Roger 26 minutes - 0-5 shooting, 3-6 FT, 2 RB, 2 ASSTs, 1 TO, 2 FLs - 3 pts
Domingo 14 minutes - 0-4 shooting, 2 RB, 1 TO, 1 FL - 0 pts
Chauca 8 minutes - 0-2 shooting, 1 RB, 1 ASST, 1 TO, 1 FL - 0 pts

That's 48 minutes going 0-11 shooting - 3 pts

Mathews who you mentioned played 31 minutes - 9-15, including 3-8 from 3, 2-2 FT, 4 RBs, 1 ASST, 1 Steal, 1 TO, 3 fouls - 23 pts

Singer 30 minutes - 5-9, 5 RBs, 0 ASSTs, 2 Steal, 5 fouls

King/Rooks combo 36 minutes - 3-4, 5-9 FTs, 5 RBs, 1 BLK, 2 TOs, 4 fouls - 11 pts

Rabb 38 minutes - 5-11, 3-4 FTs, 12 RBs, 2 ASSTs, 1 BLK, 1 TO, 3 fouls - 13 pts

Brown 17 minutes - 1-6, 2-2 FTs, 2 RBs, 7 TOs, 5 fouls - 4 pts

----

Hawaii

G Smith 6-8, 7-8 FTs - 19 pts
G Bobbitt 7-16, 2-4 FTs, 7 RBs, 4 ASSTs - 17 pts
F Jankovic 5-9, 6-6 FTs, 5 RBs, 16 pts

1. So their senior PG outplayed our senior backup guard and our two rarely used PGs (Chauca and Brown)
2. Jankovic played Rabb even
3. Mathews was the only one who really showed up
4. Our bench played horribly
5. Brown played the worst game of his college career (and only 17 minutes)

AND our coach did a terrible job

I still believe that we win going away if we had Wallace for the game. If we had both Wallace and Bird, we would have gone to the sweet sixteen

---

Yeah, the people that continually point to the Hawaii loss as somehow showing that having McDonald's All Americans like Brown, Rabb and Bird is not a viable path ignore what actually happened.

---

"People" is a plural term indicating more than one. I believe the word you were looking for is "person".

---

AMEN!!!

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Let me say something controversial - I think the reason that the Wisky strategy DOESN"T work in the Pac-12

1) Bo is a once in a generation coach. You really should read up on how he built that program and the VERY long and deep success he had at lower levels with that approach.
2) I am not convinced that anyone in the Big10 recruits at the level that UCLA, Arizona and Oregon do on a year in-year out basis.

I love this site.

https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-Ten-Conference/2/nba-players

40 Big 10 players in the NBA. 62 Pac12 players in the NBA

Again, repeat after me.

Many (most?) years Cal has to play UCLA, Zona, and Oregon 6 games. Sometimes we only have to play them 5. A very few only 4. To get off the seed of death Cal either has to run the table on a BRUTAL OOC schedule (when they have no drawing power and thus few invites to the made for TV tournies and home/aways in December) OR split those games. If you are on the seed of death (7 through 10) it means, in the current Pod system, you are almost guaranteed a brutal second game should you be able to win the first (essentially a 1 or a 2 getting a near home game where they may not have had to fly and usually have 90% of the fans in the stands - sometimes in a stadium they know and have played in (see Greenville)

Now can the scrappy team from hickory high beat, on any given night, a team of wildcats stuffed with 2 or 3 first round picks? Sure. Why sports are great. But you need more than 1 win. You gotta have 3 or 4 or else...again....seed of death.

I just am at a loss as to why people on this site do not get this. Blue and gold glasses? Pete Newell nostalgia? Forgetting that our conference championship came at a VERY down time for both Zona and UCLA and prior to the true emergence of Nike U.

Now maybe it could be cause some posters are FINE with getting in as an 8. Honestly I find that nearly as depressing as missing the entire tournie cause it isn't fun to watch cal get stripped in the backcourt 3 successive possessions by UCON in a game that essentially was at UCON.

---

Bo Ryan hasn't coached that team for the last four years and they're still doing fine. And the Big Ten is a far better conference than the Pac-12 and has been for a while so I don't get the brutal schedule argument.

Drop the hickory high bull**** for a minute. Ask yourself, can Cal legitimately expect to build a program on top level recruits when we have tougher academics to deal with and don't have the amenities to offer that the competition does? And when we've outright sucked the last few years? How much are donors willing to put up for a new practice facility, another coach buyout, probably another AD?

Yeah, building a program like Wisconsin takes time, takes a good ability to spot talent to develop outside the usual top-100 list, takes a good coaching staff able to develop players, and a strong regional recruiting program. And it isn't clear Fox is a guy who can do that. But this discussion seems totally binary in your mind. Either magically grab top 50 recruits all the time or be an 8 seed at best. But look at last year's results. Purdue had the 34th ranked class in 2017 and 49th in 2018 and was a final four team. Texas Tech was 39th and 33rd. Virginia Tech 18th and 54th. Obviously all those teams had talent. They also had good coaching. And it would be better to get more top ranked players in the mix, which they are doing now. But you have to have a base to build on and we do not. So instead of assuming everyone who favors a longer-term build wants to be scrappy underdogs forever, maybe you should consider if your premise is even relevant right now.

