Civil Bear said:

---

I would have preferred a DeCuire hire as well, but winning the Big Sky hardly makes him a proven commodity, it least at the major conference level. And do we know for a fact that he wanted to take over a dumpster fire? Kidd would have been an even bigger crapshoot in my mind, although, again, I would have preferred it. Apparently, Knowlton felt the immediate need was to get Cal out of the cellar and back to some sort of respectability, and Fox was likey the safest hire to do that. As a near 30-year season ticket holder that gave them up under the last regime, I can say I am at least watching the Bears with some interest again.

---

Jason Kidd would be a killer hire for most programs, but ESPECIALLY Cal given his history here!

Stud recruits want to know what it takes to make it to the NBA and they would trust Jason to help them do it.

A crapshoot? Are you kidding me? It would be the best Cal hire maybe ever!

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

DrewFisher said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Question for Oak:

If that's your perspective then why did you watch the game?

---

I didn't. And I'm sure that will make you think AHA! But I can read a box score. When a team gets its doors blown off by 13 over a 4 and a half minute period, literally a pace to lose by more than 100 over a whole game, it wasn't a close game. It frankly amazes me that people that watch sports their whole life do not get this equation. Teams that never win have games that are close because every other team knows they suck, plays accordingly and normally at some point says, "okay, this is too close guys. time to turn on the jets".

So fine, was Cal competitive for 34 minutes with an Oregon team that was not playing up to its full capability? Yes. Was Cal competitive for 6 minutes with a team that was playing to about 75% capability. No. Had one of the good teams in conference gone up to Oregon and played like Cal did, against an Oregon team that was expecting to be playing a good team and to have to go all out start to finish to win, that team would have lost by 30.

Further, the post game analysis that is basically, well if only we had no injuries and every player had a career game we woulda won is silly.

You are going to find very few Cal fans who watch that game to say that Cal was not competitive because their are very few watching period and those that do are family, friends, and the hopelessly delusional. The rest of us have left.

Wyking Jones last team beat San Diego State, SJSU, Santa Clara, and lost to a Sweet 16 Oregon team on the road by 12. So if you think beating Seattle by 5 and losing to Oregon by 13 makes us competitive, you must have loved Wyking.

Fox was a cluster eff hire the minute it was made and has been every minute since and has doomed us to at least 5 years of a cluster eff program.

If you guys want to be complete suckers and waste your time when Cal is not remotely attempting to compete, they are only attempting to con a few of you into thinking they are attempting to compete, be my guest. But when OP wants to post a gloating "who says Cal isn't competitive?" post, based on a 13 point loss, it needs to be taken down more than a peg. Cal is not competitive. Not going to be any time soon. Having the theoretical ability to win a game does not make a team competitive. We lost to a team this year that lost to Bakersfield by 28 and we were out of the game by halftime.

As for the fantasy that the roster is getting better, it is just that. 3 of our starters were inherited from Wyking and 2 of the guys that left when Fox was hired would easily be starting. Fox has recruited exactly 1 player out of high school who is playing double digit minutes and no one can figure out why he is playing 30 seconds. He has back filled with an Ivy League player and an American Easter Conference player both of whom who have walked into major major minutes on a freaking Pac-12 team. You guys seem to be stoked about a sophomore who doesn't score 3 points a game. We will be lucky if any Freshman or Sophomore on this team at all will develop into a player that would start on a top half conference team by their senior year.

Edit:

Look where we are compared to Wyking Jones last year. 5 of the top 6 players by minutes on his team and 6 of the top 8 were freshman or sophomores. 3 of those players are still in our top minute getters. The other 3 are making significant contributions on other teams. We now have 1 underclassman getting significant minutes (Wyking recruit) and 1 getting 12.9 minutes per game which is about 12.8 minutes more than he would get on any other Pac-12 team.

That is the mark of how bad the future is. It is not improved from the depths of the last 40 years.

---

Sorta have to agree with your big point, a thread based on a 13 point loss showing Cal is competitive seems awfully silly, don't it?

The rest of your emphatic disdain for Fox and the program? Not feeling you. Don't get me wrong, Fox may turn out to be a bad hire but isn't it a bit early to make that call?

Of course, the roster and primary players are made up of Wyking's players. Fox only got to Cal eighteen months ago. I guess you expected him to pick up the poop pie that Jones left him and make it immediately smell sweet enough to recruit some impact HS kids?

Perhaps I missed something but didn't Fox win 2x as many games as Jones did after taking over even though he lost three starters to transfer outs and had no time to recruit? I guess he should have made the tourney with last years group for you to even deign to watch his team?

I'm an old guy who can a recall a bunch of Cal players who didn't quite figure it out until their third years. And that's when that had non COVID offseasons to work on their games. Does anyone remember Ayinde Ubaka, Solomon Hughes, Sean Marks, etc? To write off Bowser, Celestine, Kunary, Thiemann, Thorpe, Brown etc at this point (not even 18 months into their Bears careers) feels like premature "something". In reading through your post, I now see that Thorpe and Brown don't count because Wyking originally recruited them. Makes sense. Had Fox known he needed to prove something to you, he would have let them go and dug up more than few of the many studs who were academically qualified and hadn't signed anywhere after he took the Cal job. Bwahahahaha. Sounds like someone likes to read a lot of fairy tales around here.

Maybe you think the grad transfer thing is stupid when you're turning around a dumpster fire of a program? I guess Hyder was a terrible pick up for you? Ironically, Oregon beat the stuffing out of us last night with a roster primarily made up of transfers from lower tier conferences. I guess Altman didn't call you to ask first?!

If you're a big follower of hoops recruiting, maybe you saw the 2021 class Fox landed? Two of the three were rated in the top 100 nationally. The other kid's highlights look awfully tasty. Certainly looks like recruiting's improving quite a bit.

Loads of points one could make being skeptical of Fox, just not sure the ones you made make me feel in tandem with your complete write off of the guy.

And you know sometimes the eye test does matter. Us old farts remember watching the early Bruce Snyder teams and having a clear view he was building something despite some tough losses. He turned out okay. Same dealio with Wilcox. Some coaches come to Cal and seem to fit. I think Mr. Fox may just be one of those. Similar to Monty's arrival, the players and the team as a whole seem to get better as they get coached up. You can see it when you watch. Oh yeah, forgot you're too busy writing long-winded pontificating posts to actually watch the games.

I wish you well, hope you get your hope back and can open up your heart and invest more time in watching Fox and his kids rather than ripping fans who are enjoying the ride. If not, that's cool. Most coaches do fail, so sitting on the sidelines waiting for him to crash and burn so you can say you were "right" might work out for you. I'm sure someone out there will appreciate you for that type of cynical future predictions.

Ciao

---

Strong post top to bottom. I'm not quite as optimistic on the Fox hire, but I'm hoping to be proven wrong, and he hasn't done anything to make me me think he won't prove me wrong.

---

Yeah, my view is Fox was a really bad hire by Knowlton, but I hope Knowlton gets lucky and Fox proves us all wrong. I certainly have nothing against Fox for going after and taking the job and the past does not always predict the future. Moreover, I always root for Cal and the players who wear the Blue and Gold and will be fellow alumni, so by extension I "root for their coach."

However, I do try to be rational and realistic about what is actually happening on the court.

---

Knowlton essentially had two options: A) Take a complete flyer on an unproven like DeCure or Gates and hope for the best while risking the Bears continue to crash & burn, or B) hire someone that will get the Bears out of the basement. He went with B), and although I would have preferred option A), I'm not sure he could have done better with his option B) hire.

Personally, I was actually leaning to go with an option C) where Knowlton retained Jones for the final year of his contract and then use the saved $ to go after a true up & comer. In COVID hindsight I'm happy we dodged that bullet!

---

DeCuire was not "unproven" at that point, he had just won the Big Sky Conference, Big Sky Tournament, Big Sky Coach of the Year and in the NCAA Tournament Montana was as "competitive" against #1 seed Michigan as this thread claims we were against #25 Oregon.

Also, Jason Kidd said in the press the Cal job was the only college job he was interested in, implying he would take it over waiting on the Lakers, but we apparently had already hired Fox.

"Getting out of the cellar" should not be the objective. The idea of hiring a guy you think is good "Xs and Os" coach to only get you out of the cellar, is even that is not guaranteed and the chances are he leaves the roster with less talent than he found it. As Georgia found out it can be 9 years wasted dwelling in the bottom half of the conference.

---

I would have preferred a DeCuire hire as well, but winning the Big Sky hardly makes him a proven commodity, it least at the major conference level. And do we know for a fact that he wanted to take over a dumpster fire? Kidd would have been an even bigger crapshoot in my mind, although, again, I would have preferred it. Apparently, Knowlton felt the immediate need was to get Cal out of the cellar and back to some sort of respectability, and Fox was likey the safest hire to do that. As a near 30-year season ticket holder that gave them up under the last regime, I can say I am at least watching the Bears with some interest again.

