Taking a step back, it really is night & day, the Fox era vs the Wyking era. Wyking had more talent on hand, but regularly losing to div 2 teams, and blowouts at the hands of mid-level schools should have been grounds for immediate divorce. Fox has the team playing close with the best in the conference, in spite of the ravaging the program took prior to his arrival. Objectively a giant leap.
Two different shades of black, one every bit as hopeless as the other. At least with Wyking, the futility was so dramatic it forced the hand of the athletic department. With Fox, we just suffer a longer death.
I'm one of those fair weather fans... But every now and then a program gets lucky - a highly ranked local prospect like an Ivan Rabb or Jason Kidd decides they want to stay local, or a late bloomer turns into a star once they're in college. And in basketball, in theory, you don't need as many standouts to turn into a good team as you do in football. I think Fox started in a really really hard place, the program was so down after Jones. Can he gradually attract higher level recruits? Maybe?! A little luck would help. Perhaps more focus on recruiting overseas?
After a season like ours, 12th places, fewer wins, etc, it’s understandable that fan interest is down and the short term outlook bleak
But there was one big hopeful sign... Chancellor Christ
Christ is the best Chancellor Cal has had in decades, and that includes for athletics
She is moving us to a different Title IX qualification prong (a change in strategy) requiring the (needed) SB, BVB facility upgrades, and moved a huge portion of the stadium debt off athletics books
That debt has tied our hands to do a lot of things and took a lot of negotiation with other stakeholders of the university
That debt was a major ‘institutional’ problem, although self-inflicted
Unfortunately just as that burden was lifted, we get hit by COVID which necessitated funding to be diverted to recover losses
Christ didn’t create the stadium debt problem, nor the COVID crises, nor the Title IX situation
But in a short time has developed a plan to deal with all three, plus made it easier to support grad transfers with the creation of one year grad certificate programs
But she is not a miracle worker. She needs time to clean up those messes (the biggest one was already fixed — stadium debt)
Then we can move forward with more institutional support
Fans look at Ws and Ls. That didn’t happen in this crazy year
But I’m optimistic that cal will support athletics better than in the past ... as long as Chris is our Chancellor
While I do think that, given the circumstances, Mark Fox deserves at least another season to see if he can lift the program back onto an upward trajectory, I also think the AD really needs to sit down with Fox and understand a) what's the plan to get to good, and b) how plausible is that plan, given the results so far? Given the first two years' worth of results, what are the odds that the program ends up posting results over the next five years that are similar to, say, Ben Braun's tenure? Is that the ceiling for the program right now? Is that enough?
If Fox were injected with truth serum, his plan to get good would be "fire me, hire one of the top 5 coaches in current college basketball". Short of that, the players needed to get Cal good are not coming to Cal. Therefore, Cal will not be good for the 2020's. That is, unless we luck out and score a recruiting class with a few Jared Goff-style talents who grew up adoring Cal and would not consider playing anywhere else.
+ Many. This is really a systemic issue that goes FAR beyond Mark Fox and isn't about platitudes from the the Chancellor or JK.
It really comes down to where, OBJECTIVELY and without the platitudes, MBB (and to a certain extent woman's BB) fits into the Cal hierarchy.
There is an instructive data point here. With the capacity to raise $15 million for the Legends Aquatic Center it is clear there is a group of alumni that are dedicated and financially invested in the swim, waterpolo and diving programs. It is VERY doubtful that a coach in either mens or womans aquatics would be hired with the same pedigree as W. Jones. Indeed, one could argued that Durden is essentially the coach K of men's swimming and, when they retire, they will be likely replaced by equally accomplished coaches. Ditto McKeever. Why? Because a group of influential donors, who put their money where their mouth is, simply would insist and "make it happen".
The thing that bloggers (and consumers of bloggers) don't really know is whether there is a similar group of donors invested in men's hoops. For those that remember way back on another blog, Shockey was probably the closest window most of us had into that world.
And sadly, the reality is, that if actions are indicative of behind the scenes calculations it could be the case for that a LONG time Cal just can't find a justification for prioritizing hoop. You could easily argue that the Monty years were an outlier - we will never know for sure but it could have been that Monty fell into Sandy's lap and, once sure that he would say yes, pulled the trigger on firing BB. Otherwise, really since 1960 there hasn't been an investment in this sport.
And finally, also for a depressing monday - there is a contrast here. Hoop MATTERS down at Westwood. Lots of (championship) reasons why. Might matter too much. Pauley is right there on campus and central to UCLA. And you know what, they prioritize it and don't put handcuffs on their program. I might be wrong but no way Ball gets to come to Cal. Welcomed, warts and all, down at the Southern Branch.
And interestingly, football probably is reversed. Because UCLA doesn't have an oncampus stadium and because it always is second fiddle to U$C, UCLA can get away and does with sorta a joke of a program. Chipster is failing because the kind of kids he needs to make it work are NOT coming to a UC compared to offers from the SEC or Nike U. But CMS is important to Cal and, even after a couple of subpar seasons, Tedford got canned because there ARE alumni that care deeply about football and would pay for Sonny's buyout and Wilcox. THey are paying for his raises and extensions. And while most of us want Wilcox to step up his game generally speaking the program seems to be headed in the right direction (I am giving COVID19 year a big asterix because I think it impossible to really understand our performance given all the weirdo restrictions and how City of Berkeley chose to impose higher standards than other jurisdictions).