---

The numbers say otherwise. 62 current NBA players from the PAC 12 while 40 from the FOURTEEN team big 10. Big 10 has done better in tournament time - but I think a pretty clear argument that the raw TALENT at the Pac12 has been, based on who is getting paid serious money to play by the best talent evaluaters on the planet, a more talented conference.

Again, we can ALWAYS find a team in any particular year or even a couple of years that does well. Talent develops, a kid is undervalued, a player doesn't play AAU, he grows 6 inches and suddenly is a monster. These are all good stories.

But you are not building a PROGRAM over a set of years because to get off the seed of death (because it is a really hard truth to lean into) that you have to split against.....

A) A team which clearly is a criminal enterprise in Arizona with a leadership who doesn't give a rats ass and which is not a selective (in any stretch of the imagination) R1 institution
2) A team which is an extension of a multi Billion dollar shoe company whose mission is not to educate its players but to promote a brand by winning at any price necessary
3) A school which is frankly in its twilight but which is the preeminent school in a major metro area of 10 million and which has a legacy of NBA stars that are deeply committed to the institution and willing to encourage recruits to put on Bruin Blue

And finally a conference, because it is on the west coast, is somewhat "cheap" and which doesn't travel strongly doesn't get as a strong a November and December schedule as the Big 10, Big 12 or ACC (and increasingly SEC)

These are not facts I am particularly happy about. But they are facts. You don't get to choose the ground you fight on. Simply put - unless Cal has a pathway to having talent ABOUT as good as the top 3 there really isn't a path forward than seeds of death every 3-4 years.

BTW - One of the reasons I mistakenly thought Martin was the guy (and I think could have been the guy except for Williams & Dirks cutting his knees off) was NOT because he recruited Ivan and Brown - it was the guys that got nixed by the admin - hard nosed kids that wanted to play in the East Bay. Think a multitude of Jason Kidds.

And btw - in case you want to have fun. Here is a great piece about an "All Oakland" team. Funny that only ONE of those kids went to Cal.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/35724-what-if-the-nba-all-oakland-team

---

I'm not sure which local kids you think Martin would have landed with administration support. There are not a multitude of Jason Kidds in any town in this universe, but I don't recall East Bay kids who would have gone to Cal absent administration issues. Oscar Frayer? Ben Kone?

That BR list was interesting if you like history, but c'mon. Hook Mitchell? What does he have to do with this discussion? And none of them are even playing any more.

On the bigger issue, you seem to think that I'm advocating not having talent. That's not the case, as I've said repeatedly. But I wouldn't use NBA players as a measure of success. I'd use winning teams as the measure. I really don't care what players do after they leave college for the purpose of this discussion. But more to the point, you don't say how you would get that NBA talent to Cal. You've also argued that such talent predominantly comes from top-50 recruiting targets. They aren't coming here without the investment I mentioned, and even then only after that takes hold. So what's YOUR pathway to talent acquisition? I can't recall you ever describing it. I've named a lot of programs that started by building over time, became successful and now can reload each year. You have not named a single program that has a model you think Cal could use right now, given where Cal is. So how does this magic happen?

---

Lets unpack.

First - I want to be VERY clear (and I have been but I think sometimes you disregard this). It isn't about TEAMS....it is about PROGRAMS. What do I mean by that distinction? Anyone (really) can find lightening in a bottle every now in then. Case in point...DAVIDSON. They went to the Elite 8 in 2008. They haven't won a tournament game sense and have make 4 appearances in 12 years. Yeah - we know who played point for them. What I want is a PROGRAM that does well - over a consistent number of YEARS.

Second - you really haven't give us PROGRAMS. We either hear about Newell or a mistaken data free analysis of Wisconsin. I have tried to show you why the program Bo Ryan built (and now Gard - who was Assistant under Bo for FOURTEEN YEARS) has some very unique qualities rather than just "well coached" (which they are).

Third - Lets be clear since you like twisting words. Martin had 3 years to see if he would work. Arguably really 2 and a case could be made for 1.5 since the first year is tough and he had checked out by about January 15th the last. Again, we heard of at least FIVE kids that martin wanted that the admin nixed. Maybe they should have. I don't know. But I do know that it is a hard measure to judge him against when Williams/Dirks wanted him to recruit "their way" (and sometimes I think yours).

Fourth - you rightly ask me my pathway. It is owning the East Bay - and lets make a VERY fine point of it since apparently I have to hit you over the head with a 2 by 4 - that means being an attractive school and program to African American kids from Northern California that sadly sometimes are NOT made to feel welcome on Cal's campus when compared to UCLA, Arizona and USC. Sad but very true. But that is the pathway and it needs to be leaned into hard if you wish to compete. I put that list to show that unlike a lot of schools (UCLA being a prime example) that own their backyard for the best talent Cal has rarely done so. Lets imagine what the program would have looked like if, for example, Monty hadn't been a putz and gotten Aaron Gordon - a kid from a family of ****ing engineers of all things - to consider Cal and then paired Gordon with Raab and Brown. My heart goes pitter pat.

