Will Fox surprise us with another commit on Nov 11? probably not, but there'[s always the Spring signing period. Look for a big..Hopefully, more polished than project. big prize remains Mahaney for 2022. Hope he and Roberson are really tight as opposed to being just casual buds..Mods??

Mahaney would be a HUGE get for Fox....he is getting to the area of being able to pick any school he wants to go to will want him.....He just got another offer from Xavier....

Got to accept that competition - The good ones get them. Obviously Fox and associates can't recruit 4 and 5 stars in a noncompetitive vacuum. It comes with the territory.

Interestingly its got to be hard to visit some of the campuses given the pandemic. So picking a college without seeing the campus/facilities in person is tough. Go Bears.

Beardog26 said:

---

Totally agree, particularly with the last statement in your post. A lot will depend on how we improve as a program. Cal basketball showed some some real improvement last year compared to the teams coached by Wyking Jones. There's still plenty of room for additional growth. If we don't exhibit such improvement this season, higher level recruits like Mahaney are less likely to choose the Bears regardless of the excellent academic profile. I like the direction Coach Fox took Cal last season but that trend needs to continue unabated in order to get us back on the right track.

---

Least we not forget Jones' Bears finished up beating Udub, Wasu, and the furds before losing a close one to the buffs in the conference tourney.

Oh Lawd. I did not forget. However, I did closely watch his teams play and seemingly not improve by many measures during his tenure as Cal's head coach. You may disagree, which is fine, but that doesn't mean I forgot a few games near the end. In my opinion, Fox's team last year exhibited more sustained growth and development in one season than did Wyking's teams over the course of any single season.

Beardog26 said:

---

Oh Lawd. I did not forget. However, I did closely watch his teams play and seemingly not improve by many measures during his tenure as Cal's head coach. You may disagree, which is fine, but that doesn't mean I forgot a few games near the end. In my opinion, Fox's team last year exhibited more sustained growth and development in one season than did Wyking's teams over the course of any single season.

---

I'm certainly not meaning to advocate for Jones, it's just that I've seen the late improvement before. Fox is getting just about everyone back, so the 2020-21 Bears should be improved. Just like the 2019-21 Bears likely would have been if they returned everyone back - even if Jones stuck around.

I understand where you're coming from but, from what I've seen thus far, I have more confidence that Fox's team's improvement last season was built on the strength of greater team and individual development, intense dedication to defense, group "buy-in," and drilling down on both the fundamentals and the communication required to achieve success in a team sport.

I closely watched Fox's interactions last season with individual players during and after timeouts, both at Haas and on TV. I was impressed with the level of detail that he put into his coaching style. Each observer is free to take from a viewing experience whatever they wish. Having captained two different sports at Cal, including a team coached by one of the greatest coaches I've ever been around in Jack Clark, those are the types of things on which I tend to focus, rightly or wrongly.

Beardog26 said:

---

I understand where you're coming from but, from what I've seen thus far, I have more confidence that Fox's team's improvement last season was built on the strength of greater team and individual development, intense dedication to defense, group "buy-in," and drilling down on both the fundamentals and the communication required to achieve success in a team sport.

I closely watched Fox's interactions last season with individual players during and after timeouts, both at Haas and on TV. I was impressed with the level of detail that he put into his coaching style. Each observer is free to take from a viewing experience whatever they wish. Having captained two different sports at Cal, including a team coached by one of the greatest coaches I've ever been around in Jack Clark, those are the types of things on which I tend to focus, rightly or wrongly.

---

Jones is a very low bar for comparison. My opinion was Knowlton was too slow to fire Jones and too quick to hire Fox. I'm hoping it works out. Appreciate your positive assessment of his sideline demeanor and coaching detail.

To your point, Sagarin's "Predictor" (all the games count equally) ranked us #164 but his "Recent" (all the games count but more recent games weighted more heavily) ranked us #91 and that differential shows there was substantial improvement over the course of the season. Remember, it is likely every team is improving over the course of the season so this is greater improvement relative to everyone else's improvement.