Sorry for the lengthy response. Love Cal hoops but it is hard to when you see just how (un) important it is to the leadership at the AD and the University.
This is no doubt all true. You may remember the athletic department basically played a game of chicken with donors to pony up for a buyout of Wyking or else he was coming back for a third year. At this point you have to wonder how tapped out those donors are, and whether they are willing to do the same so quickly on top of Wyking, and commit to enough resources to hire a more promising (and expensive) candidate in is place. I wonder how much Barclay Simpson played in much of the behind-the-scenes machinations of Cal athletics. It seemed like he was basically underwriting the entire university up to his death in 2014. I don't know what was left to the university, but that was a huge loss.
I'm assuming the donor class are all in the market & therefore flush with cash, so now is the time to sell, lock in those gains, and find/buy a coach willing work for $10M/yr.
The money was lined up for a dedicated practice facility for men's hoops. The bungling of the Cuonzo situation, the Wyking hiring/firing, and the lackluster appeal of Fox have caused donors to tighten up the purse strings. That and the money that had been initially raised couldn't legally be spent due to Title IX constraints that required priority investment and upgrades to the women's facilities (field hockey, softball, beach volleyball) before the university could move forward with a men's bball facility. There's a lot of moving pieces.
I had drinks with a certain assistant coach (who is now a head coach elsewhere) who was really excited about the already secured funding for the practice facility. He spent 30 minutes talking about it and how it would be like what the football team was doing up at memorial.
Good point. Cal undoubtedly excels in the Olympic sports...unfortunately, those do not generate revenue for the department or the school. Football and basketball are revenue sports, and you have to invest in them. Most fans would agree that graduating kids is great, but the $$$ that comes from making the Tournament is also great. A lot of schools can do both, just not Cal.
Well that is because of a somewhat narrow view of revenue. It COULD be the case that frankly there are whale donors that simply insist on the investment in Swim. Now we can argue that even with that it pales in comparison to hoop but there is a REASON we built a swim complex unrivaled in the Pac 12 ;-)
Also for the vast majority of schools BB isn't a great money maker. Not a loser but football is really the straw that stirs the drink - in part because the NCAA and the conferences siphon off the big money makers - the post-season.
great post Nick - I've enjoyed reading your articles throughout the season. I think Fox needs more time. I really thought he had things going the right way during the first season, and while my enthusiasm waned this year, I'm content with chalking that up to COVID. If we were to look for a new coach in the next few years, I think Dutcher would be an interesting candidate. Not sure how the salary would compare but I like to think Pac-12 vs MW would be somewhat appealing to him. Thanks for all your work this season and Go Bears
I don't see it. I don't see the talent coming in, I don't see the roster developing, and I don't see us remotely able to replace a guy like Matt Bradley. There's nothing to indicate a turnaround.
He did. You could say that for nearly a decade or so, Fisher made SDSU into a west coast power comparable to U of A and Gonzaga. Hard to say if Dutcher is their Mark Few yet, but I think it would be hard to lure him to Berkeley given they've already shown they can have sustained success at the highest levels. You'd have to overpay and I don't see Cal getting into that game.
Plus it isn't at all clear he translates. SDSU's APR is fairly ugly (last time I checked) at this is graduating from SDSU ;-) Trust me, not a high bar.
It really feels like we need a guy who 1) "gets" cal (Travis, Gates, Shantey?, the Video boy) or at least UC (Turner). I really think one of the reasons for Wilcox's level of success (still needs to do more but trending right) is that he didn't have to learn from scratch the strangeness that is Cal and could come in without spending months pounding head against wall.
But maybe Fox turns it around. Arguably it was impossible to sign a good class his first year given late start and this year has been a strange one for recruiting. But bottom line is that he HAS to produce recruiting wins next year for him to be a round past year 3 or 4.
I totally agree, though Campinelli and Braun were pretty far flung hires and were both totally content to stick here till retirement if we had let them. I think they might have seen the bureaucracy, inertia as a benifit, as it provided them a certain type of cover. But for all your reasoning, it makes our ambivalence to interviewing Gates over two searches malpractice. Turner made some insensitive comments a couple of years that pretty much disqualified him from consideration here. Side note: I think we're still really vulnerable with Wilcox jumping for Oregon at some point down the road if he's as good as we hope he is. Feels inevitable to me really. Basically the entire staff has Ore ties. True about SDSU, was just making the case that they have been really good. I wouldn't send my kid there.
I figure Dutcher it going to be heavily recruited by a P5 with deeper pockets and less focus on academics. Honestly, I would NOT be surprised to see the powers that be in Tuscon cut ties with donught boy as a sacrifice to the NCAA and take a run at him.
Cal has no chance at Dutcher. He waited 5+ years to take the reins from Steve Fisher and seems pretty happy in San Diego. The only place I could really see him leaving for would be Minnesota, where his dad coached. He's actually got a clause in his current contract giving Minnesota a discounted buyout.
Also, like others have said, it'd be much better to get a coach more familiar with Cal.
I'm continually amazed Miller is still there. He must have a trove of compromising photos hiding under his bed or something. Not sold on Dutcher yet. Too hard to tell if how much he has benfitted from the fumes Fisher left behind.
There's some sort of money issue with buying Miller out - and the chatter is that Arizona just prefers to have him coach one more year and then finish? And then apparently he has a super good class coming in next year too? I dunno - it's all twitter discussion.