---

I don't think you get my point or what I wish for. Your first sentence is exactly what I've been saying. What I wish for is a coach to build a program that is sustainably successful. I mentioned winning teams as a measure of success as a point of disagreement with you defining success as players sent to the NBA. I did not say a winning year or two is enough. My point was I don't give a damn if individual players go to the NBA - I care if they win here. I want a winning program here. The question is how to make that happen given where we are now, which as you've admitted has problems.

I have never brought up Pete Newell. Not once. Ever. Other than to say his teams would be demolished by any modern team. I used Wisconsin as one example of five or six different schools, because they are PROGRAMS who began by building a foundation, because they recruit to the culture they've instilled and the style they play. Because it took time and none were originally built on highly ranked recruiting classes. Because they had coaches who were given enough leeway to do that. Because they started at a place where they couldn't necessarily compete for the top 50 or top 100 players and still managed to have success. Don't get fixated on the one coach you seem to think is unique. He's not.

I've also said we should own the East Bay, and for that matter the Bay Area. But to do that we need to be in a place where those players should even want to consider Cal. As nice an idea as "owning" the local area is, the kids who can come to Cal, deal with academics and make an impact are not numerous (true of any area you name). And for those that do exist, why would they want to come to Cal? We are a sub-par program with sub-par facilities, tough academics and a tough admissions process. So we're probably not going to be high on the lists of the players you want unless we've changed those things. How do you do that?

My view is that you have to start by identifying players who are more diamonds in the rough and develop them, and those kids have to buy into the culture you're trying to instill. Do that, have some success, and players will have more reason to consider coming here. Once again, I'm not saying Fox is the right guy to do that, but I think the program needs to be on better footing with some continuity before there's something to sell to those kids.

Now, I'd rather have a bunch of money come flowing in, we build great facilities, we get awesome administrative support, have a huge budget for assistants, travel, recruiting, and all the stuff the schools you mentioned earlier already have. Then you might be able to jump straight to playing against the big boys. But I don't see that happening, which is why I'm looking at it the way I do.

Aaron Gordon would have been a great get. Monty was not a good recruiter. I don't think anyone is arguing over that one.

---

1) Two things.

Bo Ryan IS unique and I am waiting to hear about your other 5 programs.

HE coached in the University of Wisconsin SYSTEM ONLY starting in 1976.
He won FOUR national titles in D3 at a University of Wisconsin Plateville.
He does 2 years at U of W Milk
He comes to coach at Madison - a school he was a former assistant coach for 8 years (the 8 prior to Platesville.

He takes over a program that had been to the Final Four the ****ing year before under Bennet - ANOTHER guy who had deep roots in Wisconsin (and of course beat Jason Kidd's Bears).


There is NO ONE that was EVER suggested in the various "who will be our next coach" threads with that kind of background. It is a unique situation - a guy essentially who "IS" baskeball in a state coaching at the clear flagship university in the state. It lets him coach "his way" which has been taken up by his annoited successor.

2) "diamonds in the rough"

God I hate that line. It is so trite. Now lets be more precise. _IF_ what you mean is some kid like Sam Singer that gets coached up to the best of what god can give him PLEASE FOR THE LOVE ALL THINGS NO. That doesn't work in basketball. The sport puts a premium on god given ability. Can it be wasted? Sure. But ultimately physical limitations are going to be a problem - especially when the other 11 coaches in your conference are also trying to "coach em up" and are not horrible at it. Arguably the conference is as deep as it ever has been in guys that can teach.

Now if what you mean is finding kids that are overlooked for whatever reason but have NBA capable games I am ALL FOR THAT. Lets look at 2. Close to home, I am all for finding kids like Allen Crabbe who was pissed that UCLA didn't offer. Great find. Glad he landed at Cal. Or, program building Kawhi Leonard, who Fischer was all over from Junior High and essentially made SDSU basketball.

But ultimately this is one of those bar room conversations which frankly bores me. But what is critical to understand is that MY WAY REQUIRES THE UNIVERSITY GET SERIOUS. Build a practice facility, revise admission rules so they are no more rigorous than UCLA. Really look at the Grad Transfer market and try to find a pathway that lets you actually sign the kind of kids that WOULD benefit from a Cal grad degree and make significant contributions to the university's athletic success. I really don't care about this debate about how to win. Frankly I know I am right because NO ONE OTHER THAN WISCONSIN has done it with sub-NBA talent. What I am much more interested in is breaking down the structural barriers to pursing that path....or just admitting that Cal doesn't give a rats ass about fielding a winning BB program.

---

If you're still waiting it just means you haven't read anything I've written in the last few months. No reason to bother with this. Peace.

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

socaltownie said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

I would never say never, but yeah, it is the current reality....

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

I would never say never, but yeah, it is the current reality....

---

All three posts are spot on. This board is fun to rant - but that is what it is. Football and Basketball are different events for me. BBall is more about the game, FBall is more about the event and socializing with friends.

socaltownie said:

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

Football drives the bus. At its best, BB amounts to a modest revenue for IA, while football can be a money maker. It's not about the sport; it's about the $$.

socaltownie said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

Over the years, I've come to realize that basketball is probably harder for Cal to compete in than football. One reason is that with a 60-man roster, the number of players recruited for schools in Division I is much higher in football. With a bigger pool you're choosing from, there's more likelihood of finding a kid that's others have overlooked who will be successful in your program. Number 8 is example number one of that, but there have been others. Related to that is that it's much harder to project the arc from high school through college in football than it is in basketball. That should be obvious from the fact that players regularly go to the NBA straight from high school, or with only one year of college, whereas that happens infrequently in football. That's just an issue of pure physical maturity. In particularly, the uncertainty is very high for offensive linemen, who I think are actually the most critical players in college ball. They take longer to develop, so diamonds in the rough are again more readily available. Also, if conventional wisdom is true that they tend to be the among the brightest offensive players, it's more likely that they might not be phased by the challenges of being a Cal student and a Cal football players at the same time.