The prior year numbers under Jones were #218 and #182 which shows improvement, but not really substantial improvement.

The key will be whether Fox can continue to get substantial improvement out of the players or if the improvements from his taking the air out of the ball style of play have already been made.

"The key will be whether Fox can continue to get substantial improvement out of the players or if the improvements from his taking the air out of the ball style of play have already been made."

Reading your comment suggests you probably do not favor or approve of the Mark Fox team's commitment to playing at both ends of the court. Competing versus a structured offense and lockdown defense wears and frustrates the opposition. Controlling tempo and minimizing unforced errors minimizes any talent deficiency. Playing at the pace that suits California will contribute to their optimum win loss record.

The Bears "hung-in" with the program over the course of the season, which, I believe attests to Fox's leadership and motivation. That's an improvement, and good to see, compared to the previous two regimes.

Intuit said:

---

"The key will be whether Fox can continue to get substantial improvement out of the players or if the improvements from his taking the air out of the ball style of play have already been made."

Reading your comment suggests you probably do not favor or approve of the Mark Fox team's commitment to playing at both ends of the court. Competing versus a structured offense and lockdown defense wears and frustrates the opposition. Controlling tempo and minimizing unforced errors minimizes any talent deficiency. Playing at the pace that suits California will contribute to their optimum win loss record.

---

I definitely approve of playing both offense and defense. However, slowing down the game is not defense.

The top scoring teams were 1. Gonzaga and 2. Duke. Cal was # 330, one of the very lowest scoring teams in the country at 63.2 ppg. Cal was #169 in scoring defense at 69.1 ppg. That was despite being #259 in defensive efficiency, one of the worst defensive teams in the country. Other teams scored on us, but we made them take clock to do it (some coaches like K, Few and Monty instead try to get opponents to take bad percentage shots, even if early). By trying to deny any shot you eventually give up a good shot. Hence you wind up at #259 in defensive efficiency.

Braun took a similar tack. If you are the underdog limiting both teams' possessions gives you a better chance to get lucky. You can eek out a few wins you shouldn't have gotten that way (and possibly lose a few you should win). It was more common before the shot clock. It is a way to superficially "improve" a bad team, you reduce blowout losses, it seems like you are "in" more games, you even can pull off an upset or two. It made sense given where we were as a team. However, the strategy can only take you so far. At some point you have to play good offense and play defense that is actually good.

Last year that would be Virginia under Tony Bennett. #348 in scoring offense at 57 ppg but #1 in scoring defense at 52.4 ppg. Whereas Cal was #259 in defensive efficiency, Virginia was #1 in the country in defensive efficiency. THAT is an effective defense first philosophy that can get you ranked #4, 2nd in the ACC.

Intuit said:

---

Your self indulgent gotcha post reiterates the better statistical teams have better talent and execute the strategy at a more effect clip. We new that already.

---

Assuming this is addressed to me, yes I like discussing strategy, so yes, maybe posting here is self-indulgent. Where else can someone go to discuss Cal basketball?

"We knew that already"? My post was in direct response to someone saying we improved because we emphasized defense last year. My point is that we did not. We played bad defense but slowed down play. This was a characteristic of Cal play under Braun (but we would debate it here incessantly). For a talent deficient team that is a better strategy than speeding up the game and getting blown out (which is what Jones did). However, that is a one time change to mitigate being the lesser team. You cannot slow the ball down into being a good team. At some point you need to play good offense and/or defense. When you are the better team you may even (generally should) speed up play. However, Virginia is a rare counter example of a good team that slows the ball down and plays good defense to win. As SF City will tell you, Newell's teams were similar. Hopefully Fox is taking us in one of those two directions.

Dear Stu: We will not miss Paris Austen. He was a point guard who couldn't point and a shooting guard who couldn't shoot. That's why he was called a combo guard. Martin /Jones chose him over ford ( St.Marys) and Frankie Ferrari . oops and oops. You are only allowed one oops. The world always needs bartenders.

calumnus said:

---

Intuit said:

---

"The key will be whether Fox can continue to get substantial improvement out of the players or if the improvements from his taking the air out of the ball style of play have already been made."