I expect once Miller goes, they'll make a run for Josh Pastner. I don't think he's a great coach, but he is beloved there, seems like he is intent on climbing the ranks and is a good (and shady) recruiter.
SDSU (would have) earned two 2 seeds in the past decade (2011, 2020). They're a close third behind Arizona in terms of West Coast dominance, and inarguably the best team in California over that time period.
We're talking about the last decade. Of course if you go back far enough UCLA would be more dominant. Hell, If you go back far enough you could even make a case for USF. But that's not the case we're arguing.
I grew up six rows behind the bench at Harmon. My dad was an alum and those experiences at Harmon (and Memorial) cemented my own desire to go to Cal, which I was fortunately able to do. MBB was appointment television for me for decades. If I couldn't get it on the tube, I'd listen to the games on the radio. As my dad was dying from cancer, our last shared experience before we had to hit the morphine drip was listening to Cal beat Stanford in Leon Powe's final year. To lose a fan like me, you really have to work hard at it. Today I don't generally pay much attention. I'll watch games if I'm aware that they are happening and I'm free, but I'm not scheduling around them. And I stopped buying season tickets a few years back. I've been around long enough to experience a few lean periods for MBB, but there's never been as much apathy around the program as there is today--apathy not only on the part of fans, but of the administration itself. I don't subscribe to the belief that you necessarily have to make a devil's bargain to have a winning basketball program. I think we've proved that at times in our own basketball history. And what Fox is contributing as far as simply maintaining a roster of student athletes should be a baseline expectation. If you're not viewing him against the content of Wyking his success in that regard, there is really nothing unusual happening.
We share a similar story though one of my dad's last memories was the Jason K. beating the Duke. Up to Jones hire I would RELIGIOUSLY build my weekly schedule around watching Cal BB. Now I don't even care because the administration has shown THEY don't care.
I was even holding onto Comcast just for the Pac-12 network. I finally came to the realization that the good times are not coming back any time soon, so cut the cord finally just recently.
Sort of a fork in the road for the program. The good news is that 5 scholies are needed to make an excellent team, far easier to do a rebuild than in football. Still, if Fox can't recruit that becomes unlikely and problematic.
I don't under the sentiment that Cuonzo was bad for Cal. He was able to get great players to come to Cal and ultimately allowed the Athletics department to make money both on tickets from his time as a head coach and on his buyout when he left.
Had his team done better that tournament (and not have everyone missing for a variety of reasons and lost in the first round), Cuonzo would have had even more suitors.
The takeaway from the Cuonzo Martin era for me is the reminder that it is relatively easy to turn around a basketball program...if you can recruit.
While the program can make a lot of money, the real, Cal Athletics department saving kind of money, still have to come from football. Only the Dukes, North Carolinas, Kentuckys are truly profitable and they still don't make anywhere close to what Ohio State/Michigan/Texas make for football.
You Cuonzo apologist make me want to puke. It has nothing to do with the Hawaii game, his personality, etc. Personally, I like the dude; he was a great recruiter and mentor; maybe not all that great of a tactical coach, but still a good coach, overall. Missouri made him an offer he could not refuse; nobody doubts that. What bothers me is that you refuse to acknowledge that him leaving was the ultimate source of our current problem. Both Wyking and Fox inherited terrible roster situations. Martin left nothing, really. So stop blaming White and Jones, and Knowlton and Fox. They have not contributed to solving the problem, but they are correlated not causative.
Wyking essentially gutted the quality of play and the roster for the next two years, insuring that the next guy (Fox) would inherit a team lacking in enough talent to compete, therefore fewer wins, therefore not as attractive a landing spot for recruits. Digging out of a hole like that is very tough if you don't have the bucks to attract a name coach.
Not really going to defend Wyking, but he recruited Vanover, Sueing, Bradley, McNeil, and Gordon (who just never really recovered). Fox's recruits on the other hand have had issues even seeing the court.
What you say is true, but even though one is not supposed to have one, I have a litmus test for the quality of players: could they start for any of the top 4 teams in the league. That's where we want to be, yes? Vanover: no. He was a presence on defense, but with no bulk (and a frame that would not accept much) he would have been pushed around by the likes of Battey and the more athletic bigs in the league. And it's a shame that he was such a superb 3-pt shooter as that's not where we needed him. Sueing: maybe. He was a force on offense but while at Cal, but played only enough defense to not get fired. Bradley: yes. He made the sophomore jump and could play for anybody, and keeps getting better. McNeil: no. Wonderful athlete, but inconsistent. Gordon: no. Work in progress that never materialized. Good recruits, but not a sure thing in the bunch. UCLA, UA, UO all get at least one sure thing in every class. Fox was hamstrung in recruiting by inheriting a really bad record, so not being a guy that high school kids swoon to play for, is recruiting from a substantial disadvantage.
But him leaving is not really anyone's fault other than Cal's. We didn't give him the tools or the money to want to stay long term. For the record, I don't know if he was the best fit long term for Cal either, but that's neither here nor there. Coaches come and go *all the damn time*.
Moreover, he didn't force us to hire either Wyking or Fox. That's completely on Cal's incompetent administration. So yeah, his leaving precipitated a situation, and *Cal* handled it poorly. They could have hired someone good to replace him; they just DIDN'T. How is that his fault?
Not only would it have been unusual for him to stay, I'd argue it would have been unprecedented. Point to a coach that has turned down that kind of scratch without his current program giving him a comparable raise. If there is an example, it's an outlier. I'm not sure why Cuonzo of all coaches would be expected to be the one to buck this trend.