---

oh, you mean like Monty? (who by the way strongly recommended DeCuire for the job ... twice)

---

Source?

---

The first time
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2014/4/1/5568218/mike-montgomery-travis-decuire-california-golden-bears-mens-basketball

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

DrewFisher said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Question for Oak:

If that's your perspective then why did you watch the game?

---

I didn't. And I'm sure that will make you think AHA! But I can read a box score. When a team gets its doors blown off by 13 over a 4 and a half minute period, literally a pace to lose by more than 100 over a whole game, it wasn't a close game. It frankly amazes me that people that watch sports their whole life do not get this equation. Teams that never win have games that are close because every other team knows they suck, plays accordingly and normally at some point says, "okay, this is too close guys. time to turn on the jets".

So fine, was Cal competitive for 34 minutes with an Oregon team that was not playing up to its full capability? Yes. Was Cal competitive for 6 minutes with a team that was playing to about 75% capability. No. Had one of the good teams in conference gone up to Oregon and played like Cal did, against an Oregon team that was expecting to be playing a good team and to have to go all out start to finish to win, that team would have lost by 30.

Further, the post game analysis that is basically, well if only we had no injuries and every player had a career game we woulda won is silly.

You are going to find very few Cal fans who watch that game to say that Cal was not competitive because their are very few watching period and those that do are family, friends, and the hopelessly delusional. The rest of us have left.

Wyking Jones last team beat San Diego State, SJSU, Santa Clara, and lost to a Sweet 16 Oregon team on the road by 12. So if you think beating Seattle by 5 and losing to Oregon by 13 makes us competitive, you must have loved Wyking.

Fox was a cluster eff hire the minute it was made and has been every minute since and has doomed us to at least 5 years of a cluster eff program.

If you guys want to be complete suckers and waste your time when Cal is not remotely attempting to compete, they are only attempting to con a few of you into thinking they are attempting to compete, be my guest. But when OP wants to post a gloating "who says Cal isn't competitive?" post, based on a 13 point loss, it needs to be taken down more than a peg. Cal is not competitive. Not going to be any time soon. Having the theoretical ability to win a game does not make a team competitive. We lost to a team this year that lost to Bakersfield by 28 and we were out of the game by halftime.

As for the fantasy that the roster is getting better, it is just that. 3 of our starters were inherited from Wyking and 2 of the guys that left when Fox was hired would easily be starting. Fox has recruited exactly 1 player out of high school who is playing double digit minutes and no one can figure out why he is playing 30 seconds. He has back filled with an Ivy League player and an American Easter Conference player both of whom who have walked into major major minutes on a freaking Pac-12 team. You guys seem to be stoked about a sophomore who doesn't score 3 points a game. We will be lucky if any Freshman or Sophomore on this team at all will develop into a player that would start on a top half conference team by their senior year.

Edit:

Look where we are compared to Wyking Jones last year. 5 of the top 6 players by minutes on his team and 6 of the top 8 were freshman or sophomores. 3 of those players are still in our top minute getters. The other 3 are making significant contributions on other teams. We now have 1 underclassman getting significant minutes (Wyking recruit) and 1 getting 12.9 minutes per game which is about 12.8 minutes more than he would get on any other Pac-12 team.

That is the mark of how bad the future is. It is not improved from the depths of the last 40 years.

---

Sorta have to agree with your big point, a thread based on a 13 point loss showing Cal is competitive seems awfully silly, don't it?

The rest of your emphatic disdain for Fox and the program? Not feeling you. Don't get me wrong, Fox may turn out to be a bad hire but isn't it a bit early to make that call?

Of course, the roster and primary players are made up of Wyking's players. Fox only got to Cal eighteen months ago. I guess you expected him to pick up the poop pie that Jones left him and make it immediately smell sweet enough to recruit some impact HS kids?

Perhaps I missed something but didn't Fox win 2x as many games as Jones did after taking over even though he lost three starters to transfer outs and had no time to recruit? I guess he should have made the tourney with last years group for you to even deign to watch his team?

I'm an old guy who can a recall a bunch of Cal players who didn't quite figure it out until their third years. And that's when that had non COVID offseasons to work on their games. Does anyone remember Ayinde Ubaka, Solomon Hughes, Sean Marks, etc? To write off Bowser, Celestine, Kunary, Thiemann, Thorpe, Brown etc at this point (not even 18 months into their Bears careers) feels like premature "something". In reading through your post, I now see that Thorpe and Brown don't count because Wyking originally recruited them. Makes sense. Had Fox known he needed to prove something to you, he would have let them go and dug up more than few of the many studs who were academically qualified and hadn't signed anywhere after he took the Cal job. Bwahahahaha. Sounds like someone likes to read a lot of fairy tales around here.

Maybe you think the grad transfer thing is stupid when you're turning around a dumpster fire of a program? I guess Hyder was a terrible pick up for you? Ironically, Oregon beat the stuffing out of us last night with a roster primarily made up of transfers from lower tier conferences. I guess Altman didn't call you to ask first?!

If you're a big follower of hoops recruiting, maybe you saw the 2021 class Fox landed? Two of the three were rated in the top 100 nationally. The other kid's highlights look awfully tasty. Certainly looks like recruiting's improving quite a bit.

Loads of points one could make being skeptical of Fox, just not sure the ones you made make me feel in tandem with your complete write off of the guy.

And you know sometimes the eye test does matter. Us old farts remember watching the early Bruce Snyder teams and having a clear view he was building something despite some tough losses. He turned out okay. Same dealio with Wilcox. Some coaches come to Cal and seem to fit. I think Mr. Fox may just be one of those. Similar to Monty's arrival, the players and the team as a whole seem to get better as they get coached up. You can see it when you watch. Oh yeah, forgot you're too busy writing long-winded pontificating posts to actually watch the games.

I wish you well, hope you get your hope back and can open up your heart and invest more time in watching Fox and his kids rather than ripping fans who are enjoying the ride. If not, that's cool. Most coaches do fail, so sitting on the sidelines waiting for him to crash and burn so you can say you were "right" might work out for you. I'm sure someone out there will appreciate you for that type of cynical future predictions.

Ciao

---

Strong post top to bottom. I'm not quite as optimistic on the Fox hire, but I'm hoping to be proven wrong, and he hasn't done anything to make me me think he won't prove me wrong.

---

Yeah, my view is Fox was a really bad hire by Knowlton, but I hope Knowlton gets lucky and Fox proves us all wrong. I certainly have nothing against Fox for going after and taking the job and the past does not always predict the future. Moreover, I always root for Cal and the players who wear the Blue and Gold and will be fellow alumni, so by extension I "root for their coach."

However, I do try to be rational and realistic about what is actually happening on the court.

---

Knowlton essentially had two options: A) Take a complete flyer on an unproven like DeCure or Gates and hope for the best while risking the Bears continue to crash & burn, or B) hire someone that will get the Bears out of the basement. He went with B), and although I would have preferred option A), I'm not sure he could have done better with his option B) hire.

Personally, I was actually leaning to go with an option C) where Knowlton retained Jones for the final year of his contract and then use the saved $ to go after a true up & comer. In COVID hindsight I'm happy we dodged that bullet!

---

DeCuire was not "unproven" at that point, he had just won the Big Sky Conference, Big Sky Tournament, Big Sky Coach of the Year and in the NCAA Tournament Montana was as "competitive" against #1 seed Michigan as this thread claims we were against #25 Oregon.

Also, Jason Kidd said in the press the Cal job was the only college job he was interested in, implying he would take it over waiting on the Lakers, but we apparently had already hired Fox.

"Getting out of the cellar" should not be the objective. The idea of hiring a guy you think is good "Xs and Os" coach to only get you out of the cellar, is even that is not guaranteed and the chances are he leaves the roster with less talent than he found it. As Georgia found out it can be 9 years wasted dwelling in the bottom half of the conference.

---

I would have preferred a DeCuire hire as well, but winning the Big Sky hardly makes him a proven commodity, it least at the major conference level. And do we know for a fact that he wanted to take over a dumpster fire? Kidd would have been an even bigger crapshoot in my mind, although, again, I would have preferred it. Apparently, Knowlton felt the immediate need was to get Cal out of the cellar and back to some sort of respectability, and Fox was likey the safest hire to do that. As a near 30-year season ticket holder that gave them up under the last regime, I can say I am at least watching the Bears with some interest again.

---

oh, you mean like Monty? (who by the way strongly recommended DeCuire for the job ... twice)

---

Source?