Lastly, the reality in terms of fan experience is that, while times vary, at least I know going in that every football home game except one is going to be on a Saturday. If I'm sufficiently motivated, I can keep my schedule free to attend. That's not true for basketball. If a weekday game starts at 6 in Berkeley, I can't get off work to get there. If it starts at 8, I don't get home until close to midnight. Either is no bueno. The reality is that fans are not going to come back for basketball unless Cal becomes super competitive, or games move to a Friday-Sunday schedule, which is not going to happen under the current TV contract.

That might happen if football is played during the basketball season.

oskidunker said:

---

That might happen if football is played during the basketball season.

---

Oldtimers like me probably remember that in the pre-ESPN days, Cal basketball, at least during conference, was back-to-back on Friday and Saturday nights. For my family, that meant a charbroiled burger, fries and a shake at Kip's, followed by the game, which in those days was so sparsely attended I would sneak down and sit right on the floor. I mss that.

Jeff82 said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

That might happen if football is played during the basketball season.

---

Oldtimers like me probably remember that in the pre-ESPN days, Cal basketball, at least during conference, was back-to-back on Friday and Saturday nights. For my family, that meant a charbroiled burger, fries and a shake at Kip's, followed by the game, which in those days was so sparsely attended I would sneak down and sit right on the floor. I mss that.

---

Those were the days for sure. Kips was Kips and not a chinese restaurant. And the players some how did not get tired.

oskidunker said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

That might happen if football is played during the basketball season.

---

Oldtimers like me probably remember that in the pre-ESPN days, Cal basketball, at least during conference, was back-to-back on Friday and Saturday nights. For my family, that meant a charbroiled burger, fries and a shake at Kip's, followed by the game, which in those days was so sparsely attended I would sneak down and sit right on the floor. I mss that.

---

Those were the days for sure. Kips was Kips and not a chinese restaurant. And the players some how did not get tired.

---

What? Kip's is now a Chinese restaurant? What kind of food do they serve? Chinese? Burgers? Both?

I had a lab partner at Berkeley for a while who hailed from Seoul, Korea. We went out one time to a hamburger place, and he got physically ill looking at that burger. He tried cooking for himself, but it wasn't so good, so a couple times a month, he would invite me out to dinner on Saturday, so I could drive him to San Francisco and he would pay for my dinner at Korea House, the only Korean restaurant in the Bay Area at the time. All I remember was it was tiny bits of vegetable and meats, and different kinds of kim chi, all served in many stainless steel bowls for each of us. I didn't like it too much. The following year, Chong's brother came to Berkeley to get his PhD, and brought his wife along, who was a great cook, so Chong finally was able to get some Korean home cooking and stopped losing weight. Years later, I had a Korean girlfriend and I got hooked on the kim chi. She made it in a soup, which caused the sweat to pour off me, it was so hot. After we broke up, about a month later, I began to miss the kim chi, and I started going back to Korea House by myself.

I can't understand how players get tired nowadays with all the timeouts during game. Newell called maybe one timeout every other game.

i posted that we need to have a transfer strategy

some schools certainly do ... USC, Oregon, AZ

of course, it's easier if you're one of those schools as they have good basketball programs, and lower academic requirements

but I saw this and it reminded me the value of recruiting players, even when they opt to go elsewhere
--------

Former Harvard guard Bryce Aiken, a top-five graduate transfer, committed to Seton Hall on Thursday.

Aiken chose the Pirates over Maryland, Iowa State and Michigan.

A native of Randolph, New Jersey, Aiken was recruited by Seton Hall out of high school but chose Harvard over the Pirates. His familiarity with Willard and the program made the difference when it came to deciding where to play his final college season.

HoopDreams said:

---

i posted that we need to have a transfer strategy

some schools certainly do ... USC, Oregon, AZ

of course, it's easier if you're one of those schools as they have good basketball programs, and lower academic requirements

but I saw this and it reminded me the value of recruiting players, even when they opt to go elsewhere
--------

Former Harvard guard Bryce Aiken, a top-five graduate transfer, committed to Seton Hall on Thursday.

Aiken chose the Pirates over Maryland, Iowa State and Michigan.

A native of Randolph, New Jersey, Aiken was recruited by Seton Hall out of high school but chose Harvard over the Pirates. His familiarity with Willard and the program made the difference when it came to deciding where to play his final college season.

---

But we DONT have a strategy - and it reflects something of the institutional committment which seems pretty pervasive.