Yeah, none of this makes any sense. First of all, that Cuonzo's "ego" was the problem and not Cal's lack of support for the basketball program, while Cuonzo had secured the best recruiting class and NCAA seed that Cal had seen in decades. Second, the idea that Cuonzo, who let me remind you, left Cal because he was coveted enough to be hired away for a huge pay raise at the flagship school of his home state, not because he was fired in ignominy... is the definitive reason for this guy to not follow Cal basketball in 2021, two coaches and several years later, is perverse and nonsensical. It sounds more like some sort of personal grudge or animus. Was Cuonzo rude to him, or did he sleep with this guy's wife or something? Or is there something else about him that rubs him the wrong way?
I couldn't agree more. The anti-Cuonzo sentiment has always seemed off to me. He's not the second coming of Pete Newell, but he was and is very competant at his job, and I thought handled all of his responsibilities as a head coach with class. Yet there's more vitriol for him than the guys that took the bags and can't actually do their jobs particularly well--and those who hired them. He left us for another suitor willing to pay twice as much. If Cal had any loyalty to him, they'd pony up to keep him. That's the way it works.
It is people with bad taste of the Hawaii game. Wins that (and likely the next one) and people are building statues of him. Also Dirks screwed up some of the special admits zo wanted. Lets be blunt - if Money can make it at Cal other kids deserve the chance.
It happens. Virginia didn't have the same disadvantages Cal had against Hawaii and lost to a #16. They won the national championship the following year. Is Bennett a good or a bad coach? Two years before the Hawaii Cuonzo was cutting cutting down nets after taking an on-the-bubble Tennessee team to a Sweet Sixteen. Viewing his tenure through the lens of that one loss seems pretty fraught any way you spin it.
Guilty as charged, Nick. I have a hard time watching my Bears lose or play hapless ball against outmatched competitors. I love WBB, but haven’t watched a game in a long time as it breaks my heart when they get pounded (and dunked on). The MBB games I have watched this year have been a ton of fun for the reasons U point to above, but I often know the outcome before turning on the game. I hope to watch more of both MBB and WBB down the road, both to support my team but also because it will hopefully become less painful.....
5th approach: Keep Fox (who I believe is a competent coach, but not a magnetic recruiter), fire all of the assistants, and hire dads of 5* high school players to fill all of the assistant roles, regardless of whether they coach basketball or not. If real estate is location*3, basketball is talent*5.
The fourth approach, which I don't think Cal has ever tried (though I don't know the background of most prior Cal coaches, certainly none before the previous twenty years or so), is to hire a coach from a lower divisions Division 1 school who has no prior experience at Cal.
Ben Braun and Lou Campenelli both fit this background,
The challenge with the non P-5 Ben Braun approach is that you HAVE to get a coach who actually "gets" a place that is academics first. Arguably some (many?) of the non-P5 are actually LESS focused on Academics than some of the questionable P5 schools because hoop success drives applications, drives USA Today rankings (Call this the Boise State model). The first time they get wacked by the "admission denied" stick at Cal feels like it would be an eyeopener.
Some of this is just woodstove talk. Fox is CLEARLY going to get a third year....and probably a 4th. But this is who is coach. King for the day I would ask
1) Who can get the practice facility built? Honestly this goes right up to the edge of asking donors "who do you want?" My understanding is that the Video Boy was a top choice. That irks me to no end (so bush what he did with Jorge and makes Turners stuff pale) but c'est la vi. Hold nose and suffer. Plus having the UCSB experience is critical.
2) How in the heck can can get more grad program on line with accepting grad transfers. This really is a problem and puts Cal at a huge disadvantage against other Pac-12 programs that will/can admit BB players into any of their programs. Haas School of business looking at you.
Another issue to contend with is that simply being a P5 school is not what it once was. The P5 conferences have all expanded. At the same time the mid-majors have kind of broken the glass ceiling. This makes the coaching landscape far more competitive for us. In 80s, 90s, and aughts, you could make the case that a potential candidate might overlook a lot of Cal's warts because you needed to be in a P5 to recruit and have a legitimate chance of competing at a high level. Today it feels like you can have success nearly anywhere as long as there is support. There's still obviously an advantage to playing in the Pac-12, but it's not what it once was. Which to your point is all to say getting that practice facility and trying to do everything else around the edges to make the program more attractive is really critical.
"The fourth approach, which I don't think Cal has ever tried (though I don't know the background of most prior Cal coaches, certainly none before the previous twenty years or so), is to hire a coach from a lower divisions Division 1 school who has no prior experience at Cal."
This would be the Ben Braun route, wouldn't it? It was a pretty good hire, all things considered, although it unfortunately rather tailed off at the end.
Taking a step back, it really is night & day, the Fox era vs the Wyking era. Wyking had more talent on hand, but regularly losing to div 2 teams, and blowouts at the hands of mid-level schools should have been grounds for immediate divorce. Fox has the team playing close with the best in the conference, in spite of the ravaging the program took prior to his arrival. Objectively a giant leap.
Two different shades of black, one every bit as hopeless as the other. At least with Wyking, the futility was so dramatic it forced the hand of the athletic department. With Fox, we just suffer a longer death.
