You can't mask there is a major gap in talent. I don't think John Wooten could make this team relevant. Too bad as we know we have another nothing year after another year and the beat goes on...

All on the AD to not hire stop gap, re-treads like Mark Fox. Really sad what they're letting happen to the program.

Mark Fox is a very good coach and this is only the second year of a rebuild. I believe that we have 3 good recruits coming in for next year plus Hyder. I believe that we will be very competitive by year 4 of the rebuild.

tthompson993 said:

---

Mark Fox is a very good coach and this is only the second year of a rebuild. I believe that we have 3 good recruits coming in for next year plus Hyder. I believe that we will be very competitive by year 4 of the rebuild.

---

I respectfully disagree.

HoopDreams said:

---

David Kravish spotting!

(In Pac12 commercial)

---

David Kravish - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kravish

If you want to watch cal beat UCLA. On a last second shot, tune into pac 12 network

Cal just played UCLA, for real?!? I was unaware. First time in 40+ years. It's either a sign of the times, or I'm getting a little soft upstairs. Or both!

Big C said:

---

Cal just played UCLA, for real?!? I was unaware. First time in 40+ years. It's either a sign of the times, or I'm getting a little soft upstairs. Or both!

---

I forgot until someone told me. I guess I was lucky.

Big Dog said:

---

why is Bradley on the bench? Anyone know?

---

"We started crawling back in it, and (Bradley) was not having one of his better nights, and he's been a good player," Fox said. "We'll see good moments from him again, I'm sure, but it just felt like those other guys were battling, and until we got really back in it, I wanted to give those kids a chance." Daily Californian

Matt Bradley was All PAC 12 2nd Team last season and Preseason All PAC 12 1st Team this season. He is one of the best players for Cal in several years. The statements that "he's been a good player," and "We'll see good moments from him again," are insulting gross understatements and absurd.

Instead of making yourself look like an a$$, how about saying, "It is a team matter and we are looking forward to a strong team effort against Pepperdine."

With regard to what may have happened:

" Junior guard Matt Bradley hit a three to cut the UCLA lead to 14 with just more than 12 minutes remaining, but his triple was canceled out on the very next play when Smith converted an and-one layup over Bradley. For Cal, Bradley checked out of the game with under 12 minutes to play and never returned." Daily Californian

My speculation is that there may have been a coach/player debate regarding defensive effort.

touchdownbears43 said:

---

tthompson993 said:

---

Mark Fox is a very good coach and this is only the second year of a rebuild. I believe that we have 3 good recruits coming in for next year plus Hyder. I believe that we will be very competitive by year 4 of the rebuild.

---

I respectfully disagree.

---

Amused to read an AP story that says "Fox, who had a successful run at Nevada before landing in Berkeley" as if the 10 years in between never happened.

FWIW, our 2021 class is ranked 8th in the PAC-12.
We will lose Betley, Foreman and GA. Bradley and Kelly will be seniors. We need to make much more than an incremental improvement in year 3 and land a top class for 2022 if the 4th year is going to be a good one.

I always like and definitely root for the guys that play for Cal.

bearister said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

why is Bradley on the bench? Anyone know?

---

"We started crawling back in it, and (Bradley) was not having one of his better nights, and he's been a good player," Fox said. "We'll see good moments from him again, I'm sure, but it just felt like those other guys were battling, and until we got really back in it, I wanted to give those kids a chance." Daily Californian

Matt Bradley was All PAC 12 2nd Team last season and Preseason All PAC 12 1st Team this season. He is one of the best players for Cal in several years. The statements that "he's been a good player," and "We'll see good moments from him again," are insulting gross understatements and absurd.

Instead of making yourself look like an a$$, how about saying, "It is a team matter and we are looking forward to a strong team effort against Pepperdine."

With regard to what may have happened:

" Junior guard Matt Bradley hit a three to cut the UCLA lead to 14 with just more than 12 minutes remaining, but his triple was canceled out on the very next play when Smith converted an and-one layup over Bradley. For Cal, Bradley checked out of the game with under 12 minutes to play and never returned." Daily Californian

My speculation is that there may have been a coach/player debate regarding defensive effort.

---

Yeah, generally not the right approach. He did praise him a week ago. Fortunately Bradley said he likes being pushed hard, so it probably won't hsve the negative effect it might with some other players.

bearister said:

---

Joel Brown needs to retool the mechanics of his FT motion. Rested or tired, that thing ain't going down.

---

Joel Brown needs more bench time so that Foreman can play more. Brown is a real liability on offense.

bearister said:

---

"We started crawling back in it, and (Bradley) was not having one of his better nights, and he's been a good player," Fox said. "We'll see good moments from him again, I'm sure, but it just felt like those other guys were battling, and until we got really back in it, I wanted to give those kids a chance." Daily Californian



Complete B.S. What doesn't Fox say the truth that he is pi$$ed off at Bradley for some reason and decided to bench him. I've lost some respect for him for that stupid comment. Our team has a severe lack of talent compared to most other Pac-12 teams. Bradley is by far our most talented player; without him, we have nothing.

---

Golden One said:

---

bearister said:

---

Joel Brown needs to retool the mechanics of his FT motion. Rested or tired, that thing ain't going down.

---

Joel Brown needs more bench time so that Foreman can play more. Brown is a real liability on offense.

---

31 minutes is a lot from Brown. Still Foreman played 24 which was more minutes than Bradley. Brown scored 2 points on two shots and a 1-1.