Put another way - how many kids with a BA from Texas Tech get into Cal's Grad programs? or more on point - what program did Webb go to and did he actually go to class?

socaltownie said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

Look at the financial statements. Football makes 4-5 times the revenue of basketball. The bulk of basketball's revenue comes from fielding a team - merely being the Washington Generals, getting the conference pay out and the media contract. Ticket sales range from about $2M at the worst to $3.5M at the height. Investing even an extra million a year on coaching salaries carries a high risk you will not get your investment back and a very low probability you will actually make a substantial return on your investment. While investing a couple million a year in football makes a big difference. Being the Washington Generals in football would be devastating. The financial difference between horrible to average is big and actually having success brings a lot of money in.

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

Look at the financial statements. Football makes 4-5 times the revenue of basketball. The bulk of basketball's revenue comes from fielding a team - merely being the Washington Generals, getting the conference pay out and the media contract. Ticket sales range from about $2M at the worst to $3.5M at the height. Investing even an extra million a year on coaching salaries carries a high risk you will not get your investment back and a very low probability you will actually make a substantial return on your investment. While investing a couple million a year in football makes a big difference. Being the Washington Generals in football would be devastating. The financial difference between horrible to average is big and actually having success brings a lot of money in.

---

I wasn't clear. I get the $$ and the finances
What I don't get is that consumers/alumni LIKE college football more than college basketball. Trust me, "no accounting for taste" should be blazened on every MAGA hat in the nation but that doesn't mean one still isn;t confused.

1) College basketball ends in a tournament that, at least for one shinning moment, anything can happen. usually it is the blue bloods bu the very design means nearly every year you get one cinderella story that is everything that is right with college sports.

Football - essentially 4 out of the top 10 programs should be penciled in every year for the playoffs....BFD

2) The game provides these wonderful moments that come out of no where - the great dunk, the fantastic defensive rotation, the drive thorugh traffic that amazes days afterwards.

Football can have that but usually it involves the gorilla doing that to the poor slobs

3) 30 games in the regular season means that every game is of import (contrast with the NBA or MLB) but not so much that if you lose you are done.

Football - sometimes lose one game - or not win by enough and it is over. Why do I "CARE" if we lose to Oregon and we are playing for the Clorox Toilet Bowl.

4) Basketball has this great drama of coming in from the dark and the cold to a packed arena with communal joy (or anguish) over every shot

Football can nice (and especially in a place like CMS on a wonderous fall day.....until the firest break out....or it rains...or they move the game to night and the fog blows in.

5) basekball's rules create tight games. Sure, blow outs happen. But not as often as some college football massacres. This actually contrasts with the NFL whose salary cap and draft rules have created great parity and close games. NCAA? Not so much.

But hey - I can see all that. The majority has clearly spoken. The violence of football is a powerful drug.

socaltownie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

Look at the financial statements. Football makes 4-5 times the revenue of basketball. The bulk of basketball's revenue comes from fielding a team - merely being the Washington Generals, getting the conference pay out and the media contract. Ticket sales range from about $2M at the worst to $3.5M at the height. Investing even an extra million a year on coaching salaries carries a high risk you will not get your investment back and a very low probability you will actually make a substantial return on your investment. While investing a couple million a year in football makes a big difference. Being the Washington Generals in football would be devastating. The financial difference between horrible to average is big and actually having success brings a lot of money in.

---

I wasn't clear. I get the $$ and the finances
What I don't get is that consumers/alumni LIKE college football more than college basketball. Trust me, "no accounting for taste" should be blazened on every MAGA hat in the nation but that doesn't mean one still isn;t confused.

1) College basketball ends in a tournament that, at least for one shinning moment, anything can happen. usually it is the blue bloods bu the very design means nearly every year you get one cinderella story that is everything that is right with college sports.

Football - essentially 4 out of the top 10 programs should be penciled in every year for the playoffs....BFD

2) The game provides these wonderful moments that come out of no where - the great dunk, the fantastic defensive rotation, the drive thorugh traffic that amazes days afterwards.

Football can have that but usually it involves the gorilla doing that to the poor slobs

3) 30 games in the regular season means that every game is of import (contrast with the NBA or MLB) but not so much that if you lose you are done.

Football - sometimes lose one game - or not win by enough and it is over. Why do I "CARE" if we lose to Oregon and we are playing for the Clorox Toilet Bowl.

4) Basketball has this great drama of coming in from the dark and the cold to a packed arena with communal joy (or anguish) over every shot

Football can nice (and especially in a place like CMS on a wonderous fall day.....until the firest break out....or it rains...or they move the game to night and the fog blows in.

5) basekball's rules create tight games. Sure, blow outs happen. But not as often as some college football massacres. This actually contrasts with the NFL whose salary cap and draft rules have created great parity and close games. NCAA? Not so much.

But hey - I can see all that. The majority has clearly spoken. The violence of football is a powerful drug.

---

I'll bottom line this for you. Very few people work on Saturday. Almost everybody works on weekdays. I had basketball season tickets before. I find basketball games in person more exciting than football games in person. I gave up my tickets not because we were bad or there was anything wrong with the environment. I flat out couldn't get to a lot of games, and other games I might be rushing like crazy to get there, sometimes to walk in well after tip off or even half time. I can't tell my boss 10 times a year that I need to cut out early for a basketball game. And paying for 20 games to see 10 was not acceptable. Generally, those that can afford season tickets are either retired (so no problem), or in jobs that kind of expect that for the money you pay your hours aren't exactly 9-5. Further, unlike football, many matchups are not compelling.