I'm one of those fair weather fans... But every now and then a program gets lucky - a highly ranked local prospect like an Ivan Rabb or Jason Kidd decides they want to stay local, or a late bloomer turns into a star once they're in college. And in basketball, in theory, you don't need as many standouts to turn into a good team as you do in football. I think Fox started in a really really hard place, the program was so down after Jones. Can he gradually attract higher level recruits? Maybe?! A little luck would help. Perhaps more focus on recruiting overseas?
After a season like ours, 12th places, fewer wins, etc, it’s understandable that fan interest is down and the short term outlook bleak
But there was one big hopeful sign... Chancellor Christ
Christ is the best Chancellor Cal has had in decades, and that includes for athletics
She is moving us to a different Title IX qualification prong (a change in strategy) requiring the (needed) SB, BVB facility upgrades, and moved a huge portion of the stadium debt off athletics books
That debt has tied our hands to do a lot of things and took a lot of negotiation with other stakeholders of the university
That debt was a major ‘institutional’ problem, although self-inflicted
Unfortunately just as that burden was lifted, we get hit by COVID which necessitated funding to be diverted to recover losses
Christ didn’t create the stadium debt problem, nor the COVID crises, nor the Title IX situation
But in a short time has developed a plan to deal with all three, plus made it easier to support grad transfers with the creation of one year grad certificate programs
But she is not a miracle worker. She needs time to clean up those messes (the biggest one was already fixed — stadium debt)
Then we can move forward with more institutional support
Fans look at Ws and Ls. That didn’t happen in this crazy year
But I’m optimistic that cal will support athletics better than in the past ... as long as Chris is our Chancellor
While I do think that, given the circumstances, Mark Fox deserves at least another season to see if he can lift the program back onto an upward trajectory, I also think the AD really needs to sit down with Fox and understand a) what's the plan to get to good, and b) how plausible is that plan, given the results so far? Given the first two years' worth of results, what are the odds that the program ends up posting results over the next five years that are similar to, say, Ben Braun's tenure? Is that the ceiling for the program right now? Is that enough?
If Fox were injected with truth serum, his plan to get good would be "fire me, hire one of the top 5 coaches in current college basketball". Short of that, the players needed to get Cal good are not coming to Cal. Therefore, Cal will not be good for the 2020's. That is, unless we luck out and score a recruiting class with a few Jared Goff-style talents who grew up adoring Cal and would not consider playing anywhere else.
+ Many. This is really a systemic issue that goes FAR beyond Mark Fox and isn't about platitudes from the the Chancellor or JK.
It really comes down to where, OBJECTIVELY and without the platitudes, MBB (and to a certain extent woman's BB) fits into the Cal hierarchy.
There is an instructive data point here. With the capacity to raise $15 million for the Legends Aquatic Center it is clear there is a group of alumni that are dedicated and financially invested in the swim, waterpolo and diving programs. It is VERY doubtful that a coach in either mens or womans aquatics would be hired with the same pedigree as W. Jones. Indeed, one could argued that Durden is essentially the coach K of men's swimming and, when they retire, they will be likely replaced by equally accomplished coaches. Ditto McKeever. Why? Because a group of influential donors, who put their money where their mouth is, simply would insist and "make it happen".
The thing that bloggers (and consumers of bloggers) don't really know is whether there is a similar group of donors invested in men's hoops. For those that remember way back on another blog, Shockey was probably the closest window most of us had into that world.
And sadly, the reality is, that if actions are indicative of behind the scenes calculations it could be the case for that a LONG time Cal just can't find a justification for prioritizing hoop. You could easily argue that the Monty years were an outlier - we will never know for sure but it could have been that Monty fell into Sandy's lap and, once sure that he would say yes, pulled the trigger on firing BB. Otherwise, really since 1960 there hasn't been an investment in this sport.
And finally, also for a depressing monday - there is a contrast here. Hoop MATTERS down at Westwood. Lots of (championship) reasons why. Might matter too much. Pauley is right there on campus and central to UCLA. And you know what, they prioritize it and don't put handcuffs on their program. I might be wrong but no way Ball gets to come to Cal. Welcomed, warts and all, down at the Southern Branch.
And interestingly, football probably is reversed. Because UCLA doesn't have an oncampus stadium and because it always is second fiddle to U$C, UCLA can get away and does with sorta a joke of a program. Chipster is failing because the kind of kids he needs to make it work are NOT coming to a UC compared to offers from the SEC or Nike U. But CMS is important to Cal and, even after a couple of subpar seasons, Tedford got canned because there ARE alumni that care deeply about football and would pay for Sonny's buyout and Wilcox. THey are paying for his raises and extensions. And while most of us want Wilcox to step up his game generally speaking the program seems to be headed in the right direction (I am giving COVID19 year a big asterix because I think it impossible to really understand our performance given all the weirdo restrictions and how City of Berkeley chose to impose higher standards than other jurisdictions).
Sorry for the lengthy response. Love Cal hoops but it is hard to when you see just how (un) important it is to the leadership at the AD and the University.
This is no doubt all true. You may remember the athletic department basically played a game of chicken with donors to pony up for a buyout of Wyking or else he was coming back for a third year. At this point you have to wonder how tapped out those donors are, and whether they are willing to do the same so quickly on top of Wyking, and commit to enough resources to hire a more promising (and expensive) candidate in is place. I wonder how much Barclay Simpson played in much of the behind-the-scenes machinations of Cal athletics. It seemed like he was basically underwriting the entire university up to his death in 2014. I don't know what was left to the university, but that was a huge loss.