Completely reminds me of the defense-first small lineups (Knezevich alongside Randle instead of backing up Randle) Braun put out in 2007-2008 to go 6-12 in the PAC-12 only to have Monty take the same group, minus Ryan Anderson, to an 22-11, 11-7 #7 seed in the West.

You are probably right....but I also wanted to add this to my comment: ".....and Bradley, who IMHO was the best player on the team even as a freshman, is a loyal Golden Bear that did not jump ship with all the rats, and that is worth a lot of banked goodwill to me, but I'm not sure how much weight that carries with Fox."

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

bearister said:

---

You are probably right....but I also wanted to add this to my comment: ".....and Bradley, who IMHO was the best player on the team even as a freshman, is a loyal Golden Bear that did not jump ship with all the rats, and that is worth a lot of banked goodwill to me, but I'm not sure how much weight that carries with Fox."

---

Fox should always hold Matt in high regard. He had to re-recruit basically everyone and out of the stars only Matt remained. It is an insult to call him a mere "good player" but I know Fox ain't stupid so he's doing this to talk to him via the media. Having some teenagers of my own, there are mind games that adults/parents have to play with kids who are still learning about themselves and life. Hope all is well this week in LA as we need to put forth our best effort to compete against Pepperdine (they took UCLA to 3 OTs before losing).

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

You are probably right....but I also wanted to add this to my comment: ".....and Bradley, who IMHO was the best player on the team even as a freshman, is a loyal Golden Bear that did not jump ship with all the rats, and that is worth a lot of banked goodwill to me, but I'm not sure how much weight that carries with Fox."

---

Fox should always hold Matt in high regard. He had to re-recruit basically everyone and out of the stars only Matt remained. It is an insult to call him a mere "good player" but I know Fox ain't stupid so he's doing this to talk to him via the media. Having some teenagers of my own, there are mind games that adults/parents have to play with kids who are still learning about themselves and life. Hope all is well this week in LA as we need to put forth our best effort to compete against Pepperdine (they took UCLA to 3 OTs before losing).

---

Talking to a player through the media should be a massive last resort and I don't think he is the type of player that requires that communication vs. direct communication from a coach. Public shaming is rarely the way to jumpstart a player unless he is a real bad attitude.

I'd suggest rather, that this was exactly what people were concerned about with Fox when he was hired. That his speech to the players when he was hired was exactly what people were concerned about. That losing everyone of consequence but Matt was exactly what people were concerned about. That this type of communication was exactly what people were concerned about. That the recruiting results that this type of communication has brought was exactly what people were concerned about. If he can't keep Matt motivated, I don't know what we are doing here.

Fox is good at communicating what 70 year old donors want to hear. Unfortunately, 70 year olds don't have any basketball eligibility. He is the assembly speaker that says "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" while the adults nod meaningfully and the kids roll their eyes.

I appreciate the five to ten of you who maintain hope. I truly hope you are rewarded in the next 5 years or so with a .500 conference record at some point.

OaktownBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

You are probably right....but I also wanted to add this to my comment: ".....and Bradley, who IMHO was the best player on the team even as a freshman, is a loyal Golden Bear that did not jump ship with all the rats, and that is worth a lot of banked goodwill to me, but I'm not sure how much weight that carries with Fox."

---

Fox should always hold Matt in high regard. He had to re-recruit basically everyone and out of the stars only Matt remained. It is an insult to call him a mere "good player" but I know Fox ain't stupid so he's doing this to talk to him via the media. Having some teenagers of my own, there are mind games that adults/parents have to play with kids who are still learning about themselves and life. Hope all is well this week in LA as we need to put forth our best effort to compete against Pepperdine (they took UCLA to 3 OTs before losing).

---

Talking to a player through the media should be a massive last resort and I don't think he is the type of player that requires that communication vs. direct communication from a coach. Public shaming is rarely the way to jumpstart a player unless he is a real bad attitude.

I'd suggest rather, that this was exactly what people were concerned about with Fox when he was hired. That his speech to the players when he was hired was exactly what people were concerned about. That losing everyone of consequence but Matt was exactly what people were concerned about. That this type of communication was exactly what people were concerned about. That the recruiting results that this type of communication has brought was exactly what people were concerned about. If he can't keep Matt motivated, I don't know what we are doing here.

Fox is good at communicating what 70 year old donors want to hear. Unfortunately, 70 year olds don't have any basketball eligibility. He is the assembly speaker that says "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" while the adults nod meaningfully and the kids roll their eyes.

I appreciate the five to ten of you who maintain hope. I truly hope you are rewarded in the next 5 years or so with a .500 conference record at some point.

---

Yep my HS son would respond to that speaking point with "chill bro."

I think the few of us holding out are hoping he would do the slow build thing like Wilcox. Wilcox has definitely upgraded the program. I still am not convinced he knows how to get us to competing for a Pac-12 North title, since he's never done it before, but the next recruiting class will be the acid test (he's finally getting some play makers). Fox' 2021 class is pretty good and the 2022 could be really good if he lands a couple local elite prospects. But yah, he's got to understand that he's going nowhere without Matt on board.

BigDaddy said:

---

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

---

Welcome to the bball board BigDaddy! All of this was hashed ad nauseum during the hire. When Fox was hired, CalM BB was at its nadir and the Athletic Department was coming out of its own nadir. Cal simply was not an attractive destination for coaches. There were names tossed out like Randy Bennett and others. None of them were coming to Cal at that point in time. One or two may have dropped Cal to get a better paycheck or other job (Guy from UNR). Honestly, FOX may have been the best we could have gotten. Even fave Decuire was not sold enough to leave Montana for Cal - he submarined his interview.

