Story Poster
Photo by KLCfotos
Cal Basketball

The Decision to Hire Mark Fox

March 29, 2019
47,372

In the course of fewer than six days, Cal terminated the least successful head coach in its basketball program’s history and hired a coach with more than 250 career wins to replace him.   

The obvious initial take when discussing Mark Fox is that he is in every respect an upgrade over his predecessor.   An experienced hand who’s well-respected by his peers, Fox will bring a depth of experience and presence that Cal has not had since Mike Montgomery retired in 2012.

That said, it is not a hire that wins the hearts and minds of Cal fans when they first hear the news.  His tenure at Georgia may be impressive in some respects. yet it ended after nine years in his being terminated.  And while his successes at Georgia were relatively unprecedented for the Bulldog program, in absolute terms he failed to make the school a consistent top-tier SEC power, much less relevant on the national stage.

Juxtapose this with the unsoiled promise of a mid-major coach who has yet to prove himself one way or the other at a Power 6 school.  That type of hire brings with it a sense of unlimited upside with the vacuum of those candidates experience creating an almost irrational sense of hope and little consideration of downside.   Thus, it is not surprising that upon first take most Cal fans are left mildly disappointed with the appointment of Fox.

The staff here at Bear Insider understands and sympathizes with that sentiment, as it’s not far off our initial reactions.   One of the criteria we laid out for the hire was generating excitement and energy around the program and that’s not something that Fox provides simply by signing his name on a contract.    As we’ve had the chance to dig deeper and talk to some of the most prominent and well-respected voices in college basketball, we find ourselves reconsidering the gut reaction with an ever-increasing feeling of optimism.

The obvious wins with the hire of Fox are firstly the instant improvement in the leadership from where we were less than a week ago.  Secondly, we’ve hired someone with tremendous character and integrity which are essential at Cal and even more so in the current climate in college basketball, where the FBI has uncovered what can best be reflected as the tip of the iceberg when it comes to under the table payments to recruits and their families.   Lastly, Fox represents a very high floor.  The chances of his not having a measure of success in Berkeley is exceptionally low given his fourteen-year resume as a head man.    

Context is important here in two regards.  First, the decision to terminate Wyking Jones after only two seasons came with a cost to Cal.   Jim Knowlton and Carol Christ have an ambitious vision for Cal athletics including a transformation of the development approach and team to fully unlock the value of Cal’s alumni base as donors.  They are less than 12 months into that process with the new Chief of Development, Brian Mann, having only been in Berkeley for less than 6 weeks.   The ability to break the bank and reach for the stars in a basketball head coach is clearly an aspiration for the department, but one that will take time and hard work to fully realize.  Secondly, Cal has work to do with regard to overall student athletic facilities and specifically a dedicated basketball practice facility to even be on marginally even footing with the rest of the Pac-12.   The net is that Cal was not in a position to hire the “perfect” coach.   What it could do was make the decision to terminate a struggling head coach after only two seasons (which is exceptionally rare) and clearly upgrade the position.

The alternatives to Cal’s choice of Fox all had their set of risks and warts.   Principally among them was betting on a successful low or mid-major coach.   A step up in competition, the premium on recruiting (even to the level that Fox achieved) and the data that shows that most of these coaches clearly fail at Power 6 schools were an obvious factor in the choice of Fox.  While there were some compelling candidates, especially when filtered through a criterion of selling hope, objectively they represented a far lower floor and more risk.   This at a time when Cal is coming off a head coach that represented huge risk given his lack of a resume.

While looking at Fox’s tenure at Georgia, context also plays a role.  Georgia has been a deserted wasteland for college basketball for decades.   Since 1950, no Georgia head coach who lasted longer than one season posted a winning career record in Athens other than Hugh Durham and Mark Fox.  In the five seasons preceding Fox taking over Georgia, the team had won a total of 22 SEC games.  Georgia is a program without tradition or any sustained period of success.   Against that backdrop, Fox’s record at Georgia may not be viewed as exceptional but certainly is impressive. 

Mark Fox’s resume as it relates to scheme, teaching and player development are strong.  His teams consistently played top-tier defense, and defense wins in college basketball.  He’s a coach with a chip on his shoulder, hungry to wipe the exit at Georgia from his resume.   His X’s and O’s and teaching pedigree are endorsed in fulsome fashion with his recent tenure with Team USA and the praise he received from coaching luminaries in today's press release.   Bear Insider has had a chance to source further references from a half dozen industry experts and the praise has been universal and unstinting.  Folks who know Pac-12 basketball exceptionally well and have no affiliation with Cal or with Coach Fox have been effusive in their praise of Fox and the fit at Cal.   

His inability to keep Georgia at the top of the SEC and part of the national discussion can be traced squarely to his inability to recruit enough talent, especially talent that can score.   That capped his upside in Athens and will be his biggest challenge in Berkeley, especially after spending the last decade on the East Coast.   His choice of former Stanford head coach Trent Johnson as his top assistant is a self-aware action from Fox as Johnson cannot only provide sage advice as a long time head coach but unlike Fox, Johnson's reputation as a recruiter is well established.   If Fox can fill in the remaining two assistant positions with at least one strong recruiter with a West Coast network, there’s a real possibility that Cal could hit a home run with their choice of Mark Fox.  