I'm assuming the donor class are all in the market & therefore flush with cash, so now is the time to sell, lock in those gains, and find/buy a coach willing work for $10M/yr.
The money was lined up for a dedicated practice facility for men's hoops. The bungling of the Cuonzo situation, the Wyking hiring/firing, and the lackluster appeal of Fox have caused donors to tighten up the purse strings. That and the money that had been initially raised couldn't legally be spent due to Title IX constraints that required priority investment and upgrades to the women's facilities (field hockey, softball, beach volleyball) before the university could move forward with a men's bball facility. There's a lot of moving pieces.
I had drinks with a certain assistant coach (who is now a head coach elsewhere) who was really excited about the already secured funding for the practice facility. He spent 30 minutes talking about it and how it would be like what the football team was doing up at memorial.
Good point. Cal undoubtedly excels in the Olympic sports...unfortunately, those do not generate revenue for the department or the school. Football and basketball are revenue sports, and you have to invest in them. Most fans would agree that graduating kids is great, but the $$$ that comes from making the Tournament is also great. A lot of schools can do both, just not Cal.
Well that is because of a somewhat narrow view of revenue. It COULD be the case that frankly there are whale donors that simply insist on the investment in Swim. Now we can argue that even with that it pales in comparison to hoop but there is a REASON we built a swim complex unrivaled in the Pac 12 ;-)
Also for the vast majority of schools BB isn't a great money maker. Not a loser but football is really the straw that stirs the drink - in part because the NCAA and the conferences siphon off the big money makers - the post-season.
great post Nick - I've enjoyed reading your articles throughout the season. I think Fox needs more time. I really thought he had things going the right way during the first season, and while my enthusiasm waned this year, I'm content with chalking that up to COVID. If we were to look for a new coach in the next few years, I think Dutcher would be an interesting candidate. Not sure how the salary would compare but I like to think Pac-12 vs MW would be somewhat appealing to him. Thanks for all your work this season and Go Bears
Fox needs more time... to do what, exactly?
Ideally to turn the program around. Don't think it's fair to judge him based off of two seasons, one of which was effected by COVID.
I don't see it. I don't see the talent coming in, I don't see the roster developing, and I don't see us remotely able to replace a guy like Matt Bradley. There's nothing to indicate a turnaround.
He did. You could say that for nearly a decade or so, Fisher made SDSU into a west coast power comparable to U of A and Gonzaga. Hard to say if Dutcher is their Mark Few yet, but I think it would be hard to lure him to Berkeley given they've already shown they can have sustained success at the highest levels. You'd have to overpay and I don't see Cal getting into that game.
Plus it isn't at all clear he translates. SDSU's APR is fairly ugly (last time I checked) at this is graduating from SDSU ;-) Trust me, not a high bar.
It really feels like we need a guy who 1) "gets" cal (Travis, Gates, Shantey?, the Video boy) or at least UC (Turner). I really think one of the reasons for Wilcox's level of success (still needs to do more but trending right) is that he didn't have to learn from scratch the strangeness that is Cal and could come in without spending months pounding head against wall.
But maybe Fox turns it around. Arguably it was impossible to sign a good class his first year given late start and this year has been a strange one for recruiting. But bottom line is that he HAS to produce recruiting wins next year for him to be a round past year 3 or 4.
I totally agree, though Campinelli and Braun were pretty far flung hires and were both totally content to stick here till retirement if we had let them. I think they might have seen the bureaucracy, inertia as a benifit, as it provided them a certain type of cover. But for all your reasoning, it makes our ambivalence to interviewing Gates over two searches malpractice. Turner made some insensitive comments a couple of years that pretty much disqualified him from consideration here. Side note: I think we're still really vulnerable with Wilcox jumping for Oregon at some point down the road if he's as good as we hope he is. Feels inevitable to me really. Basically the entire staff has Ore ties. True about SDSU, was just making the case that they have been really good. I wouldn't send my kid there.
I figure Dutcher it going to be heavily recruited by a P5 with deeper pockets and less focus on academics. Honestly, I would NOT be surprised to see the powers that be in Tuscon cut ties with donught boy as a sacrifice to the NCAA and take a run at him.
Cal has no chance at Dutcher. He waited 5+ years to take the reins from Steve Fisher and seems pretty happy in San Diego. The only place I could really see him leaving for would be Minnesota, where his dad coached. He's actually got a clause in his current contract giving Minnesota a discounted buyout.
Also, like others have said, it'd be much better to get a coach more familiar with Cal.
I'm continually amazed Miller is still there. He must have a trove of compromising photos hiding under his bed or something. Not sold on Dutcher yet. Too hard to tell if how much he has benfitted from the fumes Fisher left behind.
There's some sort of money issue with buying Miller out - and the chatter is that Arizona just prefers to have him coach one more year and then finish? And then apparently he has a super good class coming in next year too? I dunno - it's all twitter discussion.
I expect once Miller goes, they'll make a run for Josh Pastner. I don't think he's a great coach, but he is beloved there, seems like he is intent on climbing the ranks and is a good (and shady) recruiter.
SDSU (would have) earned two 2 seeds in the past decade (2011, 2020). They're a close third behind Arizona in terms of West Coast dominance, and inarguably the best team in California over that time period.
They finished last year ranked number #6. Besides Gonzaga and U of A, what other west coast program has been as dominant? UCLA? Oregon?