IMHO - Fox is a transitional hire. He can bring some stability and respectability to Cal and demonstrate that there is a supportive AD and fanbase. If he is more successful than he was at Georgia - he may stick around. If not, he can be replaced by a coach that Cal can attract. If I was AD, I have a 3 year window. I'd now make it 4, based on pandemic. At the beginning of year 2 - it may be too soon to declare that "Fox will never win anything at Cal".

FWIW - my expectations for Fox were not that high and he hasn't blown me away in any means. But he has brought some sense of stability and respect back to the program. So I am happy for that. He's much better than his predecessor - but that's not saying much.

Quote:

---

Talking to a player through the media should be a massive last resort and I don't think he is the type of player that requires that communication vs. direct communication from a coach. Public shaming is rarely the way to jumpstart a player unless he is a real bad attitude.

I'd suggest rather, that this was exactly what people were concerned about with Fox when he was hired. That his speech to the players when he was hired was exactly what people were concerned about. That losing everyone of consequence but Matt was exactly what people were concerned about. That this type of communication was exactly what people were concerned about. That the recruiting results that this type of communication has brought was exactly what people were concerned about. If he can't keep Matt motivated, I don't know what we are doing here.

Fox is good at communicating what 70 year old donors want to hear. Unfortunately, 70 year olds don't have any basketball eligibility. He is the assembly speaker that says "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" while the adults nod meaningfully and the kids roll their eyes.

I appreciate the five to ten of you who maintain hope. I truly hope you are rewarded in the next 5 years or so with a .500 conference record at some point.

---

Well said. Communication seems to be a weak point.

BeachedBear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

---

Welcome to the bball board BigDaddy! All of this was hashed ad nauseum during the hire. When Fox was hired, CalM BB was at its nadir and the Athletic Department was coming out of its own nadir. Cal simply was not an attractive destination for coaches. There were names tossed out like Randy Bennett and others. None of them were coming to Cal at that point in time. One or two may have dropped Cal to get a better paycheck or other job (Guy from UNR). Honestly, FOX may have been the best we could have gotten. Even fave Decuire was not sold enough to leave Montana for Cal - he submarined his interview.

IMHO - Fox is a transitional hire. He can bring some stability and respectability to Cal and demonstrate that there is a supportive AD and fanbase. If he is more successful than he was at Georgia - he may stick around. If not, he can be replaced by a coach that Cal can attract. If I was AD, I have a 3 year window. I'd now make it 4, based on pandemic. At the beginning of year 2 - it may be too soon to declare that "Fox will never win anything at Cal".

FWIW - my expectations for Fox were not that high and he hasn't blown me away in any means. But he has brought some sense of stability and respect back to the program. So I am happy for that. He's much better than his predecessor - but that's not saying much.

---

Decuire makes $180K at Montana. Fox makes $1.575M at Cal. You really think Decuire submarined that interview? You really think he did that with Monty in the press saying Cal should hire him?

And there are a lot of Decuire's out there with that salary. I don't care how bad you think the program is, you take an 800% salary increase when offered.

Fox has brought stability to Cal if you think the Washington Generals have stability.

calumnus said:

---

Golden One said:

---

bearister said:

---

Joel Brown needs to retool the mechanics of his FT motion. Rested or tired, that thing ain't going down.

---

Joel Brown needs more bench time so that Foreman can play more. Brown is a real liability on offense.

---

31 minutes is a lot from Brown. Still Foreman played 24 which was more minutes than Bradley. Brown scored 2 points on two shots and a 1-1.

Completely reminds me of the defense-first small lineups (Knezevich alongside Randle instead of backing up Randle) Braun put out in 2007-2008 to go 6-12 in the PAC-12 only to have Monty take the same group, minus Ryan Anderson, to an 22-11, 11-7 #7 seed in the West.

---

Uh, I get your point, and agree with it, but it was not exactly the same group. MInus Ryan Anderson, yes, but Monty also added future PAC12 Player of the Year Jorge Gutierrez for 2008-2009. Theo Robertson, who was out all of 2007-2008 with injury, returned to play for Monty for 2008-2009. Monty was minus Anderson and also Devon Hardin, who had graduated. Exchanging Anderson and Hardin for Jorge and Theo was a wash, IMO.

IT's my understanding that 20-21 is a "free year". So unless I'm mistaken our 2 grad transfers can both play next year if they're still enrolled.

bearister said:

---

If they add an N95 to that I'm pretty sure we won't be able to hear him at all.

---

What is his address? I'll send him a case of N95s. He has ruined poor Ted, and turned him into a clone, or is it a clown? Ted was never a great basketball announcer (his game is tennis), but all I want to hear is an explanation of calls by the referees, and maybe some information about what happened in a play now and then. There were calls where the ball changed hands due to a violation, which was not apparent to my eyes, and it was frustrating for these two clowns to be telling stories unrelated to the game they are being paid to broadcast. If it was radio, they'd both have been fired long ago. I turned the game off at halftime, partly because I couldn't stand watching my Cal Bears playing like ladies at a church social in 1890 on defense, and partly because I could not stand to listen to Walton and Robinson. One more like this, and I may be done for the season.

calfanz said:

---

IT's my understanding that 20-21 is a "free year". So unless I'm mistaken our 2 grad transfers can both play next year if they're still enrolled.