If I had bought Cal season tickets this past season, I would have paid for weeknight games against

St Martins
Pepperdine
UNLV
California Baptist
Prairie View A&M
UC Davis
Fresno State

In all of November and December there were 2 home weekend games. One against Harvard. St. Mary's was the only home game out of conference that was remotely compelling. I'm not rushing out of work to get to Cal in time to have a bad hot dog for dinner while watching California Baptist. Generally with football you only pay for one crappy nonconference matchup and maybe a middling one. And with football, it is normally conducive to spending a day on campus, having lunch and/or dinner, pre and post game festivities, etc. Basketball the game is the thing. When the game is Prairie View A&M, it ain't much of a thing.

And when was the last time Cal basketball involved coming in from the dark and cold to a packed arena vs. suffering through the cold to enter a dead arena where you can hear shoes squeaking on the floor.

socaltownie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

Look at the financial statements. Football makes 4-5 times the revenue of basketball. The bulk of basketball's revenue comes from fielding a team - merely being the Washington Generals, getting the conference pay out and the media contract. Ticket sales range from about $2M at the worst to $3.5M at the height. Investing even an extra million a year on coaching salaries carries a high risk you will not get your investment back and a very low probability you will actually make a substantial return on your investment. While investing a couple million a year in football makes a big difference. Being the Washington Generals in football would be devastating. The financial difference between horrible to average is big and actually having success brings a lot of money in.

---

I wasn't clear. I get the $$ and the finances
What I don't get is that consumers/alumni LIKE college football more than college basketball. Trust me, "no accounting for taste" should be blazened on every MAGA hat in the nation but that doesn't mean one still isn;t confused.

1) College basketball ends in a tournament that, at least for one shinning moment, anything can happen. usually it is the blue bloods bu the very design means nearly every year you get one cinderella story that is everything that is right with college sports.

Football - essentially 4 out of the top 10 programs should be penciled in every year for the playoffs....BFD

2) The game provides these wonderful moments that come out of no where - the great dunk, the fantastic defensive rotation, the drive thorugh traffic that amazes days afterwards.

Football can have that but usually it involves the gorilla doing that to the poor slobs

3) 30 games in the regular season means that every game is of import (contrast with the NBA or MLB) but not so much that if you lose you are done.

Football - sometimes lose one game - or not win by enough and it is over. Why do I "CARE" if we lose to Oregon and we are playing for the Clorox Toilet Bowl.

4) Basketball has this great drama of coming in from the dark and the cold to a packed arena with communal joy (or anguish) over every shot

Football can nice (and especially in a place like CMS on a wonderous fall day.....until the firest break out....or it rains...or they move the game to night and the fog blows in.

5) basekball's rules create tight games. Sure, blow outs happen. But not as often as some college football massacres. This actually contrasts with the NFL whose salary cap and draft rules have created great parity and close games. NCAA? Not so much.

But hey - I can see all that. The majority has clearly spoken. The violence of football is a powerful drug.

---

Football is much more of a happening than basketball, I think because it's almost always on Saturday, and it's in the fall, when in Berkeley in particular, the weather is the best. That gets people out to the games, even though football is actually a better game on TV in many ways, because so much of what's important happens too fast to see it without instant replay. Baseball is much better in person, basketball and hockey are good either way.

As I always tell people, football is a sprint, basketball is a marathon. Because there are so many fewer games, the amazing moments in football may stand out more, and there are more people there to see them. We've discussed great games here during this lull. Some of them, like the John/Tom Caselli game against Washington St., have no meaning at all except to the players and those of us who were there to see them. It's true that in football, each loss reduces the potential end result substantially more. However, people still enjoy it when Cal even makes a minor bowl. By contrast, as you've noted, part of what frustrates us in hoops is never making it to the second weekend of the tournament. As the cliche goes, in non-COVID years, most of the teams end their season with a loss.

Point 4) has always been the big factor for me. Before I was married with a kid, basketball was a big part of what got me through the dark, cold winter. That's why all the scheduling changes have been so frustration for me. I just can't get there during the week most of the time, although once in a while, I'll go when I shouldn't, because I just need to.

Finally, I think a lot of it really goes back to when we were kids. My dad went to Lowell and then Cal in the 1950s, when both schools had great basketball teams. That made him a gym rat. He used to go to watch Newell's practices, as many students did. He passed that on to me, and coached me in church leagues, so I enjoy watching games and analyzing them much more than in football, where I'm mostly just a fan.

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

SCT, I agree with you. Of course, all the ranting and raving about what the administration should do doesn't reallu incentivize them to do it. My alternative has been basically to now view basketball as a diversion, without much focus on wins or losses. This year, if there was a game at a time that was convenient for me to go, which is basically only weekend or holiday games, I bought below-face-value tickets on Stubhub, and took my daughter. Had Fox appeared to be a continuation of Jones, I probably would have only gone to one game, but the play was at least watchable, so I went to maybe five games, and watched a few others on TV. The reality is that basketball is almost totally fodder for television, so I don't feel compelled to buy season tickets that then get wasted because I can't leave work in San Jose to get to 6 p.m. game in Berkeley. It is what it is.