Reading your comment suggests you probably do not favor or approve of the Mark Fox team's commitment to playing at both ends of the court. Competing versus a structured offense and lockdown defense wears and frustrates the opposition. Controlling tempo and minimizing unforced errors minimizes any talent deficiency. Playing at the pace that suits California will contribute to their optimum win loss record.

---

I definitely approve of playing both offense and defense. However, slowing down the game is not defense.

The top scoring teams were 1. Gonzaga and 2. Duke. Cal was # 330, one of the very lowest scoring teams in the country at 63.2 ppg. Cal was #169 in scoring defense at 69.1 ppg. That was despite being #259 in defensive efficiency, one of the worst defensive teams in the country. Other teams scored on us, but we made them take clock to do it (some coaches like K, Few and Monty instead try to get opponents to take bad percentage shots, even if early). By trying to deny any shot you eventually give up a good shot. Hence you wind up at #259 in defensive efficiency.

Braun took a similar tack. If you are the underdog limiting both teams' possessions gives you a better chance to get lucky. You can eek out a few wins you shouldn't have gotten that way (and possibly lose a few you should win). It was more common before the shot clock. It is a way to superficially "improve" a bad team, you reduce blowout losses, it seems like you are "in" more games, you even can pull off an upset or two. It made sense given where we were as a team. However, the strategy can only take you so far. At some point you have to play good offense and play defense that is actually good.

Last year that would be Virginia under Tony Bennett. #348 in scoring offense at 57 ppg but #1 in scoring defense at 52.4 ppg. Whereas Cal was #259 in defensive efficiency, Virginia was #1 in the country in defensive efficiency. THAT is an effective defense first philosophy that can get you ranked #4, 2nd in the ACC.

---

I agree with your comments. Braun was one of many Cal coaches who played slowly and were credited with being good defensive coaches but were not. I do think a little perspective is needed. The year before Cal was #334 (with more talent) in defensive efficiency, so 259 is an improvement. Using the eye test, Cal had great defensive game plans, worked in synch with each other and improved individually. Austin's improvement was stunning. But Cal had real defensive talent deficiencies, particularly among the bigs. With all the athletic, long-armed recruits who have come in this year and will next year, and with LT's continued development, I expect a great defense by the 21-22 season. I do worry about where the scoring will come from.

Sluggo

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Stu: We will not miss Paris Austen. He was a point guard who couldn't point and a shooting guard who couldn't shoot. That's why he was called a combo guard. Martin /Jones chose him over ford ( St.Marys) and Frankie Ferrari . oops and oops. You are only allowed one oops. The world always needs bartenders.

---

Your faulty timeline aside, I never saw where Austen (sic) was referred to as a combo guard.

Bearprof said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Stu: We will not miss Paris Austen. He was a point guard who couldn't point and a shooting guard who couldn't shoot. That's why he was called a combo guard. Martin /Jones chose him over ford ( St.Marys) and Frankie Ferrari . oops and oops. You are only allowed one oops. The world always needs bartenders.

---

Paris Austin stepped up and was an important player for us late in the season. We will miss him.

---

Agree that Austin's late improvement was probably the biggest factor in Cal's marked improvement late in the season. That said, I don't think it is anything that can't be replaced by Brown...provided he ever learns to shoot a free-throw.

calumnus said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Dear Stu: We will not miss Paris Austen. He was a point guard who couldn't point and a shooting guard who couldn't shoot. That's why he was called a combo guard. Martin /Jones chose him over ford ( St.Marys) and Frankie Ferrari . oops and oops. You are only allowed one oops. The world always needs bartenders.

---

Frankie Ferrari committed to USF (Idaho was his only other offer) in 2013 when Mike Montgomery was the Cal coach. Ford committed to St. Mary's in 2016 because he liked their structured offense. Paris Austin announced he would transfer to Cal from Boise State in May of 2017, well after Ford (and certainly Ferrari) had committed and Martin had left.