---

The issue is unless they want to go to and get admitted to a grad program, do they want to be in undergrad for 6 years? Wait, I know some fellow students who did.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

---

Welcome to the bball board BigDaddy! All of this was hashed ad nauseum during the hire. When Fox was hired, CalM BB was at its nadir and the Athletic Department was coming out of its own nadir. Cal simply was not an attractive destination for coaches. There were names tossed out like Randy Bennett and others. None of them were coming to Cal at that point in time. One or two may have dropped Cal to get a better paycheck or other job (Guy from UNR). Honestly, FOX may have been the best we could have gotten. Even fave Decuire was not sold enough to leave Montana for Cal - he submarined his interview.

IMHO - Fox is a transitional hire. He can bring some stability and respectability to Cal and demonstrate that there is a supportive AD and fanbase. If he is more successful than he was at Georgia - he may stick around. If not, he can be replaced by a coach that Cal can attract. If I was AD, I have a 3 year window. I'd now make it 4, based on pandemic. At the beginning of year 2 - it may be too soon to declare that "Fox will never win anything at Cal".

FWIW - my expectations for Fox were not that high and he hasn't blown me away in any means. But he has brought some sense of stability and respect back to the program. So I am happy for that. He's much better than his predecessor - but that's not saying much.

---

Decuire makes $180K at Montana. Fox makes $1.575M at Cal. You really think Decuire submarined that interview? You really think he did that with Monty in the press saying Cal should hire him?

And there are a lot of Decuire's out there with that salary. I don't care how bad you think the program is, you take an 800% salary increase when offered.

Fox has brought stability to Cal if you think the Washington Generals have stability.

---

Wow, overly harsh, IMO. Upon his hiring, I felt as you and many others did. The second half of last season, the team showed improvement. Recruiting seems to be getting a little better. Let's let him reach his plateau before we write him off, especially since we are still paying the previous guy's buyout.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

---

Welcome to the bball board BigDaddy! All of this was hashed ad nauseum during the hire. When Fox was hired, CalM BB was at its nadir and the Athletic Department was coming out of its own nadir. Cal simply was not an attractive destination for coaches. There were names tossed out like Randy Bennett and others. None of them were coming to Cal at that point in time. One or two may have dropped Cal to get a better paycheck or other job (Guy from UNR). Honestly, FOX may have been the best we could have gotten. Even fave Decuire was not sold enough to leave Montana for Cal - he submarined his interview.

IMHO - Fox is a transitional hire. He can bring some stability and respectability to Cal and demonstrate that there is a supportive AD and fanbase. If he is more successful than he was at Georgia - he may stick around. If not, he can be replaced by a coach that Cal can attract. If I was AD, I have a 3 year window. I'd now make it 4, based on pandemic. At the beginning of year 2 - it may be too soon to declare that "Fox will never win anything at Cal".

FWIW - my expectations for Fox were not that high and he hasn't blown me away in any means. But he has brought some sense of stability and respect back to the program. So I am happy for that. He's much better than his predecessor - but that's not saying much.

---

Decuire makes $180K at Montana. Fox makes $1.575M at Cal. You really think Decuire submarined that interview? You really think he did that with Monty in the press saying Cal should hire him?

And there are a lot of Decuire's out there with that salary. I don't care how bad you think the program is, you take an 800% salary increase when offered.

Fox has brought stability to Cal if you think the Washington Generals have stability.

---

Woah cowboy! Rein it in. Deep breaths . . .

It was reported here and elsewhere that Decuire submarined his interview. I wasn't in the room - so that's what I'm going on. Most of us wanted TD.

If there are lots of Decuire's out there and Decuire gave his best effort interviewing, then explain to us why Fox was hired. Oh, please provide the names of all those others who were denied.

And if you don't see the difference between Jones/Williams vs Fox/Knowlton - then you are lost OaktownBear. Lost.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

---

Welcome to the bball board BigDaddy! All of this was hashed ad nauseum during the hire. When Fox was hired, CalM BB was at its nadir and the Athletic Department was coming out of its own nadir. Cal simply was not an attractive destination for coaches. There were names tossed out like Randy Bennett and others. None of them were coming to Cal at that point in time. One or two may have dropped Cal to get a better paycheck or other job (Guy from UNR). Honestly, FOX may have been the best we could have gotten. Even fave Decuire was not sold enough to leave Montana for Cal - he submarined his interview.

IMHO - Fox is a transitional hire. He can bring some stability and respectability to Cal and demonstrate that there is a supportive AD and fanbase. If he is more successful than he was at Georgia - he may stick around. If not, he can be replaced by a coach that Cal can attract. If I was AD, I have a 3 year window. I'd now make it 4, based on pandemic. At the beginning of year 2 - it may be too soon to declare that "Fox will never win anything at Cal".

FWIW - my expectations for Fox were not that high and he hasn't blown me away in any means. But he has brought some sense of stability and respect back to the program. So I am happy for that. He's much better than his predecessor - but that's not saying much.

---

Decuire makes $180K at Montana. Fox makes $1.575M at Cal. You really think Decuire submarined that interview? You really think he did that with Monty in the press saying Cal should hire him?

And there are a lot of Decuire's out there with that salary. I don't care how bad you think the program is, you take an 800% salary increase when offered.