---

The first time
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2014/4/1/5568218/mike-montgomery-travis-decuire-california-golden-bears-mens-basketball

---

The second time


by Jeff Faraudo

DeCuire spent six seasons with Montgomery at Cal but was bypassed as his successor in 2014

Mike Montgomery pushed for Travis DeCuire to be named his successor as Cal basketball coach five years ago, and he continues to endorse the candidacy of his former assistant.

DeCuire didn't get the call in 2014. Cal hired Cuonzo Martin from Tennessee, and when Martin left for Missouri two years ago, the Bears promoted assistant Wyking Jones.

Cal played in one NCAA tournament over that five-year period, and the program cratered the past two seasons under Jones, going 16-47. Jones was relieved of his duties last Sunday and first-year athletic director Jim Knowlton has begun the search for a replacement.

Three names have resurfaced that were mentioned as possibilities both in 2014 and 2017: DeCuire, Russell Turner of UC Irvine and Randy Bennett of Saint Mary's.

"I think Travis would be an excellent candidate," Montgomery said. "Russ would be a excellent candidate. Obviously, the guy at Moraga.

"I don't know why you'd need to go a lot further than those guys."

DeCuire, now 48, was hired as head coach at Montana, his alma mater, in 2014 and has compiled a five-year record of 109-58. The Grizzlies played in the NCAA tournament the past two seasons.

Turner, who coached under Montgomery both at Stanford and with the Warriors, led Irvine to a 31-6 record this season and the program's first-ever NCAA tournament victory. He is 188-128 in nine seasons with the Anteaters.

Bennett has been extraordinary at Moraga, transforming the Gaels into an annual threat to reach the NCAAs. His teams have earned seven NCAA bids and have averaged 26 victories over the past 12 seasons.

DeCuire has one qualification that separates him from the other two and is invaluable, Montgomery said.
"As important as anything, he understands Cal because he's been there," Montgomery said.

DeCuire was part of Montgomery's staff all six years at Cal, the final four seasons as associate head coach. Together, they led the Bears to six 20-win seasons, four NCAA tournament berths and, in 2010, the program's only conference title since 1960.

Mike Montgomery won 20 games all six of his seasons at Cal.
[url=https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/cal/basketball/1sbivtc_D02ORWKfEZDLTw/yuh6iF0tQ0KpmYsSVSDK1g][/url]
Montgomery figured he had a good pretty read on Cal from his 18 seasons competing across the Bay at Stanford. Once he arrived at Berkeley, the reality was a bit different.

"Cal's a little unique, for sure," Montgomery said. "The issues that exist there that people don't see, (DeCuire has) dealt with. He's lived there. He knows. He knows what he's selling. I think he would have the support of all the support people from when we were there, so he hits the ground the running."

The university is responsible for the current state of the basketball program because it failed to make the "logical" choice five years ago, Montgomery said.

The team coming back in 2014-15 should have been strong. Tyrone Wallace, Jabari Bird and Jordan Mathews all were returning, and the Bears had a commitment from big man Jakob Poeltl, who later flipped to Utah and how is playing in the NBA.

"A lot of guys there, they all wanted Travis. It just was way too logical," Montgomery said.

Then-athletic director Sandy Barbour explored big name candidates, including Mark Few and Tommy Amaker. They said no thanks.

"Sandy Barbour, who was a good AD but not in the best shape of her career at Cal, went out and did her due diligence," Montgomery said. "She came back and said you're right, `Travis is the guy.' "

But Barbour no longer had the political clout with the Cal administration to sell DeCuire, who had no head-coaching experience at the time. The Bears hired Martin.

"I don't think they wanted to have Sandy make the decision at that point because she hired a football coach (Sonny Dykes) and that didn't go swimmingly. That relationship was fractured and that was too bad.
"That's why they're in the fix they're in now. The continuity of the program with the kids they had, there would have been no hiccup."

The Bears went 7-11 in the Pac-12 that first season under Martin. Two years later, he bolted.

"Cuonzo was a good guy, but Cal wasn't what he wanted. It wasn't what he thought it was," Montgomery said. "Wyking's a good man but he inherited an impossible situation."

The next coach faces the same campus learning curve that all new coaches experience. DeCuire would be exempt from that break-in period.

"Cal's a great school, great location, beautiful campus," Montgomery said. "You understand Telegraph's a little different environment than some places.

"It's a typical big university with a lot of cooks in the kitchen, a lot of decision makers. It's tough to get things done in a timely manner. You don't know that going into the process. Travis knows about those things."
DeCuire's qualifications for the job extend beyond his familiarity with Berkeley and the UC bureaucracy.

"First and foremost, he's a good coach and I think he's proven that at Montana. He's won three league championships," Montgomery said. "You have to be able to coach the game. A lot of assistants don't get the chance to prove that and now he has proven that."

Beyond the Xs and Os, DeCuire is good with players, Montgomery said.

"He relates to them. He played. He's stern and he's demanding but I think the kids also trust him," Montgomery said "It's not like he's standoffish or doesn't relate to their problems. He's good that way."

Montgomery said he has talked with Knowlton, who he believes is thorough and organized, and provided his thoughts on various candidates.

"Now they've got a situation where they've got some work to do," Montgomery said. "They're going to have to make the best decision they can and the next guy's going to have to work hard to get it back to where it should be."

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

. . .

---

oh, you mean like Monty? (who by the way strongly recommended DeCuire for the job ... twice)

---

This seems more myth than fact to me. I've heard Monty praise Decuire. I've also heard him praise Fox. He also praised Cuonzo. The FACT is Monty (like just about every former coach who does TV) praises other coaches and never spurns his professional colleagues. I haven't seen any evidence that Monty did anything other than endorse his lead assistant when he retired - again - which pretty much every coach does. I'm not saying he didn't STRONGLY recommend TD - but just haven't seen the evidence other than some rumors on this site which have morphed into historical factoid.

The other part of the Myth is that DeCuire was the best option that Cal was presented and we let him slip through our hands. Even the 'sources' above (golden blogs really?) show Monty praising every every candidate and separating TD by explaining that he's been at Cal - that is a rationalization, not a very strong endorsement IMHO. Guess what - he's still at Montana and no one else has been able to lure him away from that hotbed of college hoops.

Is FOX the best coach out there - heck no! Is he the best Cal could get? Probably not. Is Cal going to upgrade soon? Probably not.

calumnus said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

DrewFisher said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Question for Oak:

If that's your perspective then why did you watch the game?

---

I didn't. And I'm sure that will make you think AHA! But I can read a box score. When a team gets its doors blown off by 13 over a 4 and a half minute period, literally a pace to lose by more than 100 over a whole game, it wasn't a close game. It frankly amazes me that people that watch sports their whole life do not get this equation. Teams that never win have games that are close because every other team knows they suck, plays accordingly and normally at some point says, "okay, this is too close guys. time to turn on the jets".

So fine, was Cal competitive for 34 minutes with an Oregon team that was not playing up to its full capability? Yes. Was Cal competitive for 6 minutes with a team that was playing to about 75% capability. No. Had one of the good teams in conference gone up to Oregon and played like Cal did, against an Oregon team that was expecting to be playing a good team and to have to go all out start to finish to win, that team would have lost by 30.

Further, the post game analysis that is basically, well if only we had no injuries and every player had a career game we woulda won is silly.

You are going to find very few Cal fans who watch that game to say that Cal was not competitive because their are very few watching period and those that do are family, friends, and the hopelessly delusional. The rest of us have left.

Wyking Jones last team beat San Diego State, SJSU, Santa Clara, and lost to a Sweet 16 Oregon team on the road by 12. So if you think beating Seattle by 5 and losing to Oregon by 13 makes us competitive, you must have loved Wyking.

Fox was a cluster eff hire the minute it was made and has been every minute since and has doomed us to at least 5 years of a cluster eff program.

If you guys want to be complete suckers and waste your time when Cal is not remotely attempting to compete, they are only attempting to con a few of you into thinking they are attempting to compete, be my guest. But when OP wants to post a gloating "who says Cal isn't competitive?" post, based on a 13 point loss, it needs to be taken down more than a peg. Cal is not competitive. Not going to be any time soon. Having the theoretical ability to win a game does not make a team competitive. We lost to a team this year that lost to Bakersfield by 28 and we were out of the game by halftime.

As for the fantasy that the roster is getting better, it is just that. 3 of our starters were inherited from Wyking and 2 of the guys that left when Fox was hired would easily be starting. Fox has recruited exactly 1 player out of high school who is playing double digit minutes and no one can figure out why he is playing 30 seconds. He has back filled with an Ivy League player and an American Easter Conference player both of whom who have walked into major major minutes on a freaking Pac-12 team. You guys seem to be stoked about a sophomore who doesn't score 3 points a game. We will be lucky if any Freshman or Sophomore on this team at all will develop into a player that would start on a top half conference team by their senior year.