The news of Wyking Jones departure and Mark Fox’s hire are not the beginning and end of this story.  Expect to hear some very good news with regard to donations and facilities upgrades in the near future.   Cal’s basketball brand has been diminished in the past two seasons and needs to be rebuilt.  That starts with experienced. competent leadership and continues with substantial donations that benefit not only basketball but the athletic department as a whole. 

In short, we are cautiously optimistic.

Discussion from...

The Decision to Hire Mark Fox

44,826 Views | 187 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by SanseiBear
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.


Braun's record at Cal was better than Fox's at Georgia. Especially in the post season. Both are defense first/offense challenged. Both are respected by their peers. After 9 years of "meh" results finishing in the bottom half of the league more often than not we rightfully let Braun go, as Georgia did a year ago with Fox.

Basically, we are like Rice hiring Braun, except we are hiring a coach with a weaker record and we are in a historically tougher league.

I am going to stop kvetching soon and root for the guy, like I did to different degrees with Holmoe, Dykes, Wilcox and Jones, but it won't change the fact that I was not initially overjoyed with the hire.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.


I starred your post. I was being sarcastic and thought it was obvious.
My apologies. I'm an old guy, and a literal person, so I take most words at face value, and miss a lot of sarcasm, unless it is my own.

I remember going to a talk by former Chronicle columnist Art Hoppe, a humorist, who was asked what the worst case he had of someone not understanding his sarcasm. He said that during the time in the '50s when the big scare was the atomic bomb, he wrote a column about how to survive a nuclear attack, all tongue in cheek. It was mostly about things to put in your bunker for survival, like food and water, etc. But he ended with everyone should get a copy of the government Civilian Defense pamphlet, entitled, "Recipes for preparing dishes of small children" or something like that. Hoppe said a reader sent him letter, asking him where she could get a copy of this pamphlet. It was then that he realized not everyone was catching on to his sarcasm.

Cheers! and Go Bears!
SFCityBear
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

socaltownie said:

socaliganbear said:

BearGreg said:

Curious how you would compare Georgia's tradition in basketball and historical recruiting success (including NBA alums) versus Cal's?


As a comparison, it's be less relevant than the money they have, or facilities, or general attitude towards athletics.

His very long Georgia tenure is very clearly mediocre. We went out and hired mediocrity. This is not a wild claim.
I have moved past my grief. I would advise as well.

Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.

It was either unknown hope with low floor on a mid-major or this sort of hire. Support the program. Get it to a place to be better in 4 years.

#teamhope
When Sonny Dykes was hired it was said over and over that he was the best coach we could get with Head Coaching experience. And my response was, then you don't hire a coach with head coaching experience.

I acknowledge since we have the lowest salary in a power conference that this was the best resume we could buy fro a power conference. So you don't hire a head coach from a power conference.

I refuse to play the cautiously optimistic game. This hire was at best massively uninspired and has very little upside. It is possible that he succeeds. If he does, fine. Call me when that happens. I'm not going to spend the meantime prancing around like a pink fluffy unicorn pretending that it will probably work. I already played that game with Dykes.

I don't care what the context is. I don't care what Georgia's history is. (and whatever the history is, I doubt they spend less on basketball than we do). 9 years losing record in conference. You do not hire a losing coach under any circumstances. Let him change that record somewhere else. Ask Udub about playing the "Keith Gilbertson is really a great coach who had a losing record at Cal because Cal is a weak program" game.

1. Ask yourself what is the hit rate on coaches with his record succeeding at the next stop without dropping down a level.

2. Ask yourself why the internet is laughing at us.


I see so we shouldn't go with a guy who has had moderate success in a P6 conference and instead go for all the marbles with a new coach is a promising but no HC experience.
Didn't we just do that 2 years ago. And it was a complete utter failure.
AKBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, find some way to keep Grace onboard for his recruiting chops.
AKBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was not on the ledge but was concerned that the ledge was nearby. Anyway, I plan on renewing my season tickets and am keeping my fingers crossed that we see improvement with the team. I'm also hoping that the Bears get some size on the team and find some way to balance out their roster. Too small and too many players in one class.
LOUMFSG2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:



So this is what I would challenge you to. How many coaches who had a conference record in a power conference job as bad as or worse than Fox, went on to success at another power conference? Then compare how many didn't go on to success. Then especially think of how many did it by going straight to another Power conference job without a tenure at a mid major first. If you do that honestly and still feel great about this, okay.

OaktownBear - first of all, I want to say that I totally understand what you are saying. My own personal preference would have been to make a hire of a more up-and-coming coach from a mid-major conference, someone trending up, with more upside, and if possible, more buzz to try to ignite the Cal fan base. I wanted guys like Nate Oats of Buffalo, Matt McMahon of Murray State, Tim Cluess of Iona, Craig Smith of Utah State, Travis DeCuire of Montana or Russell Turner of UCI.