Fox has brought stability to Cal if you think the Washington Generals have stability.

---

Woah cowboy! Rein it in. Deep breaths . . .

It was reported here and elsewhere that Decuire submarined his interview. I wasn't in the room - so that's what I'm going on. Most of us wanted TD.

If there are lots of Decuire's out there and Decuire gave his best effort interviewing, then explain to us why Fox was hired. Oh, please provide the names of all those others who were denied.

And if you don't see the difference between Jones/Williams vs Fox/Knowlton - then you are lost OaktownBear. Lost.

---

I was all for hiring Decuire, full disclosure.

The "official line" (not that there really was such a thing) for bypassing him for Fox was that Fox had a "higher floor", that Decuire had only proved himself at a "low-mid" major.

The cynical explanation was that Knowlton basically let that search firm make the decision for him and Fox was in their stable of candidates.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

---

Welcome to the bball board BigDaddy! All of this was hashed ad nauseum during the hire. When Fox was hired, CalM BB was at its nadir and the Athletic Department was coming out of its own nadir. Cal simply was not an attractive destination for coaches. There were names tossed out like Randy Bennett and others. None of them were coming to Cal at that point in time. One or two may have dropped Cal to get a better paycheck or other job (Guy from UNR). Honestly, FOX may have been the best we could have gotten. Even fave Decuire was not sold enough to leave Montana for Cal - he submarined his interview.

IMHO - Fox is a transitional hire. He can bring some stability and respectability to Cal and demonstrate that there is a supportive AD and fanbase. If he is more successful than he was at Georgia - he may stick around. If not, he can be replaced by a coach that Cal can attract. If I was AD, I have a 3 year window. I'd now make it 4, based on pandemic. At the beginning of year 2 - it may be too soon to declare that "Fox will never win anything at Cal".

FWIW - my expectations for Fox were not that high and he hasn't blown me away in any means. But he has brought some sense of stability and respect back to the program. So I am happy for that. He's much better than his predecessor - but that's not saying much.

---

Decuire makes $180K at Montana. Fox makes $1.575M at Cal. You really think Decuire submarined that interview? You really think he did that with Monty in the press saying Cal should hire him?

And there are a lot of Decuire's out there with that salary. I don't care how bad you think the program is, you take an 800% salary increase when offered.

Fox has brought stability to Cal if you think the Washington Generals have stability.

---

Woah cowboy! Rein it in. Deep breaths . . .

It was reported here and elsewhere that Decuire submarined his interview. I wasn't in the room - so that's what I'm going on. Most of us wanted TD.

If there are lots of Decuire's out there and Decuire gave his best effort interviewing, then explain to us why Fox was hired. Oh, please provide the names of all those others who were denied.

And if you don't see the difference between Jones/Williams vs Fox/Knowlton - then you are lost OaktownBear. Lost.

---

1, You are confusing Travis Decuire with Dennis Gates. It was reported that Gates submarined his interview when he interviewed. It was only reported that Knowlton liked Fox better on the interview than Decuire. I won't comment further than many of us already commented at the time. Decuire wanted the job and there is no way he doesn't call off Monty and everyone else who was lobbying for him if he didn't. Not the kind of guy to have people talking for him and then make them look like idiots in public.

2. Knowlton said he loved Fox. He interviewed great. Thought he presented as ready. He liked the experience. It is the typical gutless bureaucratic move to go with a Forrest Gregg, Walt Harris, he may be uninspired but he has experience being uninspired, choice. You cannot tell me with all the coaches making low 6 figures like Decuire you couldn't take a risk on a hasn't had a chance guy over an already blew his chance guy.

3. Yes. Big difference between Jones/Williams and Fox/Knowlton. Williams gave up and settled for losing on the cheap. Knowlton paid more to lose less badly. Fox is a much better coach than Wyking Jones. Roger Theder was a much better coach than Tom Holmoe. We spent $3M on a buyout + more than $500K a year more to go from disorganized and overmatched losing to merely overmatched losing.

Big C said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

---

Welcome to the bball board BigDaddy! All of this was hashed ad nauseum during the hire. When Fox was hired, CalM BB was at its nadir and the Athletic Department was coming out of its own nadir. Cal simply was not an attractive destination for coaches. There were names tossed out like Randy Bennett and others. None of them were coming to Cal at that point in time. One or two may have dropped Cal to get a better paycheck or other job (Guy from UNR). Honestly, FOX may have been the best we could have gotten. Even fave Decuire was not sold enough to leave Montana for Cal - he submarined his interview.

IMHO - Fox is a transitional hire. He can bring some stability and respectability to Cal and demonstrate that there is a supportive AD and fanbase. If he is more successful than he was at Georgia - he may stick around. If not, he can be replaced by a coach that Cal can attract. If I was AD, I have a 3 year window. I'd now make it 4, based on pandemic. At the beginning of year 2 - it may be too soon to declare that "Fox will never win anything at Cal".

FWIW - my expectations for Fox were not that high and he hasn't blown me away in any means. But he has brought some sense of stability and respect back to the program. So I am happy for that. He's much better than his predecessor - but that's not saying much.

---

Decuire makes $180K at Montana. Fox makes $1.575M at Cal. You really think Decuire submarined that interview? You really think he did that with Monty in the press saying Cal should hire him?

And there are a lot of Decuire's out there with that salary. I don't care how bad you think the program is, you take an 800% salary increase when offered.

Fox has brought stability to Cal if you think the Washington Generals have stability.