---

The one point I have to dispute is the reference to Jordan Ford's reason for choosing St. Mary's....I know Jordan and his dream school was Cal.....Martin didn't think he was strong enough for Pac12 competition so Cal never offered him a scholly......If Cal would have offered, Jordan would have spent 4 years (maybe even 5) in Berkeley.....I talked to Jay John about his recruitment and he was my source for Martin's assessment....I told John about Jordan's wishes but it didn't matter......but yes, OOPS.......

And, my understanding is that Ferrari wanted to come here as a grad transfer per his next door neighborhood in Burlingame. So---oops and oops still stands. Also, Austen improved his ability to drive to his left but did not distribute the ball, play defense or shoot well from the perimeter. He was referred to as a PG because he couldn't;t shoot well enough to be referred to as a SG. Oops and oops still stand.

And Austin stepped up in crunch time on multiple occasions- was a difference maker. We were not a great team, obviously, but Austin was one of our better players. Seems odd to slam him in context.

Bearprof said:

---

And Austin stepped up in crunch time on multiple occasions- was a difference maker. We were not a great team, obviously, but Austin was one of our better players. Seems odd to slam him in context.

---

Advanced stats Win Share per 40 min
1. Bradley .137
2. Kuany .128
3. Kelly .110
4. Austin .057
5. South .047
6. Antecevich .040
7. Thorpe .034
8. Klonaras .033
9. Thiemann .032
10. Harris-Dyson .031
11. Gordon .021
12. Brown .004

Really the question is why Brown got so much playing time as anything other than Austin's backup at PG. Hopefully we see a big step up in his game this year.

calumnus said:

---

Intuit said:

---

Your self indulgent gotcha post reiterates the better statistical teams have better talent and execute the strategy at a more effect clip. We new that already.

---

Assuming this is addressed to me, yes I like discussing strategy, so yes, maybe posting here is self-indulgent. Where else can someone go to discuss Cal basketball?

"We knew that already"? My post was in direct response to someone saying we improved because we emphasized defense last year. My point is that we did not. We played bad defense but slowed down play. This was a characteristic of Cal play under Braun (but we would debate it here incessantly). For a talent deficient team that is a better strategy than speeding up the game and getting blown out (which is what Jones did). However, that is a one time change to mitigate being the lesser team. You cannot slow the ball down into being a good team. At some point you need to play good offense and/or defense. When you are the better team you may even (generally should) speed up play. However, Virginia is a rare counter example of a good team that slows the ball down and plays good defense to win. As SF City will tell you, Newell's teams were similar. Hopefully Fox is taking us in one of those two directions.

---

I agree with most of what you wrote. I'd like to back up what you said about Newell's teams, but based on Newell's comments, I think he may have felt a little differently. I don't believe pace or tempo were objectives for him. He taught his defenses to be very aggressive and stop opposing players from reaching the spots on the floor which their plays required for them to do to get open shots. Moving opposing players around the floor, preventing them from doing what they wanted to do, naturally slowed them down, causing them to take more time to get a shot off.

On offense, Newell schemed for each opponent, and each opposing player, and taught his players to run their own plays to perfection, so his teams usually got their shots off pretty quickly, compared to his opponents. He did not have many very good shooters, but his plays created a lot of wide open shots, especially layups or other shots inside 10 feet. Newell was in favor of the shot clock, and lobbied the NCAA for it, but it was not installed until years after he had retired from coaching. He liked the shot clock, because he felt his teams were so disciplined, they could get an open shot off way before the shot clock ran out, and his defenses would make it hard for his opponents to get shot off before, let alone get off a high percentage shot. I think Newell might have liked to fastbreak, but he never had the horses. His best teams averaged around 64 points, while holding opponents to 50 points, and while it is not valid to compare teams of different eras, that was a larger margin of victory than Virginia had last season. His teams played all their games at the same pace or tempo, as far as I could remember. I don't think Newell ever slowed his offense down, except at the end of a close game to run clock.

annarborbear said:

---

We played better at the end of the season when Austin was in there. Not sure why anybody would dispute that. He used the talents he had to help his team.

---

I'm not sure anyone has disputed that.