I also understand the scepticism of Fox's record at Georgia. Nine years is a long time in a conference to compile a sub-.500 record, and I think it raises legitimate concerns as to reasonable expectations for his ceiling at Cal.

I guess to respond to your question about examples of other coaches who struggled in one power conference job and then went on to success at another power conference, Johnny Dawkins comes to mind.

Dawkins inherited a Stanfurd program that had been to 13 of the previous 14 NCAA tournaments under Monty and Trent Johnson, including 4 Sweet 16's, 2 Elite 8's and 1 Final Four. And in his 8 years on the farm, Dawkins managed just 1 NCAA bid (reaching the Sweet 16), and compiled a conference record of 66-78 (.458), finishing 7th place or worse in 5 of his 8 seasons. In my opinion, Dawkins was worse overall at Stanfurd than Fox was Georgia.

Dawkins has now been at UCF of the American Athletic Conference for three seasons, which I realize is not technically a "power conference", but is generally considered "high major", as opposed to "mid major". With 4 NCAA teams this season (Houston, Cincinnati, UCF and Temple), as well as Memphis, Wichita State, UConn, USF, and SMU, I'd argue the AAC is pretty comparable to the Pac-12 right now, given how down the Conference of Champions is these days.

UCF had missed the NCAA tournament for 11 straight seasons when Dawkins arrived, and I believe in their D1 history, had only won 24 games in a season twice. In Dawkins 3 years at UCF, he has compiled a 33-21 (.611) conference record, making the NCAA tournament this season, winning UCF's first ever D1 NCAA tournament game, and nearly pulling off the upset of 1-seed Duke for a trip to the Sweet 16. And Dawkins has two 24 win seasons in his 3 years, equaling the total UCF had achieved in the previous 32 years.

As I said, I get that the AAC isn't technically a power conference, and Dawkins has only been there three years, and he still has plenty of time to regress back to his mean. And I totally agree with your point that there probably are many more coaches similar to Fox's track record that have not succeeded in their next gig. But I basically thought Dawkins was a poor coach at Stanfurd, and I wanted him to stay there forever. And he's surprised me so far at UCF. It's at least possible to fail in one place and then succeed in another. Maybe Fox can surprise us at Cal.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

OaktownBear said:

socaltownie said:

socaliganbear said:

BearGreg said:

Curious how you would compare Georgia's tradition in basketball and historical recruiting success (including NBA alums) versus Cal's?


As a comparison, it's be less relevant than the money they have, or facilities, or general attitude towards athletics.

His very long Georgia tenure is very clearly mediocre. We went out and hired mediocrity. This is not a wild claim.
I have moved past my grief. I would advise as well.

Because I think the right question is posed by the nice long post from BI - this is probably the BEST resume we could get for a P5 coach. Even a guy like Howland is probably, at present, out of our price range.

It was either unknown hope with low floor on a mid-major or this sort of hire. Support the program. Get it to a place to be better in 4 years.

#teamhope
When Sonny Dykes was hired it was said over and over that he was the best coach we could get with Head Coaching experience. And my response was, then you don't hire a coach with head coaching experience.

I acknowledge since we have the lowest salary in a power conference that this was the best resume we could buy fro a power conference. So you don't hire a head coach from a power conference.

I refuse to play the cautiously optimistic game. This hire was at best massively uninspired and has very little upside. It is possible that he succeeds. If he does, fine. Call me when that happens. I'm not going to spend the meantime prancing around like a pink fluffy unicorn pretending that it will probably work. I already played that game with Dykes.

I don't care what the context is. I don't care what Georgia's history is. (and whatever the history is, I doubt they spend less on basketball than we do). 9 years losing record in conference. You do not hire a losing coach under any circumstances. Let him change that record somewhere else. Ask Udub about playing the "Keith Gilbertson is really a great coach who had a losing record at Cal because Cal is a weak program" game.

1. Ask yourself what is the hit rate on coaches with his record succeeding at the next stop without dropping down a level.

2. Ask yourself why the internet is laughing at us.


I see so we shouldn't go with a guy who has had moderate success in a P6 conference and instead go for all the marbles with a new coach is a promising but no HC experience.
Didn't we just do that 2 years ago. And it was a complete utter failure.


Geez, I didn't say to hire an assistant like Wyking Jones. I said you don't hire a power conference head coach. You hire a mid major head coach with a record like Decuire or Turner. That is pretty clearly what almost everyone wanted and expected
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
OTB,

The Stave Lavin question leads to another question - Who is the better coach?
- Coach A who had a 45% conference winning record at Oregon State OR
- Coach B who had a 55% winning record at Arizona?

I know which one I would want.

Asked another way - Is the program and school relevant to a coach's success? Is there a reason Mike Anderson was fired from Arkansas where that same record would likely have earned him an extension at Vanderbilt? Something beyond fan expectations?