We're talking about the last decade. Of course if you go back far enough UCLA would be more dominant. Hell, If you go back far enough you could even make a case for USF. But that's not the case we're arguing.
I grew up six rows behind the bench at Harmon. My dad was an alum and those experiences at Harmon (and Memorial) cemented my own desire to go to Cal, which I was fortunately able to do. MBB was appointment television for me for decades. If I couldn't get it on the tube, I'd listen to the games on the radio. As my dad was dying from cancer, our last shared experience before we had to hit the morphine drip was listening to Cal beat Stanford in Leon Powe's final year. To lose a fan like me, you really have to work hard at it. Today I don't generally pay much attention. I'll watch games if I'm aware that they are happening and I'm free, but I'm not scheduling around them. And I stopped buying season tickets a few years back. I've been around long enough to experience a few lean periods for MBB, but there's never been as much apathy around the program as there is today--apathy not only on the part of fans, but of the administration itself. I don't subscribe to the belief that you necessarily have to make a devil's bargain to have a winning basketball program. I think we've proved that at times in our own basketball history. And what Fox is contributing as far as simply maintaining a roster of student athletes should be a baseline expectation. If you're not viewing him against the content of Wyking his success in that regard, there is really nothing unusual happening.
We share a similar story though one of my dad's last memories was the Jason K. beating the Duke. Up to Jones hire I would RELIGIOUSLY build my weekly schedule around watching Cal BB. Now I don't even care because the administration has shown THEY don't care.
I was even holding onto Comcast just for the Pac-12 network. I finally came to the realization that the good times are not coming back any time soon, so cut the cord finally just recently.
Mike Williams set the program back a decade. A decade.
Cal excels at taking the least expensive route & hoping it works out. We don't excel at the "it works out" part.
Arguably we are at a place about as bad as when Camp was hired. So you might argue that we are talking about 30+ years.
"Since some point in the winter of 2017-18, when I bring up MBB the most common response I get from other Cal fans is “why?”
I feel seen
Sort of a fork in the road for the program. The good news is that 5 scholies are needed to make an excellent team, far easier to do a rebuild than in football. Still, if Fox can't recruit that becomes unlikely and problematic.
Conzo was the end for me. He just couldn’t get past his ego.
I don't under the sentiment that Cuonzo was bad for Cal. He was able to get great players to come to Cal and ultimately allowed the Athletics department to make money both on tickets from his time as a head coach and on his buyout when he left.
Had his team done better that tournament (and not have everyone missing for a variety of reasons and lost in the first round), Cuonzo would have had even more suitors.
The takeaway from the Cuonzo Martin era for me is the reminder that it is relatively easy to turn around a basketball program...if you can recruit.
While the program can make a lot of money, the real, Cal Athletics department saving kind of money, still have to come from football. Only the Dukes, North Carolinas, Kentuckys are truly profitable and they still don't make anywhere close to what Ohio State/Michigan/Texas make for football.
You Cuonzo apologist make me want to puke. It has nothing to do with the Hawaii game, his personality, etc. Personally, I like the dude; he was a great recruiter and mentor; maybe not all that great of a tactical coach, but still a good coach, overall. Missouri made him an offer he could not refuse; nobody doubts that. What bothers me is that you refuse to acknowledge that him leaving was the ultimate source of our current problem. Both Wyking and Fox inherited terrible roster situations. Martin left nothing, really. So stop blaming White and Jones, and Knowlton and Fox. They have not contributed to solving the problem, but they are correlated not causative.
Cuonzo left 6 years ago. How long is the roster situation supposed to last?
Wyking essentially gutted the quality of play and the roster for the next two years, insuring that the next guy (Fox) would inherit a team lacking in enough talent to compete, therefore fewer wins, therefore not as attractive a landing spot for recruits. Digging out of a hole like that is very tough if you don't have the bucks to attract a name coach.
Not really going to defend Wyking, but he recruited Vanover, Sueing, Bradley, McNeil, and Gordon (who just never really recovered). Fox's recruits on the other hand have had issues even seeing the court.
What you say is true, but even though one is not supposed to have one, I have a litmus test for the quality of players: could they start for any of the top 4 teams in the league. That's where we want to be, yes? Vanover: no. He was a presence on defense, but with no bulk (and a frame that would not accept much) he would have been pushed around by the likes of Battey and the more athletic bigs in the league. And it's a shame that he was such a superb 3-pt shooter as that's not where we needed him. Sueing: maybe. He was a force on offense but while at Cal, but played only enough defense to not get fired. Bradley: yes. He made the sophomore jump and could play for anybody, and keeps getting better. McNeil: no. Wonderful athlete, but inconsistent. Gordon: no. Work in progress that never materialized. Good recruits, but not a sure thing in the bunch. UCLA, UA, UO all get at least one sure thing in every class. Fox was hamstrung in recruiting by inheriting a really bad record, so not being a guy that high school kids swoon to play for, is recruiting from a substantial disadvantage.
But him leaving is not really anyone's fault other than Cal's. We didn't give him the tools or the money to want to stay long term. For the record, I don't know if he was the best fit long term for Cal either, but that's neither here nor there. Coaches come and go *all the damn time*.
Moreover, he didn't force us to hire either Wyking or Fox. That's completely on Cal's incompetent administration. So yeah, his leaving precipitated a situation, and *Cal* handled it poorly. They could have hired someone good to replace him; they just DIDN'T. How is that his fault?