---

Woah cowboy! Rein it in. Deep breaths . . .

It was reported here and elsewhere that Decuire submarined his interview. I wasn't in the room - so that's what I'm going on. Most of us wanted TD.

If there are lots of Decuire's out there and Decuire gave his best effort interviewing, then explain to us why Fox was hired. Oh, please provide the names of all those others who were denied.

And if you don't see the difference between Jones/Williams vs Fox/Knowlton - then you are lost OaktownBear. Lost.

---

I was all for hiring Decuire, full disclosure.

The "official line" (not that there really was such a thing) for bypassing him for Fox was that Fox had a "higher floor", that Decuire had only proved himself at a "low-mid" major.

The cynical explanation was that Knowlton basically let that search firm make the decision for him and Fox was in their stable of candidates.

---

The official party line out of Knowlton's mouth was that in like 24 hours the search firm gave him Decuire and Fox, he interviewed both in like 2 days. He liked Fox.

The cynical explanation was far more cynical partially involving the fact that maybe Knowlton should have judged the interview from the point of view .of someone who would be playing under the coach rather than an older person whose experience was at a military academy.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

I'm have no idea what Cal saw in Mark Fox. Guy was mildly successful at Georgia. So what?! Should have called Randy Bennett and asked how much it would take to get him to Cal. Guy has personality, plays a wide open, entertaining style and seems to get good players who buy in to his system.

Fox will never win anything at Cal.

---

Welcome to the bball board BigDaddy! All of this was hashed ad nauseum during the hire. When Fox was hired, CalM BB was at its nadir and the Athletic Department was coming out of its own nadir. Cal simply was not an attractive destination for coaches. There were names tossed out like Randy Bennett and others. None of them were coming to Cal at that point in time. One or two may have dropped Cal to get a better paycheck or other job (Guy from UNR). Honestly, FOX may have been the best we could have gotten. Even fave Decuire was not sold enough to leave Montana for Cal - he submarined his interview.

IMHO - Fox is a transitional hire. He can bring some stability and respectability to Cal and demonstrate that there is a supportive AD and fanbase. If he is more successful than he was at Georgia - he may stick around. If not, he can be replaced by a coach that Cal can attract. If I was AD, I have a 3 year window. I'd now make it 4, based on pandemic. At the beginning of year 2 - it may be too soon to declare that "Fox will never win anything at Cal".

FWIW - my expectations for Fox were not that high and he hasn't blown me away in any means. But he has brought some sense of stability and respect back to the program. So I am happy for that. He's much better than his predecessor - but that's not saying much.

---

Decuire makes $180K at Montana. Fox makes $1.575M at Cal. You really think Decuire submarined that interview? You really think he did that with Monty in the press saying Cal should hire him?

And there are a lot of Decuire's out there with that salary. I don't care how bad you think the program is, you take an 800% salary increase when offered.

Fox has brought stability to Cal if you think the Washington Generals have stability.

---

Woah cowboy! Rein it in. Deep breaths . . .

It was reported here and elsewhere that Decuire submarined his interview. I wasn't in the room - so that's what I'm going on. Most of us wanted TD.

If there are lots of Decuire's out there and Decuire gave his best effort interviewing, then explain to us why Fox was hired. Oh, please provide the names of all those others who were denied.

And if you don't see the difference between Jones/Williams vs Fox/Knowlton - then you are lost OaktownBear. Lost.

---

1, You are confusing Travis Decuire with Dennis Gates. It was reported that Gates submarined his interview when he interviewed. It was only reported that Knowlton liked Fox better on the interview than Decuire. I won't comment further than many of us already commented at the time. Decuire wanted the job and there is no way he doesn't call off Monty and everyone else who was lobbying for him if he didn't. Not the kind of guy to have people talking for him and then make them look like idiots in public.

2. Knowlton said he loved Fox. He interviewed great. Thought he presented as ready. He liked the experience. It is the typical gutless bureaucratic move to go with a Forrest Gregg, Walt Harris, he may be uninspired but he has experience being uninspired, choice. You cannot tell me with all the coaches making low 6 figures like Decuire you couldn't take a risk on a hasn't had a chance guy over an already blew his chance guy.

3. Yes. Big difference between Jones/Williams and Fox/Knowlton. Williams gave up and settled for losing on the cheap. Knowlton paid more to lose less badly. Fox is a much better coach than Wyking Jones. Roger Theder was a much better coach than Tom Holmoe. We spent $3M on a buyout + more than $500K a year more to go from disorganized and overmatched losing to merely overmatched losing.

---

Oaktown, I've been trying to leave it alone, but I agree with you 100%.

Moreover, at the time Knowlton was making an unnecessarily speedy decision (prior to the NCAA tournament) to hire from the two choices given him by the search firm he hired to do his highly paid job (and hiring a guy fired from his last job and jobless for a year), the football staff had a sexual harassment claim that needed his attention. Wait until after the tournament, that is when the up and coming coaches from mid majors who made the tournament get hired by teams from power conferences.

You don't hire proven mediocrity as a "transitional hire." You keep swinging. Wyking Jones was almost exactly Tom Holmoe, the unprepared assistant remaining after your head coach leaves unexpectedly. Taking a chance on an unproven up and comer is OK (just make sure you give them a contract that reflects that). If Holmoe doesnt work out don't extend him and don't fire him and rehire Theder as a "transitional coach" to "stabilize the program" try again and give an up and coming OC like Jeff Tedford a chance.