Is there a distinction in your mind between off the record comments from people vs public statements put out by the hiring school? Is this different in the legal and business worlds than in sports? The reason I ask is that I'm persuaded more by the former as to your point the latter are basically de rigeur throw away statements

For the record, when Cuonzo Martin was hired, I heard from/reached out to a handful of folks in the college hoops world. Got two glowing reviews, one good, one that said "meh" and one that said "watch out".
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
calumnus said:





Braun's record at Cal was better than Fox's at Georgia. Especially in the post season. Both are defense first/offense challenged. Both are respected by their peers. After 9 years of "meh" results finishing in the bottom half of the league more often than not we rightfully let Braun go, as Georgia did a year ago with Fox.

Basically, we are like Rice hiring Braun, except we are hiring a coach with a weaker record and we are in a historically tougher league.

I am going to stop kvetching soon and root for the guy, like I did to different degrees with Holmoe, Dykes, Wilcox and Jones, but it won't change the fact that I was not initially overjoyed with the hire.

Ben Braun's last five years at Cal = 79-75; 39-51 in Pac-10

Mark Fox last five years at Georgia = 98-70; 46-41 in SEC

oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Georgia was 1-13 in their last 14 games this year. It seems their new coach did not do better than Fox. In fact, did worse. He is now blaming the players claiming he should have let some go.
Go Bears!
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
OK, so he is a .500 coach in his last conference. A losing coach by your definition is a coach who loses more games than he wins, so Fox is not a losing coach, in conference. He was not a losing coach overall at Georgia, as he has a .551 record. Considering his time at Nevada, he was 64-16 in conference in five years, a .800 winning percentage. He is an overall winning coach in his two conferences, a .600 winning percentage.

It is one thing I don't see mentioned much about Fox, if at all. His time at Reno. As if it never happened. The WAC is not a chopped liver conference. Those in favor of Decuire (whose good record in the Big Sky is not as good as Fox's in the WAC - Fox with 4 Conference titles in 5 years vs 2 titles for DeCuire in 5 years) should consider Fox's early record. And the WAC is a stronger conference by almost any measure, SOS, BPI, etc.

Fox began his career at Georgia hoping to straighten out the mess left by previous coach Dennis Felton, who had 6 losing seasons in 6 years in conference, and a conference win percentage of .302. Fox's .500 probably looked good compared to that. It took Fox 2 years to have a winning season in conference, and 3 more years to become competitive, with his 3 best seasons in conference in a row, 12, 11, and 10 wins. Maybe one reason he was hired was that he had turned a program around before at Georgia. Hopefully, he will do it faster this time, but Cal fans will not give him a long leash.
SFCityBear
tsubamoto2001
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fox went 77-79 in SEC play, which is mathematically under .500.

Fox was an assistant at Nevada that was elevated to head coach when Trent Johnson left for Stanford. He did not "turn around" Nevada. They made the Sweet 16 in Johnson's last season there. While Fox didn't make it as far in the NCAA Tournament than Johnson did, he built on what Johnson did and posted 25+ wins in his first 3 seasons. Though, his last 2 seasons at Nevada, he had 2 seasons with double-digit losses.

I think Fox is a better coach than Johnson, which probably doesn't mean a ton as Johnson ended up flaming out at TCU.

My fear is that Fox is just decent enough to prolong his tenure, especially at place like Cal. A 17-16 season doesn't get you fired here until your 12th year. It seems like we just hired a less accomplished Ben Braun.

SFCityBear said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
OK, so he is a .500 coach in his last conference. A losing coach by your definition is a coach who loses more games than he wins, so Fox is not a losing coach, in conference. He was not a losing coach overall at Georgia, as he has a .551 record. Considering his time at Nevada, he was 64-16 in conference in five years, a .800 winning percentage. He is an overall winning coach in his two conferences, a .600 winning percentage.

It is one thing I don't see mentioned much about Fox, if at all. His time at Reno. As if it never happened. The WAC is not a chopped liver conference. Those in favor of Decuire (whose good record in the Big Sky is not as good as Fox's in the WAC - Fox with 4 Conference titles in 5 years vs 2 titles for DeCuire in 5 years) should consider Fox's early record. And the WAC is a stronger conference by almost any measure, SOS, BPI, etc.

Fox began his career at Georgia hoping to straighten out the mess left by previous coach Dennis Felton, who had 6 losing seasons in 6 years in conference, and a conference win percentage of .302. Fox's .500 probably looked good compared to that. It took Fox 2 years to have a winning season in conference, and 3 more years to become competitive, with his 3 best seasons in conference in a row, 12, 11, and 10 wins. Maybe one reason he was hired was that he had turned a program around before at Georgia. Hopefully, he will do it faster this time, but Cal fans will not give him a long leash.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

OTB,

The Stave Lavin question leads to another question - Who is the better coach?
- Coach A who had a 45% conference winning record at Oregon State OR
- Coach B who had a 55% winning record at Arizona?

I know which one I would want.

Asked another way - Is the program and school relevant to a coach's success? Is there a reason Mike Anderson was fired from Arkansas where that same record would likely have earned him an extension at Vanderbilt? Something beyond fan expectations?