Edit:

Look where we are compared to Wyking Jones last year. 5 of the top 6 players by minutes on his team and 6 of the top 8 were freshman or sophomores. 3 of those players are still in our top minute getters. The other 3 are making significant contributions on other teams. We now have 1 underclassman getting significant minutes (Wyking recruit) and 1 getting 12.9 minutes per game which is about 12.8 minutes more than he would get on any other Pac-12 team.

That is the mark of how bad the future is. It is not improved from the depths of the last 40 years.

---

Sorta have to agree with your big point, a thread based on a 13 point loss showing Cal is competitive seems awfully silly, don't it?

The rest of your emphatic disdain for Fox and the program? Not feeling you. Don't get me wrong, Fox may turn out to be a bad hire but isn't it a bit early to make that call?

Of course, the roster and primary players are made up of Wyking's players. Fox only got to Cal eighteen months ago. I guess you expected him to pick up the poop pie that Jones left him and make it immediately smell sweet enough to recruit some impact HS kids?

Perhaps I missed something but didn't Fox win 2x as many games as Jones did after taking over even though he lost three starters to transfer outs and had no time to recruit? I guess he should have made the tourney with last years group for you to even deign to watch his team?

I'm an old guy who can a recall a bunch of Cal players who didn't quite figure it out until their third years. And that's when that had non COVID offseasons to work on their games. Does anyone remember Ayinde Ubaka, Solomon Hughes, Sean Marks, etc? To write off Bowser, Celestine, Kunary, Thiemann, Thorpe, Brown etc at this point (not even 18 months into their Bears careers) feels like premature "something". In reading through your post, I now see that Thorpe and Brown don't count because Wyking originally recruited them. Makes sense. Had Fox known he needed to prove something to you, he would have let them go and dug up more than few of the many studs who were academically qualified and hadn't signed anywhere after he took the Cal job. Bwahahahaha. Sounds like someone likes to read a lot of fairy tales around here.

Maybe you think the grad transfer thing is stupid when you're turning around a dumpster fire of a program? I guess Hyder was a terrible pick up for you? Ironically, Oregon beat the stuffing out of us last night with a roster primarily made up of transfers from lower tier conferences. I guess Altman didn't call you to ask first?!

If you're a big follower of hoops recruiting, maybe you saw the 2021 class Fox landed? Two of the three were rated in the top 100 nationally. The other kid's highlights look awfully tasty. Certainly looks like recruiting's improving quite a bit.

Loads of points one could make being skeptical of Fox, just not sure the ones you made make me feel in tandem with your complete write off of the guy.

And you know sometimes the eye test does matter. Us old farts remember watching the early Bruce Snyder teams and having a clear view he was building something despite some tough losses. He turned out okay. Same dealio with Wilcox. Some coaches come to Cal and seem to fit. I think Mr. Fox may just be one of those. Similar to Monty's arrival, the players and the team as a whole seem to get better as they get coached up. You can see it when you watch. Oh yeah, forgot you're too busy writing long-winded pontificating posts to actually watch the games.

I wish you well, hope you get your hope back and can open up your heart and invest more time in watching Fox and his kids rather than ripping fans who are enjoying the ride. If not, that's cool. Most coaches do fail, so sitting on the sidelines waiting for him to crash and burn so you can say you were "right" might work out for you. I'm sure someone out there will appreciate you for that type of cynical future predictions.

Ciao

---

Strong post top to bottom. I'm not quite as optimistic on the Fox hire, but I'm hoping to be proven wrong, and he hasn't done anything to make me me think he won't prove me wrong.

---

Yeah, my view is Fox was a really bad hire by Knowlton, but I hope Knowlton gets lucky and Fox proves us all wrong. I certainly have nothing against Fox for going after and taking the job and the past does not always predict the future. Moreover, I always root for Cal and the players who wear the Blue and Gold and will be fellow alumni, so by extension I "root for their coach."

However, I do try to be rational and realistic about what is actually happening on the court.

---

Knowlton essentially had two options: A) Take a complete flyer on an unproven like DeCure or Gates and hope for the best while risking the Bears continue to crash & burn, or B) hire someone that will get the Bears out of the basement. He went with B), and although I would have preferred option A), I'm not sure he could have done better with his option B) hire.

Personally, I was actually leaning to go with an option C) where Knowlton retained Jones for the final year of his contract and then use the saved $ to go after a true up & comer. In COVID hindsight I'm happy we dodged that bullet!

---

DeCuire was not "unproven" at that point, he had just won the Big Sky Conference, Big Sky Tournament, Big Sky Coach of the Year and in the NCAA Tournament Montana was as "competitive" against #1 seed Michigan as this thread claims we were against #25 Oregon.

Also, Jason Kidd said in the press the Cal job was the only college job he was interested in, implying he would take it over waiting on the Lakers, but we apparently had already hired Fox.

"Getting out of the cellar" should not be the objective. The idea of hiring a guy you think is good "Xs and Os" coach to only get you out of the cellar, is even that is not guaranteed and the chances are he leaves the roster with less talent than he found it. As Georgia found out it can be 9 years wasted dwelling in the bottom half of the conference.

---

I would have preferred a DeCuire hire as well, but winning the Big Sky hardly makes him a proven commodity, it least at the major conference level. And do we know for a fact that he wanted to take over a dumpster fire? Kidd would have been an even bigger crapshoot in my mind, although, again, I would have preferred it. Apparently, Knowlton felt the immediate need was to get Cal out of the cellar and back to some sort of respectability, and Fox was likey the safest hire to do that. As a near 30-year season ticket holder that gave them up under the last regime, I can say I am at least watching the Bears with some interest again.

---

oh, you mean like Monty? (who by the way strongly recommended DeCuire for the job ... twice)

---

Source?

---

The first time
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2014/4/1/5568218/mike-montgomery-travis-decuire-california-golden-bears-mens-basketball

---

The second time


by Jeff Faraudo

DeCuire spent six seasons with Montgomery at Cal but was bypassed as his successor in 2014

Mike Montgomery pushed for Travis DeCuire to be named his successor as Cal basketball coach five years ago, and he continues to endorse the candidacy of his former assistant.

DeCuire didn't get the call in 2014. Cal hired Cuonzo Martin from Tennessee, and when Martin left for Missouri two years ago, the Bears promoted assistant Wyking Jones.

Cal played in one NCAA tournament over that five-year period, and the program cratered the past two seasons under Jones, going 16-47. Jones was relieved of his duties last Sunday and first-year athletic director Jim Knowlton has begun the search for a replacement.

Three names have resurfaced that were mentioned as possibilities both in 2014 and 2017: DeCuire, Russell Turner of UC Irvine and Randy Bennett of Saint Mary's.

"I think Travis would be an excellent candidate," Montgomery said. "Russ would be a excellent candidate. Obviously, the guy at Moraga.

"I don't know why you'd need to go a lot further than those guys."

DeCuire, now 48, was hired as head coach at Montana, his alma mater, in 2014 and has compiled a five-year record of 109-58. The Grizzlies played in the NCAA tournament the past two seasons.

Turner, who coached under Montgomery both at Stanford and with the Warriors, led Irvine to a 31-6 record this season and the program's first-ever NCAA tournament victory. He is 188-128 in nine seasons with the Anteaters.

Bennett has been extraordinary at Moraga, transforming the Gaels into an annual threat to reach the NCAAs. His teams have earned seven NCAA bids and have averaged 26 victories over the past 12 seasons.

DeCuire has one qualification that separates him from the other two and is invaluable, Montgomery said.
"As important as anything, he understands Cal because he's been there," Montgomery said.

DeCuire was part of Montgomery's staff all six years at Cal, the final four seasons as associate head coach. Together, they led the Bears to six 20-win seasons, four NCAA tournament berths and, in 2010, the program's only conference title since 1960.

Mike Montgomery won 20 games all six of his seasons at Cal.
[url=https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/cal/basketball/1sbivtc_D02ORWKfEZDLTw/yuh6iF0tQ0KpmYsSVSDK1g][/url]
Montgomery figured he had a good pretty read on Cal from his 18 seasons competing across the Bay at Stanford. Once he arrived at Berkeley, the reality was a bit different.

"Cal's a little unique, for sure," Montgomery said. "The issues that exist there that people don't see, (DeCuire has) dealt with. He's lived there. He knows. He knows what he's selling. I think he would have the support of all the support people from when we were there, so he hits the ground the running."

The university is responsible for the current state of the basketball program because it failed to make the "logical" choice five years ago, Montgomery said.

The team coming back in 2014-15 should have been strong. Tyrone Wallace, Jabari Bird and Jordan Mathews all were returning, and the Bears had a commitment from big man Jakob Poeltl, who later flipped to Utah and how is playing in the NBA.