There are hundreds of head coaches in college basketball, most making very little who would jump at the chance to coach at Cal. Fox had 9 years at Georgia located in one of the best states for producing talent in the US. He landed some top talent too, SEC players of the year, future NBA players. Despite that he made the NCAA tournament only twice in 9 years, losing in the first round both times.

However, I feel bad bagging on him, it is Knowlton who is to blame here. Scratch that, I blame Christ for hiring Knowlton. How did she think a conservative Republican from the East Coast whose love and expertise is hockey and only experience was at military academies (and not even Army or Navy) was going to be a good fit in Berkeley? Then Knowlton hires Fox because he "felt more comfortable" with him and Travis seemed "unprepared" (interviewed the day he got back from his team losing to #8 Michigan in the NCAA Tournament)! Again what was the rush?

"Transitional hire"? More likely Fox gets extended because he "needs more time" but "does it the right way" and we spend nine years "in transition" at the bottom half of the conference, just like he did at Georgia.

calumnus said:

---

Moreover, at the time Knowlton was making an unnecessarily speedy decision (prior to the NCAA tournament) to hire from the two choices given him by the search firm he hired to do his highly paid job (and hiring a guy fired from his last job and jobless for a year), the football staff had a sexual harassment claim that needed his attention. Wait until after the tournament, that is when the up and coming coaches from mid majors who made the tournament get hired by teams from power conferences.

Well - at least that's sort of an explanation why no one can provide names of the the hundreds of starving coaches that wanted the Cal job.

You don't hire proven mediocrity as a "transitional hire." You keep swinging. Wyking Jones was almost exactly Tom Holmoe, the unprepared assistant remaining after your head coach leaves unexpectedly. Taking a chance on an unproven up and comer is OK (just make sure you give them a contract that reflects that). If Holmoe doesnt work out don't extend him and don't fire him and rehire Theder as a "transitional coach" to "stabilize the program" try again and give an up and coming OC like Jeff Tedford a chance.

There are hundreds of head coaches in college basketball, most making very little who would jump at the chance to coach at Cal. Fox had 9 years at Georgia located in one of the best states for producing talent in the US. He landed some top talent too, SEC players of the year, future NBA players. Despite that he made the NCAA tournament only twice in 9 years, losing in the first round both times.

However, I feel bad bagging on him, it is Knowlton who is to blame here. Scratch that, I blame Christ for hiring Knowlton. How did she think a conservative Republican from the East Coast whose love and expertise is hockey and only experience was at military academies (and not even Army or Navy) was going to be a good fit in Berkeley? Then Knowlton hires Fox because he "felt more comfortable" with him and Travis seemed "unprepared" (interviewed the day he got back from his team losing to #8 Michigan in the NCAA Tournament)! Again what was the rush?

So you're suggesting that this was politically motivated. hmmm, you may be on to something . . . But you are actually supporting my point by blaming Christ and Knowlton. If they are as bad as you say - then who would want to work for them.

"Transitional hire"? More likely Fox gets extended because he "needs more time" but "does it the right way" and we spend nine years "in transition" at the bottom half of the conference, just like he did at Georgia.

Well, if Fox gets a fifth year after 4 season in the bottom third of the league and no improvement recruiting, then I will give more credence to your theories. I will also stop contributing to the program and following CalM BBall. If Fox is top third with recruiting picked up and gets an extension - I'm OK with that. If Fox is middle third with mediocre recruiting - then I'm still disappointed.

I'll leave the discussion with this... After almost 40 years of following Cal Basketball, It seemed to me that the Jones era was the all time low in terms of how attractive a program Cal had become. I think any institution can attract and hire better talent when the hiring manager and executives are better.

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Moreover, at the time Knowlton was making an unnecessarily speedy decision (prior to the NCAA tournament) to hire from the two choices given him by the search firm he hired to do his highly paid job (and hiring a guy fired from his last job and jobless for a year), the football staff had a sexual harassment claim that needed his attention. Wait until after the tournament, that is when the up and coming coaches from mid majors who made the tournament get hired by teams from power conferences.

Well - at least that's sort of an explanation why no one can provide names of the the hundreds of starving coaches that wanted the Cal job.

You don't hire proven mediocrity as a "transitional hire." You keep swinging. Wyking Jones was almost exactly Tom Holmoe, the unprepared assistant remaining after your head coach leaves unexpectedly. Taking a chance on an unproven up and comer is OK (just make sure you give them a contract that reflects that). If Holmoe doesnt work out don't extend him and don't fire him and rehire Theder as a "transitional coach" to "stabilize the program" try again and give an up and coming OC like Jeff Tedford a chance.

There are hundreds of head coaches in college basketball, most making very little who would jump at the chance to coach at Cal. Fox had 9 years at Georgia located in one of the best states for producing talent in the US. He landed some top talent too, SEC players of the year, future NBA players. Despite that he made the NCAA tournament only twice in 9 years, losing in the first round both times.

However, I feel bad bagging on him, it is Knowlton who is to blame here. Scratch that, I blame Christ for hiring Knowlton. How did she think a conservative Republican from the East Coast whose love and expertise is hockey and only experience was at military academies (and not even Army or Navy) was going to be a good fit in Berkeley? Then Knowlton hires Fox because he "felt more comfortable" with him and Travis seemed "unprepared" (interviewed the day he got back from his team losing to #8 Michigan in the NCAA Tournament)! Again what was the rush?