Is there a distinction in your mind between off the record comments from people vs public statements put out by the hiring school? Is this different in the legal and business worlds than in sports? The reason I ask is that I'm persuaded more by the former as to your point the latter are basically de rigeur throw away statements

For the record, when Cuonzo Martin was hired, I heard from/reached out to a handful of folks in the college hoops world. Got two glowing reviews, one good, one that said "meh" and one that said "watch out".


No losers. Ever. I would never hire that coach from OSU.

You gave a false choice. I don't want either of your options.

I am not persuaded by your sources over actual results. Feel free to feel differently. I think you found comfort in them. I think if this were another school, you wouldn't be so quick to let those sources sway your opinion
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tsubamoto2001 said:

Fox went 77-79 in SEC play, which is mathematically under .500.

Fox was an assistant at Nevada that was elevated to head coach when Trent Johnson left for Stanford. He did not "turn around" Nevada. They made the Sweet 16 in Johnson's last season there. While Fox didn't make it as far in the NCAA Tournament than Johnson did, he built on what Johnson did and posted 25+ wins in his first 3 seasons. Though, his last 2 seasons at Nevada, he had 2 seasons with double-digit losses.

I think Fox is a better coach than Johnson, which probably doesn't mean a ton as Johnson ended up flaming out at TCU.

My fear is that Fox is just decent enough to prolong his tenure, especially at place like Cal. A 17-16 season doesn't get you fired here until your 12th year. It seems like we just hired a less accomplished Ben Braun.

SFCityBear said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
OK, so he is a .500 coach in his last conference. A losing coach by your definition is a coach who loses more games than he wins, so Fox is not a losing coach, in conference. He was not a losing coach overall at Georgia, as he has a .551 record. Considering his time at Nevada, he was 64-16 in conference in five years, a .800 winning percentage. He is an overall winning coach in his two conferences, a .600 winning percentage.

It is one thing I don't see mentioned much about Fox, if at all. His time at Reno. As if it never happened. The WAC is not a chopped liver conference. Those in favor of Decuire (whose good record in the Big Sky is not as good as Fox's in the WAC - Fox with 4 Conference titles in 5 years vs 2 titles for DeCuire in 5 years) should consider Fox's early record. And the WAC is a stronger conference by almost any measure, SOS, BPI, etc.

Fox began his career at Georgia hoping to straighten out the mess left by previous coach Dennis Felton, who had 6 losing seasons in 6 years in conference, and a conference win percentage of .302. Fox's .500 probably looked good compared to that. It took Fox 2 years to have a winning season in conference, and 3 more years to become competitive, with his 3 best seasons in conference in a row, 12, 11, and 10 wins. Maybe one reason he was hired was that he had turned a program around before at Georgia. Hopefully, he will do it faster this time, but Cal fans will not give him a long leash.

Thanks for the correction. I added the numbers up in my head. Should have used a calculator. I don't think I claimed a turn around for Fox at Nevada, only one for him at Georgia, and it was a slow one. Last guy to do failrly well at Georgia was Tubby Smith, and he only stayed 3 years, as I remember.
SFCityBear
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I, for one, am looking forward to setting the record for number of consecutive NIT appearances
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At this point, Inwould take the nit.
Go Bears!
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

At this point, Inwould take the nit.
Wyking likely would given his right arm just for an invite.
SFCityBear
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not Cuonzo. He hated the nit.
Go Bears!
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
some of the examples cited in this thread relates to coaches success, but there is one thing in common with two of them:

USF Dawkins - Dawkins had two notable seniors on the team he took to the tournament this year -- 7-6 monster center, and his star son. Without his son, USF falls way back in the pac and never reaches near the success they've had

Oregon State - I think Tinkle is a very good coach, but there are two reasons from OSU's relative improvement the last several years: 1) Head coach is a father of a son 2) Assistant Coach is a father of two sons

Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

some of the examples cited in this thread relates to coaches success, but there is one thing in common with two of them:

USF Dawkins - Dawkins had two notable seniors on the team he took to the tournament this year -- 7-6 monster center, and his star son. Without his son, USF falls way back in the pac and never reaches near the success they've had

Oregon State - I think Tinkle is a very good coach, but there are two reasons from OSU's relative improvement the last several years: 1) Head coach is a father of a son 2) Assistant Coach is a father of two sons


I think you mean UCF, the University of Central Florida, not USF.
BEAR2dBONE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looking to be assured that salary is close to WJ level, given the bankrupt conditions of Cal athletics.
Counting on JK to secure financial terms that won't add to financial burdens with a hefty buy out if and when this experiment fails. Coach Fox will hopefully be amenable to heavily a incentivized contract.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AKBear said:

I'm also hoping that the Bears get some size on the team and find some way to balance out their roster. Too small and too many players in one class.
The way I see it we'll have, assuming no defections:
PG: Austin (SR), Brown (FR)
SG: Bradley (SO), Harris-Dyson (JR), Smith (FR)
SF: Sueing (JR), Gordon (SO)
PF: Anticevich (JR), Kelly (SO), Thorpe (FR), Davis (maybe)
C: Vanover (SO)

I think another C would be nice and I'd certainly appreciate more talent, but if Gordon is healthy I'd say that roster looks reasonably well balanced both by position and by class.