"A lot of guys there, they all wanted Travis. It just was way too logical," Montgomery said.

Then-athletic director Sandy Barbour explored big name candidates, including Mark Few and Tommy Amaker. They said no thanks.

"Sandy Barbour, who was a good AD but not in the best shape of her career at Cal, went out and did her due diligence," Montgomery said. "She came back and said you're right, `Travis is the guy.' "

But Barbour no longer had the political clout with the Cal administration to sell DeCuire, who had no head-coaching experience at the time. The Bears hired Martin.

"I don't think they wanted to have Sandy make the decision at that point because she hired a football coach (Sonny Dykes) and that didn't go swimmingly. That relationship was fractured and that was too bad.
"That's why they're in the fix they're in now. The continuity of the program with the kids they had, there would have been no hiccup."

The Bears went 7-11 in the Pac-12 that first season under Martin. Two years later, he bolted.

"Cuonzo was a good guy, but Cal wasn't what he wanted. It wasn't what he thought it was," Montgomery said. "Wyking's a good man but he inherited an impossible situation."

The next coach faces the same campus learning curve that all new coaches experience. DeCuire would be exempt from that break-in period.

"Cal's a great school, great location, beautiful campus," Montgomery said. "You understand Telegraph's a little different environment than some places.

"It's a typical big university with a lot of cooks in the kitchen, a lot of decision makers. It's tough to get things done in a timely manner. You don't know that going into the process. Travis knows about those things."
DeCuire's qualifications for the job extend beyond his familiarity with Berkeley and the UC bureaucracy.

"First and foremost, he's a good coach and I think he's proven that at Montana. He's won three league championships," Montgomery said. "You have to be able to coach the game. A lot of assistants don't get the chance to prove that and now he has proven that."

Beyond the Xs and Os, DeCuire is good with players, Montgomery said.

"He relates to them. He played. He's stern and he's demanding but I think the kids also trust him," Montgomery said "It's not like he's standoffish or doesn't relate to their problems. He's good that way."

Montgomery said he has talked with Knowlton, who he believes is thorough and organized, and provided his thoughts on various candidates.

"Now they've got a situation where they've got some work to do," Montgomery said. "They're going to have to make the best decision they can and the next guy's going to have to work hard to get it back to where it should be."

---

Thanks. We of course are talking about 2019. Fraurado apparently floated 3 names and Montgomery endorsed all three. And we still don't know if DeCuir was actually interested. Maybe he was, but I am not seeing the comment as snark worthy by others.

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

. . .

---

oh, you mean like Monty? (who by the way strongly recommended DeCuire for the job ... twice)

---

This seems more myth than fact to me. I've heard Monty praise Decuire. I've also heard him praise Fox. He also praised Cuonzo. The FACT is Monty (like just about every former coach who does TV) praises other coaches and never spurns his professional colleagues. I haven't seen any evidence that Monty did anything other than endorse his lead assistant when he retired - again - which pretty much every coach does. I'm not saying he didn't STRONGLY recommend TD - but just haven't seen the evidence other than some rumors on this site which have morphed into historical factoid.

The other part of the Myth is that DeCuire was the best option that Cal was presented and we let him slip through our hands. Even the 'sources' above (golden blogs really?) show Monty praising every every candidate and separating TD by explaining that he's been at Cal - that is a rationalization, not a very strong endorsement IMHO. Guess what - he's still at Montana and no one else has been able to lure him away from that hotbed of college hoops.

Is FOX the best coach out there - heck no! Is he the best Cal could get? Probably not. Is Cal going to upgrade soon? Probably not.

---

We may find out if anyone can lure him away from Missoula....if UW doesn't show some improvement soon, Hopkins will find himself on the hot seat....DeCuire is a Seattle native and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get a look at that job....His Montana team beating UW this year in Seattle improves his chances IMO.....and Montana is the third youngest team in D1 this year....

We all know this Mark Fox debacle will end with nothing to show for it

They should have hired DeCuire instead of Martin, whose tenure (including the Wyking disaster) was just a diversion that accomplished nothing for the program in the long run. Fox did a good job picking up the pieces last year, but now he's got huge injury problems that will require retooling the offense on the fly. Essentially, they now probably have to win games only scoring in the 60s, which is tough to do. I think his fate is probably tied to whether the 2021 recruits are as good as advertised, and can contribute right away. If not, I would say make a change after next year, and hire DeCuire, Gates or someone else that's younger.

Jeff82 said:

---

They should have hired DeCuire instead of Martin, whose tenure (including the Wyking disaster) was just a diversion that accomplished nothing for the program in the long run. Fox did a good job picking up the pieces last year, but now he's got huge injury problems that will require retooling the offense on the fly. Essentially, they now probably have to win games only scoring in the 60s, which is tough to do. I think his fate is probably tied to whether the 2021 recruits are as good as advertised, and can contribute right away. If not, I would say make a change after next year, and hire DeCuire, Gates or someone else that's younger.

---

In hindsight, I agree - but at the time, almost everyone thought Martin was going to be a good fit. Who knows, with a decent AD, he may have stuck around (although I doubt that we could have matched the $7 Mill from Mizzou).

My view, Martin basically lucked out that Jaylen Brown wanted to spend his one year in college working on his mind rather than his jump shot. I think chances are good that Poetl would have come to Cal had DeCuire taken over, and we would have stayed on the path Monty had established. I don't think Martin was ever going to stay at Cal for any length of time.

Choosing Cuonzo Martin over long-time Assistant Travis DeCuire seemed like a no-brainer, at the time.

However, choosing Mark Fox over Travis DeCuire (who by then had a successful track record as a HC) seemed odd.

Big C said:

---

Choosing Cuonzo Martin over long-time Assistant Travis DeCuire seemed like a no-brainer, at the time.

However, choosing Mark Fox over Travis DeCuire (who by then had a successful track record as a HC) seemed odd.

---

Exactly. The first time we stole a young rising coach from an SEC power immediately after he took them to a Sweet 16. It brought Cal national attention. At that time Travis was an unproven assistant. 4 years later Travis had won 4 conference championships but we hired a retread coach that a bottom dwelling SEC team fired a year earlier. The media called it "a head scratcher" for good reason. How people can say "we should have hired Travis over Martin five years ago, but we were right to hire Fox over Travis four years later" is beyond me. It makes no sense.

Moreover, why limit your search to those two choices? Why make a hire so soon after finally deciding to let Jones go? Why not wait until after the Tournament? Check out the up and coming coaches. Let word get out that you have an opening and see who contacts you? Fox was not going anywhere, he might really be the right guy but he was not a hot commodity, you could do your due diligence. There was no rush. Then he reveals in the press that he hired Fox over DeCuire based on affinity, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity necessary for his vital, high paid job, anywhere really, but especially at Cal. I really believe Knowlton completely mismanaged the most important decision he has had to make as Cal's AD so far. Hopefully Fox bails him out and we are back in the Tournament in two years, and people can continue to praise him but I won't hold my breath.

Depending on Bradly's health or COVID perhaps decimating an opponent's roster, this team probably has zero victories against a P5 or top 100 school this year. It finishes last in the conference. That is not really competitive. This a rebuild season and next season the roster looks a lot better, more athletic and deeper. The only basketball team less competitive is the women's team, and it also will have a fairly competitive roster next year. Next year, both teams will need to become more competitive or their coaches will be on a warming seat.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

Choosing Cuonzo Martin over long-time Assistant Travis DeCuire seemed like a no-brainer, at the time.

However, choosing Mark Fox over Travis DeCuire (who by then had a successful track record as a HC) seemed odd.

---

Exactly. The first time we stole a young rising coach from an SEC power immediately after he took them to a Sweet 16. It brought Cal national attention. At that time Travis was an unproven assistant. 4 years later Travis had won 4 conference championships but we hired a retread coach that a bottom dwelling SEC team fired a year earlier. The media called it "a head scratcher" for good reason. How people can say "we should have hired Travis over Martin five years ago, but we were right to hire Fox over Travis four years later" is beyond me. It makes no sense.

Moreover, why limit your search to those two choices? Why make a hire so soon after finally deciding to let Jones go? Why not wait until after the Tournament? Check out the up and coming coaches. Let word get out that you have an opening and see who contacts you? Fox was not going anywhere, he might really be the right guy but he was not a hot commodity, you could do your due diligence. There was no rush. Then he reveals in the press that he hired Fox over DeCuire based on affinity, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity necessary for his vital, high paid job, anywhere really, but especially at Cal. I really believe Knowlton completely mismanaged the most important decision he has had to make as Cal's AD so far. Hopefully Fox bails him out and we are back in the Tournament in two years, and people can continue to praise him but I won't hold my breath.