So you're suggesting that this was politically motivated. hmmm, you may be on to something . . . But you are actually supporting my point by blaming Christ and Knowlton. If they are as bad as you say - then who would want to work for them.

"Transitional hire"? More likely Fox gets extended because he "needs more time" but "does it the right way" and we spend nine years "in transition" at the bottom half of the conference, just like he did at Georgia.

Well, if Fox gets a fifth year after 4 season in the bottom third of the league and no improvement recruiting, then I will give more credence to your theories. I will also stop contributing to the program and following CalM BBall. If Fox is top third with recruiting picked up and gets an extension - I'm OK with that. If Fox is middle third with mediocre recruiting - then I'm still disappointed.

I'll leave the discussion with this... After almost 40 years of following Cal Basketball, It seemed to me that the Jones era was the all time low in terms of how attractive a program Cal had become. I think any institution can attract and hire better talent when the hiring manager and executives are better.

---

---

1. I'm disappointed you didn't acknowledge that you blew the characterization of Decuire by confusing him with Gates. Decuire is much respected for his time here and doesn't deserve that. I don't know if Gates did what was claimed (never made sense to me, personally) but it was never claimed that Decuire submarined his interview.

2. You are seriously arguing that none of the many coaches who make in the $150K-$300K range wouldn't take on a challenge for $1.5M? If they flame out in two years like Jones did, they likely collect what they'd make in 15 years of coaching and then go back to some similar job if they want. Cal rushed through the decision. Cal didn't consider other options Knowlton was very transparent on the process. And, quite frankly, if what you are saying is true (it isn't. it is just the ever present unfounded excuse for bad coaching hires) an AD who can't find better coaching candidates shouldn't be an AD.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Moreover, at the time Knowlton was making an unnecessarily speedy decision (prior to the NCAA tournament) to hire from the two choices given him by the search firm he hired to do his highly paid job (and hiring a guy fired from his last job and jobless for a year), the football staff had a sexual harassment claim that needed his attention. Wait until after the tournament, that is when the up and coming coaches from mid majors who made the tournament get hired by teams from power conferences.

Well - at least that's sort of an explanation why no one can provide names of the the hundreds of starving coaches that wanted the Cal job.

You don't hire proven mediocrity as a "transitional hire." You keep swinging. Wyking Jones was almost exactly Tom Holmoe, the unprepared assistant remaining after your head coach leaves unexpectedly. Taking a chance on an unproven up and comer is OK (just make sure you give them a contract that reflects that). If Holmoe doesnt work out don't extend him and don't fire him and rehire Theder as a "transitional coach" to "stabilize the program" try again and give an up and coming OC like Jeff Tedford a chance.

There are hundreds of head coaches in college basketball, most making very little who would jump at the chance to coach at Cal. Fox had 9 years at Georgia located in one of the best states for producing talent in the US. He landed some top talent too, SEC players of the year, future NBA players. Despite that he made the NCAA tournament only twice in 9 years, losing in the first round both times.

However, I feel bad bagging on him, it is Knowlton who is to blame here. Scratch that, I blame Christ for hiring Knowlton. How did she think a conservative Republican from the East Coast whose love and expertise is hockey and only experience was at military academies (and not even Army or Navy) was going to be a good fit in Berkeley? Then Knowlton hires Fox because he "felt more comfortable" with him and Travis seemed "unprepared" (interviewed the day he got back from his team losing to #8 Michigan in the NCAA Tournament)! Again what was the rush?

So you're suggesting that this was politically motivated. hmmm, you may be on to something . . . But you are actually supporting my point by blaming Christ and Knowlton. If they are as bad as you say - then who would want to work for them.

"Transitional hire"? More likely Fox gets extended because he "needs more time" but "does it the right way" and we spend nine years "in transition" at the bottom half of the conference, just like he did at Georgia.

Well, if Fox gets a fifth year after 4 season in the bottom third of the league and no improvement recruiting, then I will give more credence to your theories. I will also stop contributing to the program and following CalM BBall. If Fox is top third with recruiting picked up and gets an extension - I'm OK with that. If Fox is middle third with mediocre recruiting - then I'm still disappointed.

I'll leave the discussion with this... After almost 40 years of following Cal Basketball, It seemed to me that the Jones era was the all time low in terms of how attractive a program Cal had become. I think any institution can attract and hire better talent when the hiring manager and executives are better.

---

---

1. I'm disappointed you didn't acknowledge that you blew the characterization of Decuire by confusing him with Gates. Decuire is much respected for his time here and doesn't deserve that. I don't know if Gates did what was claimed (never made sense to me, personally) but it was never claimed that Decuire submarined his interview.

2. You are seriously arguing that none of the many coaches who make in the $150K-$300K range wouldn't take on a challenge for $1.5M? If they flame out in two years like Jones did, they likely collect what they'd make in 15 years of coaching and then go back to some similar job if they want. Cal rushed through the decision. Cal didn't consider other options Knowlton was very transparent on the process. And, quite frankly, if what you are saying is true (it isn't. it is just the ever present unfounded excuse for bad coaching hires) an AD who can't find better coaching candidates shouldn't be an AD.

---

Sorry I had to read through your and @calumnus' posts quickly, but I'm not sure you mentioned that another reason why the rush to hire Fox was inexplicable was that Fox was coming off a coaching sabbatical and there was no indication that there were any competitors for his services. Such bizarre way to handle things.