I'd be surprised if our new coaches could pull in any quality recruits this late. I'd love to land a grad transfer stretch four and to save the scholarships for 2020.
Gkhoury2325
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stu, that's all definitely possible and don't see too many guys leaving. I could see Gordon, and possibly JHD transferring to get more playing time somewhere else. Hopefully Kelly stays and gets in the best shape of his life. He needs to. We definitely need a C that could rebound, defend, and be a force defensively.
I see our starters being PG Austin, SG Bradley, SF Suring, PF Kelly or Thorpe, and C Vanover. With some coaching and game planning we might be ok.

Opening up scholarships is not a bad thing if a few kids left. Need a couple of big men and a few shooters.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gkhoury2325 said:

I could see Gordon, and possibly JHD transferring to get more playing time somewhere else.
I hope not. I suspect Gordon's lack of playing time was related to his injury, but I don't know that for a fact. And I think Harris-Dyson might benefit more than anyone else on our roster from proper coaching. I could see him playing a role something like Eliza Pierre played on our Final Four women's team a few years back.
Quote:

Hopefully Kelly stays and gets in the best shape of his life. He needs to.
Agreed. I see a lot of skills there but I'm afraid his conditioning will have to improve for him to contribute at this level.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
OK, so he is a .500 coach in his last conference. A losing coach by your definition is a coach who loses more games than he wins, so Fox is not a losing coach, in conference. He was not a losing coach overall at Georgia, as he has a .551 record. Considering his time at Nevada, he was 64-16 in conference in five years, a .800 winning percentage. He is an overall winning coach in his two conferences, a .600 winning percentage.

It is one thing I don't see mentioned much about Fox, if at all. His time at Reno. As if it never happened. The WAC is not a chopped liver conference. Those in favor of Decuire (whose good record in the Big Sky is not as good as Fox's in the WAC - Fox with 4 Conference titles in 5 years vs 2 titles for DeCuire in 5 years) should consider Fox's early record. And the WAC is a stronger conference by almost any measure, SOS, BPI, etc.

Fox began his career at Georgia hoping to straighten out the mess left by previous coach Dennis Felton, who had 6 losing seasons in 6 years in conference, and a conference win percentage of .302. Fox's .500 probably looked good compared to that. It took Fox 2 years to have a winning season in conference, and 3 more years to become competitive, with his 3 best seasons in conference in a row, 12, 11, and 10 wins. Maybe one reason he was hired was that he had turned a program around before at Georgia. Hopefully, he will do it faster this time, but Cal fans will not give him a long leash.

Being under . 500 in conference is not breaking .500 in conference.

Yes, I am well aware Fox was a winning coach in a minor conference over a decade ago. Lots of people have already brought it up.

The difference between Fox and Decure is that Decure hasn't yet proven he can't win at the next level.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

AKBear said:

I'm also hoping that the Bears get some size on the team and find some way to balance out their roster. Too small and too many players in one class.
The way I see it we'll have, assuming no defections:
PG: Austin (SR), Brown (FR)
SG: Bradley (SO), Harris-Dyson (JR), Smith (FR)
SF: Sueing (JR), Gordon (SO)
PF: Anticevich (JR), Kelly (SO), Thorpe (FR), Davis (maybe)
C: Vanover (SO)

I think another C would be nice and I'd certainly appreciate more talent, but if Gordon is healthy I'd say that roster looks reasonably well balanced both by position and by class.

I'd be surprised if our new coaches could pull in any quality recruits this late. I'd love to land a grad transfer stretch four and to save the scholarships for 2020.



I actually think it's a roster than has tons of room for improvement with competent coaching. I'd love to see the staff bring in a MSF type grad transfer.

I think next year is a golden opportunity for fox to impress. He's going to come in with a lot of energy and with a roster that has more talent than their record indicates. I actually expect fox to really develop these guys and have a surprisingly good year (I'm actually expecting an NIT bid)

It's not next year I'm actually worried about. It's year 3-4 (with his own recruits and where expectations are going to rise) where we will see if fox was the right hire.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
OK, so he is a .500 coach in his last conference. A losing coach by your definition is a coach who loses more games than he wins, so Fox is not a losing coach, in conference. He was not a losing coach overall at Georgia, as he has a .551 record. Considering his time at Nevada, he was 64-16 in conference in five years, a .800 winning percentage. He is an overall winning coach in his two conferences, a .600 winning percentage.

It is one thing I don't see mentioned much about Fox, if at all. His time at Reno. As if it never happened. The WAC is not a chopped liver conference. Those in favor of Decuire (whose good record in the Big Sky is not as good as Fox's in the WAC - Fox with 4 Conference titles in 5 years vs 2 titles for DeCuire in 5 years) should consider Fox's early record. And the WAC is a stronger conference by almost any measure, SOS, BPI, etc.