---

Yes, this is exactly what you, OaktownBear and I (and others) were saying right after the Fox hire.

My thing is, now, we're still paying Jones as well as Fox and Fox seems to be a decent coach, so let's root for him to do well until he gets stuck at a plateau that isn't high enough. What the heck else can we do at this point?

---

with you big C.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

Choosing Cuonzo Martin over long-time Assistant Travis DeCuire seemed like a no-brainer, at the time.

However, choosing Mark Fox over Travis DeCuire (who by then had a successful track record as a HC) seemed odd.

---

Exactly. The first time we stole a young rising coach from an SEC power immediately after he took them to a Sweet 16. It brought Cal national attention. At that time Travis was an unproven assistant. 4 years later Travis had won 4 conference championships but we hired a retread coach that a bottom dwelling SEC team fired a year earlier. The media called it "a head scratcher" for good reason. How people can say "we should have hired Travis over Martin five years ago, but we were right to hire Fox over Travis four years later" is beyond me. It makes no sense.

Moreover, why limit your search to those two choices? Why make a hire so soon after finally deciding to let Jones go? Why not wait until after the Tournament? Check out the up and coming coaches. Let word get out that you have an opening and see who contacts you? Fox was not going anywhere, he might really be the right guy but he was not a hot commodity, you could do your due diligence. There was no rush. Then he reveals in the press that he hired Fox over DeCuire based on affinity, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity necessary for his vital, high paid job, anywhere really, but especially at Cal. I really believe Knowlton completely mismanaged the most important decision he has had to make as Cal's AD so far. Hopefully Fox bails him out and we are back in the Tournament in two years, and people can continue to praise him but I won't hold my breath.

---

Also, if you are going to pick your coach out of the phonebook, pick one with west coast recruiting ties. As I said at the time, Fox checked exactly zero boxes.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Depending on Bradly's health or COVID perhaps decimating an opponent's roster, this team probably has zero victories against a P5 or top 100 school this year. It finishes last in the conference. That is not really competitive. This a rebuild season and next season the roster looks a lot better, more athletic and deeper. The only basketball team less competitive is the women's team, and it also will have a fairly competitive roster next year. Next year, both teams will need to become more competitive or their coaches will be on a warming seat.

---

A lot better? I am not seeing it. Still Bradley and a bunch of guys with some skills who might be good if they had better players around them. Like Grant A. would be a good fifth option, but not a second option.

sluggo said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Depending on Bradly's health or COVID perhaps decimating an opponent's roster, this team probably has zero victories against a P5 or top 100 school this year. It finishes last in the conference. That is not really competitive. This a rebuild season and next season the roster looks a lot better, more athletic and deeper. The only basketball team less competitive is the women's team, and it also will have a fairly competitive roster next year. Next year, both teams will need to become more competitive or their coaches will be on a warming seat.

---

A lot better? I am not seeing it. Still Bradley and a bunch of guys with some skills who might be good if they had better players around them. Like Grant A. would be a good fifth option, but not a second option.

---

Okay, I willing to say better, not a lot.. Bradly is a number 1 option and all conference player. Anticevech is an experienced guy who can shoot, pass and play defense. Bowser is talented and will have some experience and make far less mistakes, Kelly and Anyanwu can bang, and Kelly clearly has some skills, even if he is not a one, and admittedly some of the guards have to develop. Kuany and Thorpe can contribute. Lars may find some of his inner big man, and provide valuable minutes. There is some depth. If anything the turnovers should be down, and with Fox, experienced players should know defense.. The point is that they is far better than a last place roster. You have a team with four guys\ starting who were 4 star recruits. This may not be UCLA talent, but it should be better than a lot of conference teams.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sluggo said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Depending on Bradly's health or COVID perhaps decimating an opponent's roster, this team probably has zero victories against a P5 or top 100 school this year. It finishes last in the conference. That is not really competitive. This a rebuild season and next season the roster looks a lot better, more athletic and deeper. The only basketball team less competitive is the women's team, and it also will have a fairly competitive roster next year. Next year, both teams will need to become more competitive or their coaches will be on a warming seat.

---

A lot better? I am not seeing it. Still Bradley and a bunch of guys with some skills who might be good if they had better players around them. Like Grant A. would be a good fifth option, but not a second option.

---

Okay, I willing to say better, not a lot.. Bradly is a number 1 option and all conference player. Anticevech is an experienced guy who can shoot, pass and play defense. Bowser is talented and will have some experience and make far less mistakes, Kelly and Anyanwu can bang, and Kelly clearly has some skills, even if he is not a one, and admittedly some of the guards have to develop. Kuany and Thorpe can contribute. Lars may find some of his inner big man, and provide valuable minutes. There is some depth. If anything the turnovers should be down, and with Fox, experienced players should know defense.. The point is that they is far better than a last place roster. You have a team with four guys\ starting who were 4 star recruits. This may not be UCLA talent, but it should be better than a lot of conference teams.

---

Agree that next year's team should be improved.

Those that said Hyder was an upgrade were right.

Who do you think will be next year's starting 5?

Could be we just have a stronger bench?

wifeisafurd said:

---

sluggo said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Depending on Bradly's health or COVID perhaps decimating an opponent's roster, this team probably has zero victories against a P5 or top 100 school this year. It finishes last in the conference. That is not really competitive. This a rebuild season and next season the roster looks a lot better, more athletic and deeper. The only basketball team less competitive is the women's team, and it also will have a fairly competitive roster next year. Next year, both teams will need to become more competitive or their coaches will be on a warming seat.

---

A lot better? I am not seeing it. Still Bradley and a bunch of guys with some skills who might be good if they had better players around them. Like Grant A. would be a good fifth option, but not a second option.

---

Okay, I willing to say better, not a lot.. Bradly is a number 1 option and all conference player. Anticevech is an experienced guy who can shoot, pass and play defense. Bowser is talented and will have some experience and make far less mistakes, Kelly and Anyanwu can bang, and Kelly clearly has some skills, even if he is not a one, and admittedly some of the guards have to develop. Kuany and Thorpe can contribute. Lars may find some of his inner big man, and provide valuable minutes. There is some depth. If anything the turnovers should be down, and with Fox, experienced players should know defense.. The point is that they is far better than a last place roster. You have a team with four guys\ starting who were 4 star recruits. This may not be UCLA talent, but it should be better than a lot of conference teams.

---

What if Bradley does not stay? He was not recruited by Fox and there have been issues between them.He could get tired of losing and want to go to a place like Duke for his senior year. Or he could try the NBA. I don't think he is quick enough, but it is the era of the power guard. Cal has exactly 0 other difference makers. I have some hope for Alajiki being a difference maker, but less for anyone else.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sluggo said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Depending on Bradly's health or COVID perhaps decimating an opponent's roster, this team probably has zero victories against a P5 or top 100 school this year. It finishes last in the conference. That is not really competitive. This a rebuild season and next season the roster looks a lot better, more athletic and deeper. The only basketball team less competitive is the women's team, and it also will have a fairly competitive roster next year. Next year, both teams will need to become more competitive or their coaches will be on a warming seat.

---

A lot better? I am not seeing it. Still Bradley and a bunch of guys with some skills who might be good if they had better players around them. Like Grant A. would be a good fifth option, but not a second option.

---

Okay, I willing to say better, not a lot.. Bradly is a number 1 option and all conference player. Anticevech is an experienced guy who can shoot, pass and play defense. Bowser is talented and will have some experience and make far less mistakes, Kelly and Anyanwu can bang, and Kelly clearly has some skills, even if he is not a one, and admittedly some of the guards have to develop. Kuany and Thorpe can contribute. Lars may find some of his inner big man, and provide valuable minutes. There is some depth. If anything the turnovers should be down, and with Fox, experienced players should know defense.. The point is that they is far better than a last place roster. You have a team with four guys\ starting who were 4 star recruits. This may not be UCLA talent, but it should be better than a lot of conference teams.

---

Agree that next year's team should be improved.

Those that said Hyder was an upgrade were right.

Who do you think will be next year's starting 5?

Could be we just have a stronger bench?

---

Bradly, Anticevech Bowser, Kelly, and maybe a guard when small, and add Lars or Thorpe when going big. Or think about this: turn Bradly into a point since I don't see him as a shooting guard at the next level.

The bottom line is that Fox is going to give Cal what it aspires to - a mid level meh program.

REAL programs - bluntly - build a practice facility, understand the competitive importance of one and dones, push for grad admission standards (zaga?) that are a joke along with the programs and prioritize hoop.

Honestly I can see the argument to be made for not swimming in those waters. What I CAN"T STAND is cal "fans" that have some ridiculous idea that you can just practice the picket fence 100 times like good old Hickory High and consistently beat programs like Zona that are essentially semi-pro programs where the fat donut boy has more power than the University President.

socaltownie said:

---

The bottom line is that Fox is going to give Cal what it aspires to - a mid level meh program.