---

There with you. This board is a fun time to rant and rave and put on my uberfan hat but I essentially understand that Cal really is never going to compete in current NCAA basketball landscape. It remains interesting to me that football is a much more "all in" for the university - and alumni. I don't really get that. I like football but I think, college basketball is such a great sport capped by the greatest sporting event invented. But, as you say, that isn't the view of the powers that be or even the majority of Bears fans. it is, as you say, what it is.

---

Look at the financial statements. Football makes 4-5 times the revenue of basketball. The bulk of basketball's revenue comes from fielding a team - merely being the Washington Generals, getting the conference pay out and the media contract. Ticket sales range from about $2M at the worst to $3.5M at the height. Investing even an extra million a year on coaching salaries carries a high risk you will not get your investment back and a very low probability you will actually make a substantial return on your investment. While investing a couple million a year in football makes a big difference. Being the Washington Generals in football would be devastating. The financial difference between horrible to average is big and actually having success brings a lot of money in.

---

I wasn't clear. I get the $$ and the finances
What I don't get is that consumers/alumni LIKE college football more than college basketball. Trust me, "no accounting for taste" should be blazened on every MAGA hat in the nation but that doesn't mean one still isn;t confused.

1) College basketball ends in a tournament that, at least for one shinning moment, anything can happen. usually it is the blue bloods bu the very design means nearly every year you get one cinderella story that is everything that is right with college sports.

Football - essentially 4 out of the top 10 programs should be penciled in every year for the playoffs....BFD

2) The game provides these wonderful moments that come out of no where - the great dunk, the fantastic defensive rotation, the drive thorugh traffic that amazes days afterwards.

Football can have that but usually it involves the gorilla doing that to the poor slobs

3) 30 games in the regular season means that every game is of import (contrast with the NBA or MLB) but not so much that if you lose you are done.

Football - sometimes lose one game - or not win by enough and it is over. Why do I "CARE" if we lose to Oregon and we are playing for the Clorox Toilet Bowl.

4) Basketball has this great drama of coming in from the dark and the cold to a packed arena with communal joy (or anguish) over every shot

Football can nice (and especially in a place like CMS on a wonderous fall day.....until the firest break out....or it rains...or they move the game to night and the fog blows in.

5) basekball's rules create tight games. Sure, blow outs happen. But not as often as some college football massacres. This actually contrasts with the NFL whose salary cap and draft rules have created great parity and close games. NCAA? Not so much.

But hey - I can see all that. The majority has clearly spoken. The violence of football is a powerful drug.

---

I'll bottom line this for you. Very few people work on Saturday. Almost everybody works on weekdays. I had basketball season tickets before. I find basketball games in person more exciting than football games in person. I gave up my tickets not because we were bad or there was anything wrong with the environment. I flat out couldn't get to a lot of games, and other games I might be rushing like crazy to get there, sometimes to walk in well after tip off or even half time. I can't tell my boss 10 times a year that I need to cut out early for a basketball game. And paying for 20 games to see 10 was not acceptable. Generally, those that can afford season tickets are either retired (so no problem), or in jobs that kind of expect that for the money you pay your hours aren't exactly 9-5. Further, unlike football, many matchups are not compelling.

If I had bought Cal season tickets this past season, I would have paid for weeknight games against

St Martins
Pepperdine
UNLV
California Baptist
Prairie View A&M
UC Davis
Fresno State

In all of November and December there were 2 home weekend games. One against Harvard. St. Mary's was the only home game out of conference that was remotely compelling. I'm not rushing out of work to get to Cal in time to have a bad hot dog for dinner while watching California Baptist. Generally with football you only pay for one crappy nonconference matchup and maybe a middling one. And with football, it is normally conducive to spending a day on campus, having lunch and/or dinner, pre and post game festivities, etc. Basketball the game is the thing. When the game is Prairie View A&M, it ain't much of a thing.

And when was the last time Cal basketball involved coming in from the dark and cold to a packed arena vs. suffering through the cold to enter a dead arena where you can hear shoes squeaking on the floor.

---

I really think a Friday night, Sunday afternoon schedule makes more sense. Pac-12 would be on all TVs in the bars on the East Coast Friday nights. Plus it would better accommodate the student-athletes being students.

That schedule would probably result in my buying season tickets again.

calumnus said:

---

I really think a Friday night, Sunday afternoon schedule makes more sense. Pac-12 would be on all TVs in the bars on the East Coast Friday nights. Plus it would better accommodate the student-athletes being students.

---

I had heard (years ago) from an old timer that the Pac 10 (maybe Pac 8) moved to a Thursday - Saturday format to boost attendance. Theory at the time being . . .

Everyone (mostly Students) had better things to do on Friday nights

Families preferred to stay home on Sunday and were used to Saturday campus events like Football.

Anyone around then to validate that theory?

Personally, I'm fine with Thur/Sat or Fri/Sun and even Fri/Sat if all teams did it. I hate Wednesday and Sunday NIGHT games as well as the random Mon/Tue OOC games. I also don't like conference games when students are not in session, but I don't see a way around that one.

Growing up in the 70s and 80s always Thursday (7:00 tip) and Saturday (variation but often 2). Thursday Dad got home from campus, ate dinner, drove me and brother back down (and parked with our SWEET central campus sticker in the close in lot by about 630). Saturdays we would often go to the game and then eat out - Spengers (sp) Giovanni's, la Valles as we got older and got a say.