Fox began his career at Georgia hoping to straighten out the mess left by previous coach Dennis Felton, who had 6 losing seasons in 6 years in conference, and a conference win percentage of .302. Fox's .500 probably looked good compared to that. It took Fox 2 years to have a winning season in conference, and 3 more years to become competitive, with his 3 best seasons in conference in a row, 12, 11, and 10 wins. Maybe one reason he was hired was that he had turned a program around before at Georgia. Hopefully, he will do it faster this time, but Cal fans will not give him a long leash.

Being under . 500 in conference is not breaking .500 in conference.

Yes, I am well aware Fox was a winning coach in a minor conference over a decade ago. Lots of people have already brought it up.

The difference between Fox and Decure is that Decure hasn't yet proven he can't win at the next level.


He took over an awful team. He improved the team. His last five years were better than the first. He had a winning conference record in the last five years.
He only had one sub. 500 year in the last five, which resulted in him being fired. If he can improve his recruiting, he will be successful at Cal. His first step should be making sure the core players do not transfer.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:


He took over an awful team. He improved the team. His last five years were better than the first. He had a winning conference record in the last five years.
He only had one sub. 500 year in the last five, which resulted in him being fired. If he can improve his recruiting, he will be successful at Cal. His first step should be making sure the core players do not transfer.

Fox got fired at Georgia because he wasn't successful enough. If middling success is what you want for Cal, then he's your man.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

oski003 said:


He took over an awful team. He improved the team. His last five years were better than the first. He had a winning conference record in the last five years.
He only had one sub. 500 year in the last five, which resulted in him being fired. If he can improve his recruiting, he will be successful at Cal. His first step should be making sure the core players do not transfer.

Fox got fired at Georgia because he wasn't successful enough. If middling success is what you want for Cal, then he's your man.


Obviously, my expectations aren't high enough. A coach with success at low levels will always seem to have more potential than a coach who plateaued at a high level. SARCASM.

Hiring a coach is not always about who maybe could possibly take us to the final four. What round did Montana get to? Sometimes you grind up. I'm sorry if you've experienced too many bad seasons to have faith in the process. Perhaps Fox's Team USA experience helps with recruiting. He can coach.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
OK, so he is a .500 coach in his last conference. A losing coach by your definition is a coach who loses more games than he wins, so Fox is not a losing coach, in conference. He was not a losing coach overall at Georgia, as he has a .551 record. Considering his time at Nevada, he was 64-16 in conference in five years, a .800 winning percentage. He is an overall winning coach in his two conferences, a .600 winning percentage.

It is one thing I don't see mentioned much about Fox, if at all. His time at Reno. As if it never happened. The WAC is not a chopped liver conference. Those in favor of Decuire (whose good record in the Big Sky is not as good as Fox's in the WAC - Fox with 4 Conference titles in 5 years vs 2 titles for DeCuire in 5 years) should consider Fox's early record. And the WAC is a stronger conference by almost any measure, SOS, BPI, etc.

Fox began his career at Georgia hoping to straighten out the mess left by previous coach Dennis Felton, who had 6 losing seasons in 6 years in conference, and a conference win percentage of .302. Fox's .500 probably looked good compared to that. It took Fox 2 years to have a winning season in conference, and 3 more years to become competitive, with his 3 best seasons in conference in a row, 12, 11, and 10 wins. Maybe one reason he was hired was that he had turned a program around before at Georgia. Hopefully, he will do it faster this time, but Cal fans will not give him a long leash.

Being under . 500 in conference is not breaking .500 in conference.

Yes, I am well aware Fox was a winning coach in a minor conference over a decade ago. Lots of people have already brought it up.

The difference between Fox and Decure is that Decure hasn't yet proven he can't win at the next level.


He took over an awful team. He improved the team. His last five years were better than the first. He had a winning conference record in the last five years.
He only had one sub. 500 year in the last five, which resulted in him being fired. If he can improve his recruiting, he will be successful at Cal. His first step should be making sure the core players do not transfer.



Hilarious how you split that up and how you word that. (One sub .500 record in his last 5.)

He had a losing conference record over his last 3 years. Years 7, 8, and 9. The record was 10-8, 9-9, and 7-11. You can't blame years 7, 8, and 9 on a program build. His conference record got worse every year his last 4 years.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Civil Bear said:

oski003 said:


He took over an awful team. He improved the team. His last five years were better than the first. He had a winning conference record in the last five years.
He only had one sub. 500 year in the last five, which resulted in him being fired. If he can improve his recruiting, he will be successful at Cal. His first step should be making sure the core players do not transfer.

Fox got fired at Georgia because he wasn't successful enough. If middling success is what you want for Cal, then he's your man.


Obviously, my expectations aren't high enough. A coach with success at low levels will always seem to have more potential than a coach who plateaued at a high level. SARCASM.

Hiring a coach is not always about who maybe could possibly take us to the final four. What round did Montana get to? Sometimes you grind up. I'm sorry if you've experienced too many bad seasons to have faith in the process. Perhaps Fox's Team USA experience helps with recruiting. He can coach.