REAL programs - bluntly - build a practice facility, understand the competitive importance of one and dones, push for grad admission standards (zaga?) that are a joke along with the programs and prioritize hoop.

Honestly I can see the argument to be made for not swimming in those waters. What I CAN"T STAND is cal "fans" that have some ridiculous idea that you can just practice the picket fence 100 times like good old Hickory High and consistently beat programs like Zona that are essentially semi-pro programs where the fat donut boy has more power than the University President.

---

You have to get to mid-level first. Not there. This team is not competitive.

socaltownie said:

---

The bottom line is that Fox is going to give Cal what it aspires to - a mid level meh program.

REAL programs - bluntly - build a practice facility, understand the competitive importance of one and dones, push for grad admission standards (zaga?) that are a joke along with the programs and prioritize hoop.

Honestly I can see the argument to be made for not swimming in those waters. What I CAN"T STAND is cal "fans" that have some ridiculous idea that you can just practice the picket fence 100 times like good old Hickory High and consistently beat programs like Zona that are essentially semi-pro programs where the fat donut boy has more power than the University President.

---

While I agree with all you say, I don't really see a lot of fans that you describe. There are a few, but not enough to turn me away. I'd also take exception with portraying the situation as binary as you often do. I feel that there is a middle ground that many (if not most) Cal FANS aspire to. Somewhere between Hickory and Zona - that also conspires with Berkeley's academic reputation and unique civic flavor. I could go on and on describing it, but we don't need to cheat or lessen our create phony academic programs (but I would support a legitimate sports management grad program). I'm happy with Cal's track record of one and dones and would welcome more (and my sense is that most fans would as well). I really haven't seen very many saying "This guy wants to come to Cal, but we don't want him because he'll only stay a year or two".

Finding that middle ground is not as easy as either of the two examples you are focusing on (High School vs REAL), but that's OK.

Is your first barb at 'Cal' and what is aspires to is towards the AD? The University? The Chancellor? The Students? The Alumni? The Donors? Assuming you're speaking to the AD and administration - you're right: They don't know how to get to where they want to be (and probably aren't clear on where that is, either).

Williams/Jones was completely dysfunctional. Christ/Knowlton/Fox is still pretty dysfunctional from my observations, but about as good as I've seen at Cal in the last 30 years (which just isn't saying much). I think they're simply trying to maintain a level of donor funding and keep the frustrated calls & emails to a minimum.

I respect the job Fox is doing, but I don't see him changing his program enough to satisfy most of the people involved (and keep the complaints down). Barring some significant change (primarily in talent and how it is used), I expect the powers that be to look for an upgrade during the 2022 season (year 4 of Fox era) and making a change after the tourney is over in April 2023.

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The bottom line is that Fox is going to give Cal what it aspires to - a mid level meh program.

REAL programs - bluntly - build a practice facility, understand the competitive importance of one and dones, push for grad admission standards (zaga?) that are a joke along with the programs and prioritize hoop.

Honestly I can see the argument to be made for not swimming in those waters. What I CAN"T STAND is cal "fans" that have some ridiculous idea that you can just practice the picket fence 100 times like good old Hickory High and consistently beat programs like Zona that are essentially semi-pro programs where the fat donut boy has more power than the University President.

---

While I agree with all you say, I don't really see a lot of fans that you describe. There are a few, but not enough to turn me away. I'd also take exception with portraying the situation as binary as you often do. I feel that there is a middle ground that many (if not most) Cal FANS aspire to. Somewhere between Hickory and Zona - that also conspires with Berkeley's academic reputation and unique civic flavor. I could go on and on describing it, but we don't need to cheat or lessen our create phony academic programs (but I would support a legitimate sports management grad program). I'm happy with Cal's track record of one and dones and would welcome more (and my sense is that most fans would as well). I really haven't seen very many saying "This guy wants to come to Cal, but we don't want him because he'll only stay a year or two".

Finding that middle ground is not as easy as either of the two examples you are focusing on (High School vs REAL), but that's OK.

Is your first barb at 'Cal' and what is aspires to is towards the AD? The University? The Chancellor? The Students? The Alumni? The Donors? Assuming you're speaking to the AD and administration - you're right: They don't know how to get to where they want to be (and probably aren't clear on where that is, either).

Williams/Jones was completely dysfunctional. Christ/Knowlton/Fox is still pretty dysfunctional from my observations, but about as good as I've seen at Cal in the last 30 years (which just isn't saying much). I think they're simply trying to maintain a level of donor funding and keep the frustrated calls & emails to a minimum.

I respect the job Fox is doing, but I don't see him changing his program enough to satisfy most of the people involved (and keep the complaints down). Barring some significant change (primarily in talent and how it is used), I expect the powers that be to look for an upgrade during the 2022 season (year 4 of Fox era) and making a change after the tourney is over in April 2023.

---

We will see. I hope you have some insight. I can't escape the conclusion that if we can get out of the cellar to some level of mediocre they extend his contract. What you suggest is they would let his contract lapse (which they won't do for "recruiting") or they extend and then fire him anyway, which I don't see them doing as long as they can point to (glacial) "improvement." Maybe if Knowlton is canned, yes, but people on the football board seem to love him. Look at how few people post here? My guess is Wilcox and Fox are the coaches for the next five years pretty much no matter what and we just have to hope they are able to get us to a level where we can compete for championships and a meaningful post season. I have no doubt that is what the coaches aspire to. Christ and Knowlton? I've seen nothing to tell me their model is not Air Force.

calumnus said:

---

We will see. I hope you have some insight. I can't escape the conclusion that if we can get out of the cellar to some level of mediocre they extend his contract. What you suggest is they would let his contract lapse (which they won't do for "recruiting") or they extend and then fire him anyway, which I don't see them doing as long as they can point to (glacial) "improvement." Maybe if Knowlton is canned, yes, but people on the football board seem to love him. Look at how few people post here? My guess is Wilcox and Fox are the coaches for the next five years pretty much no matter what and we just have to hope they are able to get us to a level where we can compete for championships and a meaningful post season. I have no doubt that is what the coaches aspire to. Christ and Knowlton? I've seen nothing to tell me their model is not Air Force.

---

I don't have any insight. Your Air Force model may be right. If so, I don't think that's the best overall fit for Cal. I'm hoping my guesses are right (or that FOX changes and becomes a long term good fit). I think Christ/Knowlton are capable of handling the contracting and search issues to resolve it in a timely way* However, prior Cal history would kept coaches for too long.

*I think the old adage of giving coaches enough time to do it with their players being 5 years is no longer the case in D1 basketball. Whether AD has bought into that is a good question. Contracts can be structured to deal with the recruiting issue, but MHO that time frame is 3 years for MBB. They don't need to be all the way through a 5 year plan - but three years is enough time to see if there is a HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE that it will.

I'm only giving FOX 4, instead of 3, since this season is just weird. Fox righted the ship and I feel that his recruiting may get Cal to middle of the PAC - but that is probably his ceiling. We're not seeing anything innovative with X's & O's. We're also not seeing a significant improvement in recruiting, but there is still time.

In terms of player development, I'm mixed. Definitely seeing reduction in mistakes (unlike with both Jones & Cuonzo). But I'm not seeing significant improvement - but again - this year is weird.

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The bottom line is that Fox is going to give Cal what it aspires to - a mid level meh program.

REAL programs - bluntly - build a practice facility, understand the competitive importance of one and dones, push for grad admission standards (zaga?) that are a joke along with the programs and prioritize hoop.

Honestly I can see the argument to be made for not swimming in those waters. What I CAN"T STAND is cal "fans" that have some ridiculous idea that you can just practice the picket fence 100 times like good old Hickory High and consistently beat programs like Zona that are essentially semi-pro programs where the fat donut boy has more power than the University President.

---

I'm happy with Cal's track record of one and dones and would welcome more (and my sense is that most fans would as well). I really haven't seen very many saying "This guy wants to come to Cal, but we don't want him because he'll only stay a year or two".

---

I disagree with this comment. There have been plenty of Cal fans that have argued that we should not take one and dones. I know because this has been a pet peeve of mine. I have many times gone through every "one and done" type player we have recruited and pointed out what we possibly gave up to get the one and done. The argument is stupid because every single person that argues it posits a situation where we are choosing between a good 4 year player and a great one year player and we have literally never been in that situation Every time we have taken a potential one and done it, we have left schollies on the shelf or we have taken flyers on a very low rated recruit. Usually more than one of our slots were empty or on flyers. I'm actually a guy who would (with benefit of hindsight) take Theo Robertson over Jaylen Brown, but that decision never comes up for Cal.