And - interestingly - while probably a family thing and being faculty rather than alumni/students FOOTBALL never had that event thing. We would have lunch at the Faculty Club (often the hoop team sat a few tables over and as kids we would look wide eyed at our heros) and then walk up to CMS. Again. Park on campus with our SWEET central campus sticker (Warren Hall). Other times we would walk down (and then back - that was a HIKE). Let me tell you - Walking up La Loma when you are a kid after a nice afternoon in the sun is NOT fun.

OaktownBear said:

---

If I had bought Cal season tickets this past season, I would have paid for weeknight games against

St Martins
Pepperdine
UNLV
California Baptist
Prairie View A&M
UC Davis
Fresno State

In all of November and December there were 2 home weekend games. One against Harvard. St. Mary's was the only home game out of conference that was remotely compelling. I'm not rushing out of work to get to Cal in time to have a bad hot dog for dinner while watching California Baptist. Generally with football you only pay for one crappy nonconference matchup and maybe a middling one. And with football, it is normally conducive to spending a day on campus, having lunch and/or dinner, pre and post game festivities, etc. Basketball the game is the thing. When the game is Prairie View A&M, it ain't much of a thing.

And when was the last time Cal basketball involved coming in from the dark and cold to a packed arena vs. suffering through the cold to enter a dead arena where you can hear shoes squeaking on the floor.

---

This is true, if you want it to be - but not my experience. Actually I find my BBall tickets to be a great value.

I buy two seats to all those games (they are included in the Season pass) but never with the intention of attending them. You can trade tickets to games you don't want to attend for tickets to games you do. So I buy two season passes and then start trading the inconvenient and/or uninteresting games for P12 games later in the season. Tickets are always available, I bring my sons & buds, we sit pretty much wherever we want and it only costs a couple bucks to upgrade to the better games. And the program gets my money. I think it is a great system and it keeps me buying season tickets.

Agree. Many times moving to primo chairbacks was not a problem. Cost is significantly less than football and games dont end at midnight.

Today, Stanfurd signed the #7 player in the country.

I wonder what Mark Fox has planned to keep Cal competitive.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

Today, Stanfurd signed the #7 player in the country.

I wonder what Mark Fox has planned to keep Cal competitive.

---

Yeah I saw this. But remember - the apology crowd doesn't like one and dones, pines about Pete newell, and thinks that Hawaii exposed the fallacy of getting mcDonald all Americans so everything will be A OK.

socaltownie said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

Today, Stanfurd signed the #7 player in the country.

I wonder what Mark Fox has planned to keep Cal competitive.

---

Yeah I saw this. But remember - the apology crowd doesn't like one and dones, pines about Pete newell, and thinks that Hawaii exposed the fallacy of getting mcDonald all Americans so everything will be A OK.

---

who are these apology people who don't want to sign one-and-dones?

you keep making arguments against a false narrative

when I read posts from others, I don't hear that ... most would be ok would becoming the Duke of the West Coast, with 3 one-and-done each year, with the rest of the roster full of 5 and 4 star players

the issue, is we can't just snap our fingers and say yeah, I agree .... let's do that

I attended my first Cal basketball game in 1958 as a local school kid. Went to Cal myself and thought I would be following a winner the rest of my life, and then over a 50 year period, saw us win exactly one conference championship. That is why I think we need to try some different approach than everybody else - four year players, international players, emphasis on defense, etc. Will it work? Not sure, but we are certainly experts on what hasn't worked over the past six decades.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

Today, Stanfurd signed the #7 player in the country.

I wonder what Mark Fox has planned to keep Cal competitive.

---

Malik Zachery

socaltownie said:

---

Put another way - how many kids with a BA from Texas Tech get into Cal's Grad programs?

---

C'mon. I know someone like that (not a varsity athlete) who has a PhD from Cal. There are many, many people with Cal graduate degrees who have BA/BS degrees from "non elite" colleges.

It's not an obstacle to getting graduate transfers into Cal.

HoopDreams said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

Today, Stanfurd signed the #7 player in the country.

I wonder what Mark Fox has planned to keep Cal competitive.

---

Yeah I saw this. But remember - the apology crowd doesn't like one and dones, pines about Pete newell, and thinks that Hawaii exposed the fallacy of getting mcDonald all Americans so everything will be A OK.

---

who are these apology people who don't want to sign one-and-dones?

you keep making arguments against a false narrative

when I read posts from others, I don't hear that ... most would be ok would becoming the Duke of the West Coast, with 3 one-and-done each year, with the rest of the roster full of 5 and 4 star players

the issue, is we can't just snap our fingers and say yeah, I agree .... let's do that

---

Do you read SFBear?

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Put another way - how many kids with a BA from Texas Tech get into Cal's Grad programs?

---

C'mon. I know someone like that (not a varsity athlete) who has a PhD from Cal. There are many, many people with Cal graduate degrees who have BA/BS degrees from "non elite" colleges.

It's not an obstacle to getting graduate transfers into Cal.

---

LOL. Not the highest ranked doctoral programs (at least 20 years ago when I cared about such). For instance, circa Ken Waltz's era the PoliSci doctoral program was chalk full of folks from ivies and elite publics.

Did you know Jack Citrin? Had him when I was there. He was still teaching until a few years ago.