Not only would it have been unusual for him to stay, I'd argue it would have been unprecedented. Point to a coach that has turned down that kind of scratch without his current program giving him a comparable raise. If there is an example, it's an outlier. I'm not sure why Cuonzo of all coaches would be expected to be the one to buck this trend.
Yeah, none of this makes any sense. First of all, that Cuonzo's "ego" was the problem and not Cal's lack of support for the basketball program, while Cuonzo had secured the best recruiting class and NCAA seed that Cal had seen in decades. Second, the idea that Cuonzo, who let me remind you, left Cal because he was coveted enough to be hired away for a huge pay raise at the flagship school of his home state, not because he was fired in ignominy... is the definitive reason for this guy to not follow Cal basketball in 2021, two coaches and several years later, is perverse and nonsensical. It sounds more like some sort of personal grudge or animus. Was Cuonzo rude to him, or did he sleep with this guy's wife or something? Or is there something else about him that rubs him the wrong way?
I couldn't agree more. The anti-Cuonzo sentiment has always seemed off to me. He's not the second coming of Pete Newell, but he was and is very competant at his job, and I thought handled all of his responsibilities as a head coach with class. Yet there's more vitriol for him than the guys that took the bags and can't actually do their jobs particularly well--and those who hired them. He left us for another suitor willing to pay twice as much. If Cal had any loyalty to him, they'd pony up to keep him. That's the way it works.
It is people with bad taste of the Hawaii game. Wins that (and likely the next one) and people are building statues of him. Also Dirks screwed up some of the special admits zo wanted. Lets be blunt - if Money can make it at Cal other kids deserve the chance.
It happens. Virginia didn't have the same disadvantages Cal had against Hawaii and lost to a #16. They won the national championship the following year. Is Bennett a good or a bad coach? Two years before the Hawaii Cuonzo was cutting cutting down nets after taking an on-the-bubble Tennessee team to a Sweet Sixteen. Viewing his tenure through the lens of that one loss seems pretty fraught any way you spin it.
it wasn't about the money. maybe that's the story that was put out there, but it was much more personal
Curious . . . How so?
It's been all downhill since Cuonzo couldn't beat Hawaii in the first round of the tournament.
No Jabari Bird, no Tyrone Wallace. We had Jaylen, but he turned it over 6x
. . . Or creepy Hufnagel.
I think that was a game against utah in the pac 12 tourney
Were you here for Campinelli? Montgomery too had a huge bit of ego, just more coy about it.
Guilty as charged, Nick. I have a hard time watching my Bears lose or play hapless ball against outmatched competitors. I love WBB, but haven’t watched a game in a long time as it breaks my heart when they get pounded (and dunked on). The MBB games I have watched this year have been a ton of fun for the reasons U point to above, but I often know the outcome before turning on the game. I hope to watch more of both MBB and WBB down the road, both to support my team but also because it will hopefully become less painful.....
5th approach: Keep Fox (who I believe is a competent coach, but not a magnetic recruiter), fire all of the assistants, and hire dads of 5* high school players to fill all of the assistant roles, regardless of whether they coach basketball or not. If real estate is location*3, basketball is talent*5.
The fourth approach, which I don't think Cal has ever tried (though I don't know the background of most prior Cal coaches, certainly none before the previous twenty years or so), is to hire a coach from a lower divisions Division 1 school who has no prior experience at Cal.
Ben Braun and Lou Campenelli both fit this background,
The challenge with the non P-5 Ben Braun approach is that you HAVE to get a coach who actually "gets" a place that is academics first. Arguably some (many?) of the non-P5 are actually LESS focused on Academics than some of the questionable P5 schools because hoop success drives applications, drives USA Today rankings (Call this the Boise State model). The first time they get wacked by the "admission denied" stick at Cal feels like it would be an eyeopener.
Some of this is just woodstove talk. Fox is CLEARLY going to get a third year....and probably a 4th. But this is who is coach. King for the day I would ask
1) Who can get the practice facility built? Honestly this goes right up to the edge of asking donors "who do you want?" My understanding is that the Video Boy was a top choice. That irks me to no end (so bush what he did with Jorge and makes Turners stuff pale) but c'est la vi. Hold nose and suffer. Plus having the UCSB experience is critical.
2) How in the heck can can get more grad program on line with accepting grad transfers. This really is a problem and puts Cal at a huge disadvantage against other Pac-12 programs that will/can admit BB players into any of their programs. Haas School of business looking at you.
Another issue to contend with is that simply being a P5 school is not what it once was. The P5 conferences have all expanded. At the same time the mid-majors have kind of broken the glass ceiling. This makes the coaching landscape far more competitive for us. In 80s, 90s, and aughts, you could make the case that a potential candidate might overlook a lot of Cal's warts because you needed to be in a P5 to recruit and have a legitimate chance of competing at a high level. Today it feels like you can have success nearly anywhere as long as there is support. There's still obviously an advantage to playing in the Pac-12, but it's not what it once was. Which to your point is all to say getting that practice facility and trying to do everything else around the edges to make the program more attractive is really critical.
"The fourth approach, which I don't think Cal has ever tried (though I don't know the background of most prior Cal coaches, certainly none before the previous twenty years or so), is to hire a coach from a lower divisions Division 1 school who has no prior experience at Cal."
This would be the Ben Braun route, wouldn't it? It was a pretty good hire, all things considered, although it unfortunately rather tailed off at the end.