I have no problem with Fox personally or as a coach. My problem is that he was completely the wrong guy for this job. When Cuonzo left we had massive roster problems. Jones was just building the roster back up. (I am NOT arguing in favor of Jones who I was adamant needed to be fired). We desperately needed a guy who could keep the guys we had and recruit more. X's and O's does not help if you don't have the players. Add Sueing, Vanover and McNeil to this group and a Bradley level recruit and Cal does not backslide to last place. We didn't hire a guy that could get that done. That is not Fox's fault. It is not what you hire Fox to do. So when I see people who say "I like his X's and O's. He just doesn't have the players" It makes me facepalm like Picard. That is exactly the point. Cal had an electrical problem and they hired a plumber. He may be a solid plumber, but he can't fix the effing lights. So don't tell me he'd be able to fix the leaky faucet, but the lights don't work and you can't expect him to see in the dark.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The bottom line is that Fox is going to give Cal what it aspires to - a mid level meh program.

REAL programs - bluntly - build a practice facility, understand the competitive importance of one and dones, push for grad admission standards (zaga?) that are a joke along with the programs and prioritize hoop.

Honestly I can see the argument to be made for not swimming in those waters. What I CAN"T STAND is cal "fans" that have some ridiculous idea that you can just practice the picket fence 100 times like good old Hickory High and consistently beat programs like Zona that are essentially semi-pro programs where the fat donut boy has more power than the University President.

---

I'm happy with Cal's track record of one and dones and would welcome more (and my sense is that most fans would as well). I really haven't seen very many saying "This guy wants to come to Cal, but we don't want him because he'll only stay a year or two".

---

I disagree with this comment. There have been plenty of Cal fans that have argued that we should not take one and dones. I know because this has been a pet peeve of mine. I have many times gone through every "one and done" type player we have recruited and pointed out what we possibly gave up to get the one and done. The argument is stupid because every single person that argues it posits a situation where we are choosing between a good 4 year player and a great one year player and we have literally never been in that situation Every time we have taken a potential one and done it, we have left schollies on the shelf or we have taken flyers on a very low rated recruit. Usually more than one of our slots were empty or on flyers. I'm actually a guy who would (with benefit of hindsight) take Theo Robertson over Jaylen Brown, but that decision never comes up for Cal.

I have no problem with Fox personally or as a coach. My problem is that he was completely the wrong guy for this job. When Cuonzo left we had massive roster problems. Jones was just building the roster back up. (I am NOT arguing in favor of Jones who I was adamant needed to be fired). We desperately needed a guy who could keep the guys we had and recruit more. X's and O's does not help if you don't have the players. Add Sueing, Vanover and McNeil to this group and a Bradley level recruit and Cal does not backslide to last place. We didn't hire a guy that could get that done. That is not Fox's fault. It is not what you hire Fox to do. So when I see people who say "I like his X's and O's. He just doesn't have the players" It makes me facepalm like Picard. That is exactly the point. Cal had an electrical problem and they hired a plumber. He may be a solid plumber, but he can't fix the effing lights. So don't tell me he'd be able to fix the leaky faucet, but the lights don't work and you can't expect him to see in the dark.

---

You recruit the best talent you can all things considered. If a McDonald's All American comes in and has a great freshman year, sure they may jump to the NBA, but you had a great year from them and you fill the slot. If a McDonald's All American comes in and plays at a level below that he stays for 4 years just like the guys the "build with 4 year players" want anyway. If you aim for 4 year players and they disappoint you have a bench warmer using a slot for 4 years. Better to always aim high. Moreover, there is never a case where the one-and-done replaces a solid 4 star player. If a class is 4 players, the one a done replaces your 5th ranked prospect, not another of your 2nd and 3rd and 4th ranked recruits. Or as you point out, they are often scholarships that ho empty anyway.

socaltownie said:

---

Honestly I can see the argument to be made for not swimming in those waters. What I CAN"T STAND is cal "fans" that have some ridiculous idea that you can just practice the picket fence 100 times like good old Hickory High and consistently beat programs like Zona that are essentially semi-pro programs where the fat donut boy has more power than the University President.

---

who are you talking about?
I just don't hear that on this board

yes, there are some people who are more optimistic then the posters who only see doom and gloom, but let's not paint everyone who is not in deep red

My two cents.

The basketball programs hit bottom and the AD probably waited too long to make moves.

The issue is how you return to respectability from the basement at a school like Cal. This may or may not happen, but it is clear Fox can coach. The question is can he recruit sufficiently at a school like Cal? Cal is not going to change what it is to accommodate its basketball program. Those that think so have misread the priorities, especially when it comes admissions criteria. And frankly, that is simply excuse making. Furd has a crumpling, outdated Maples, crappy practice facilities and similar academic criteria. Yet Haase (a guy who played at Cal) seems to be recruiting just fine. And at least this year, Furd seems to be able to have a very competitive team. Admittedly, Furd basketball, when Haase took over, had not sunk as low as Cal's program prior to hiring Fox. , Fox just may be the intermediate step needed to get back to being respectable enough to actually be in the conversation for qualified highly rated recruits and to attract a more complete coach (and donors willing to pay for that coach). But Cal right now is far from being attractive to either top players or top coaches because of the sins of the past, and whining about admissions standards or facilities still are just excuses. For better or worse, an AD is evaluated on the football and basketball programs, and over time I assume Knowlton should be held accountable based on how these programs evolve under Wilcox and Fox, or their successors as need be. In most other schools, you find an AD that can provide an environment and personnel for these programs to prosper or you find a new AD that can.

wifeisafurd said:

---

My two cents.

The basketball programs hit bottom and the AD probably waited too long to make moves.

The issue is how you return to respectability from the basement at a school like Cal. This may or may not happen, but it is clear Fox can coach. The question is can he recruit sufficiently at a school like Cal? Cal is not going to change what it is to accommodate its basketball program. Those that think so have misread the priorities, especially when it comes admissions criteria. And frankly, that is simply excuse making. Furd has a crumpling, outdated Maples, crappy practice facilities and similar academic criteria. Yet Haase (a guy who played at Cal) seems to be recruiting just fine. And at least this year, Furd seems to be able to have a very competitive team. Admittedly, Furd basketball, when Haase took over, had not sunk as low as Cal's program prior to hiring Fox. , Fox just may be the intermediate step needed to get back to being respectable enough to actually be in the conversation for qualified highly rated recruits and to attract a more complete coach (and donors willing to pay for that coach). But Cal right now is far from being attractive to either top players or top coaches because of the sins of the past, and whining about admissions standards or facilities still are just excuses. For better or worse, an AD is evaluated on the football and basketball programs, and over time I assume Knowlton should be held accountable based on how these programs evolve under Wilcox and Fox, or their successors as need be. In most other schools, you find an AD that can provide an environment and personnel for these programs to prosper or you find a new AD that can.

---

My second least favorite argument on these boards (my first is that J. Brown wasn't great for Cal) is that there is value in comparing Furd and Cal to REVENUE SPORTS recruiting.

I think this comes up because among the general undergrad population students apply to both schools - especially bay area kids or alumni that say in the Bay Area. But, and I have done this repeatedly over the years, an analysis of Furd's BB and Football rosters tells a VERY different story.

Repeatedly (Cafferty is one of the best examples) key difference makers for the Furd have attended either ELITE prep schools with tuition exceeding 30K a year and/or extremely affluent exurban high schools were property values and taxes serve the same function. These are students, I might suggest, that are night and day from many of the principal difference makers in our revenue sports who hail from middle class and diverse neighborhoods, often in Southern California. I am not at all convinced that students happy on the Farm would be happy hanging out on Telegraph and vis-a-versa.

Cal's true comparatives are UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, perhaps UT A - Big state schools that draw a diverse student body which is heavily represented from PUBLIC high schools and which have excellent academic reputations and semi-competitive (and up) admission standards.

Or put another way - do you think what Zaire CLAIMED drove his decision to be on the farm (I sorta scoof at it but for these purposes I will take on face value) can be found at the MUCH larger, much more diverse and much less coddling of undergrads Cal. When does Cal set up wine and cheese stuff for Frosh with VCs?

Getting our benchmark right is the first step. From there we can sorta laugh at the support Cal gives athletics compared to the sister school to the south and how that translates into success.

I go with waiting to see how next year's team and the new recruits perform before drawing a conclusion. By the nature of choosing a coach like Fox, you are essentially saying that you will go with a slow rebuild, but one that ultimately might be sustainable through player development and playing well as a team. So we will see. I do think Fox likely sold Knowlton on the idea of bringing international players into the mix to try to have an advantage in that area. But that has not worked out very well thus far. For now, we will also need to keep looking at potential grad transfers.