Can you tell me what the process is that we are supposed to trust?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

stu said:

AKBear said:

I'm also hoping that the Bears get some size on the team and find some way to balance out their roster. Too small and too many players in one class.
The way I see it we'll have, assuming no defections:
PG: Austin (SR), Brown (FR)
SG: Bradley (SO), Harris-Dyson (JR), Smith (FR)
SF: Sueing (JR), Gordon (SO)
PF: Anticevich (JR), Kelly (SO), Thorpe (FR), Davis (maybe)
C: Vanover (SO)

I think another C would be nice and I'd certainly appreciate more talent, but if Gordon is healthy I'd say that roster looks reasonably well balanced both by position and by class.

I'd be surprised if our new coaches could pull in any quality recruits this late. I'd love to land a grad transfer stretch four and to save the scholarships for 2020.



I actually think it's a roster than has tons of room for improvement with competent coaching. I'd love to see the staff bring in a MSF type grad transfer.

I think next year is a golden opportunity for fox to impress. He's going to come in with a lot of energy and with a roster that has more talent than their record indicates. I actually expect fox to really develop these guys and have a surprisingly good year (I'm actually expecting an NIT bid)

It's not next year I'm actually worried about. It's year 3-4 (with his own recruits and where expectations are going to rise) where we will see if fox was the right hire.




Good post. Agreed.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

oski003 said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Civil Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

oski003 said:

The worst part about this is the United States was letting a losing coach be involved in its international basketball program. This sort of thing is usually assigned to elite coaches. If the USA has such low standards, why do we expect Cal, an academically oriented institution, to have higher standards?
This is good. You manage to insult a country, its international basketball program, a coach, and maybe a university, all in one short post.

Are you talking about Fox? If so, what is your definition of a losing coach? In 14 seasons, Fox had 11 winning seasons, only 3 losing seasons and .619 winning percentage. His first losing season was set up by inheriting a 12-20 team that lost some starters. Fox may or may not be a lot of things, but he is not a losing coach. He just hasn't won enough for some Cal fans to be considered for the head job at Cal.

A winning coach is one that can break . 500 in his conference.
OK, so he is a .500 coach in his last conference. A losing coach by your definition is a coach who loses more games than he wins, so Fox is not a losing coach, in conference. He was not a losing coach overall at Georgia, as he has a .551 record. Considering his time at Nevada, he was 64-16 in conference in five years, a .800 winning percentage. He is an overall winning coach in his two conferences, a .600 winning percentage.

It is one thing I don't see mentioned much about Fox, if at all. His time at Reno. As if it never happened. The WAC is not a chopped liver conference. Those in favor of Decuire (whose good record in the Big Sky is not as good as Fox's in the WAC - Fox with 4 Conference titles in 5 years vs 2 titles for DeCuire in 5 years) should consider Fox's early record. And the WAC is a stronger conference by almost any measure, SOS, BPI, etc.

Fox began his career at Georgia hoping to straighten out the mess left by previous coach Dennis Felton, who had 6 losing seasons in 6 years in conference, and a conference win percentage of .302. Fox's .500 probably looked good compared to that. It took Fox 2 years to have a winning season in conference, and 3 more years to become competitive, with his 3 best seasons in conference in a row, 12, 11, and 10 wins. Maybe one reason he was hired was that he had turned a program around before at Georgia. Hopefully, he will do it faster this time, but Cal fans will not give him a long leash.

Being under . 500 in conference is not breaking .500 in conference.

Yes, I am well aware Fox was a winning coach in a minor conference over a decade ago. Lots of people have already brought it up.

The difference between Fox and Decure is that Decure hasn't yet proven he can't win at the next level.


He took over an awful team. He improved the team. His last five years were better than the first. He had a winning conference record in the last five years.
He only had one sub. 500 year in the last five, which resulted in him being fired. If he can improve his recruiting, he will be successful at Cal. His first step should be making sure the core players do not transfer.



Hilarious how you split that up and how you word that. (One sub .500 record in his last 5.)

He had a losing conference record over his last 3 years. Years 7, 8, and 9. The record was 10-8, 9-9, and 7-11. You can't blame years 7, 8, and 9 on a program build. His conference record got worse every year his last 4 years.
For context (take it for what you will) his year there were 4 top 25 teams in the SEC. He played 7 games against them (in the regular season). He actually did pretty well against those teams. He struggled against the teams in the middle (all bunched up between 18 and 22 wins). A bunch of those games were close. A few bounces the other way and Fox is probably still in Athens and not on the beach.

In the end this is a Cal hire and where we are right now. We could either have taken a risk on a mid-major like Travis, hoping that he could really go from the best program (track record of success) in a VERY weak low-major conference or a P5 with some baggage.

Fox's key issue (and it transcends wins and losses) is whether he will be able to assist in getting the practice facility done. Even if he struggles and ultimately we move on, if we get the facility done the program will be in a lot better shape. And I am not sure he DOES struggle. Given his track record he definitely knows X and Os and can teach. Even if he is middling in recruiting it will get us back to about Braun levels. That won't make me HAPPY but at least it is better than the dumpster fire we are coming off of. Brick by Brick.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


Can you tell me what the process is that we are supposed to trust?

If it's to hope to be near .500 in 9 years, then no thanks.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.