A message for Jim Knowlton

3,360 Views | 20 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by bear2034
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:54a, 5/23/25
Staff
Reply Quote Next Staff
hermosabear9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:11p, 5/23/25
Now on YouTube!

Reply Quote
13
Fred Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 8:47p, 5/24/25
BearGreg said:
The first two songs were so successful that both guys left the team. Consequently, this song probably means Knowlton will be here for life.
Reply Quote
12
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:03a, 5/27/25
Rich Lyons wants Jim Knowlton to stay.
Reply Quote
3
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 9:23a, 5/27/25
Staff
bear2034 said:
Rich Lyons wants Jim Knowlton to stay.


No he doesn't
Reply Quote
bluehenbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 2:01p, 5/27/25
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Reply Quote
18
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bluehenbear • 4:15p, 5/27/25
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Lawyers.
Reply Quote
6
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bluehenbear • 6:13p, 5/27/25
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
Reply Quote
3
75bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 6:42p, 5/27/25
BearSD said:
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
The thing is it's going to cost the University so much more not to write the check.
Reply Quote
11
sonofabear51
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:51p, 5/27/25
F'ing ridiculous that he is still here.
Reply Quote
11
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 75bear • 12:02a, 5/28/25
75bear said:
BearSD said:
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
The thing is it's going to cost the University so much more not to write the check.
Knowlton's contract and Wilcox's contract are merely symptoms of the real problem with our Bears trying to run with the big dogs of college football. The real problem is that our folks demand that the university, rather than boosters, pay for all the things that boosters happily pay for at more successful programs, including buying out the contracts of failed coaches and ADs. Even in our own (new) conference -- at Clemson, Florida State, even SMU, boosters would have written those buyout checks long ago.

(Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud.)
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
bearsandgiants
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 3:11a, 5/28/25
BearSD said:
75bear said:
BearSD said:
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
The thing is it's going to cost the University so much more not to write the check.
Knowlton's contract and Wilcox's contract are merely symptoms of the real problem with our Bears trying to run with the big dogs of college football. The real problem is that our folks demand that the university, rather than boosters, pay for all the things that boosters happily pay for at more successful programs, including buying out the contracts of failed coaches and ADs. Even in our own (new) conference -- at Clemson, Florida State, even SMU, boosters would have written those buyout checks long ago.

(Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud.)

The buyout wouldn't have been as big, either, because they wouldn't have been so dumb as to guarantee an extension to a losing coach or a failing AD.
Reply Quote
5
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:21a, 5/28/25
Not true. The big dogs pay way more and eat huge contracts when they fire coaches.
Reply Quote
5
Golden One
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 7:40a, 5/28/25
BearSD said:

The real problem is that our folks demand that the university, rather than boosters, pay for all the things that boosters happily pay for at more successful programs, including buying out the contracts of failed coaches and ADs. Even in our own (new) conference -- at Clemson, Florida State, even SMU, boosters would have written those buyout checks long ago.

(Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud.)
That's BS. If our big boosters wanted to write the checks to buyout Knowlton and Wilcox, who is going to stop them?
Reply Quote
1
Fred Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 11:02a, 5/28/25
BearSD said:
75bear said:
BearSD said:
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
The thing is it's going to cost the University so much more not to write the check.
Knowlton's contract and Wilcox's contract are merely symptoms of the real problem with our Bears trying to run with the big dogs of college football. The real problem is that our folks demand that the university, rather than boosters, pay for all the things that boosters happily pay for at more successful programs, including buying out the contracts of failed coaches and ADs. Even in our own (new) conference -- at Clemson, Florida State, even SMU, boosters would have written those buyout checks long ago.

(Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud.)
Is that actually true? I had always presumed that boosters were paying for this stuff, but if the university is actually paying for all of these bloated contracts, it makes far more sense why some of the contract terms and language that have been plaguing us (a fully guaranteed contract for a .500 coach who never had a winning record in his conference? Really??) make a lot more sense.
Reply Quote
2
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fred Bear • 6:30p, 5/28/25
Fred Bear said:
BearSD said:
75bear said:
BearSD said:
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
The thing is it's going to cost the University so much more not to write the check.
Knowlton's contract and Wilcox's contract are merely symptoms of the real problem with our Bears trying to run with the big dogs of college football. The real problem is that our folks demand that the university, rather than boosters, pay for all the things that boosters happily pay for at more successful programs, including buying out the contracts of failed coaches and ADs. Even in our own (new) conference -- at Clemson, Florida State, even SMU, boosters would have written those buyout checks long ago.

(Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud.)
Is that actually true? I had always presumed that boosters were paying for this stuff, but if the university is actually paying for all of these bloated contracts, it makes far more sense why some of the contract terms and language that have been plaguing us (a fully guaranteed contract for a .500 coach who never had a winning record in his conference? Really??) make a lot more sense.


Boosters give the money to the university, my understanding is Cal chancellors never get booster input on hiring or firing ADs and Cal ADs rarely make head coach hiring and firing decisions based on booster input.
Reply Quote
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobodeluxe • 10:47p, 5/28/25
Bobodeluxe said:
Not true. The big dogs pay way more and eat huge contracts when they fire coaches.

They pay more up front, but they don't extend losing coaches either.
Reply Quote
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 7:39a, 5/29/25
sycasey said:
Bobodeluxe said:
Not true. The big dogs pay way more and eat huge contracts when they fire coaches.

They pay more up front, but they don't extend losing coaches either.
And they pay way more to fire those coaches.

Professional Minor Leagues are such a special entity.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Fred Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 3:43p, 5/29/25
calumnus said:
Fred Bear said:
BearSD said:
75bear said:
BearSD said:
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
The thing is it's going to cost the University so much more not to write the check.
Knowlton's contract and Wilcox's contract are merely symptoms of the real problem with our Bears trying to run with the big dogs of college football. The real problem is that our folks demand that the university, rather than boosters, pay for all the things that boosters happily pay for at more successful programs, including buying out the contracts of failed coaches and ADs. Even in our own (new) conference -- at Clemson, Florida State, even SMU, boosters would have written those buyout checks long ago.

(Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud.)
Is that actually true? I had always presumed that boosters were paying for this stuff, but if the university is actually paying for all of these bloated contracts, it makes far more sense why some of the contract terms and language that have been plaguing us (a fully guaranteed contract for a .500 coach who never had a winning record in his conference? Really??) make a lot more sense.
Boosters give the money to the university, my understanding is Cal chancellors never get booster input on hiring or firing ADs and Cal ADs rarely make head coach hiring and firing decisions based on booster input.
I was looking for someone who would actually know the answer to this to respond, but thanks for your input I guess.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 75bear • 4:16p, 5/29/25
75bear said:
BearSD said:
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
The thing is it's going to cost the University so much more not to write the check.

Jim Knowlton will be around even after Rich Lyons is gone. : (
Reply Quote
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 6:56a, 5/30/25
calumnus said:
Fred Bear said:
BearSD said:
75bear said:
BearSD said:
bluehenbear said:
THEN WHY IS HE STILL HERE
Because you haven't written the check to buy out his contract?
The thing is it's going to cost the University so much more not to write the check.
Knowlton's contract and Wilcox's contract are merely symptoms of the real problem with our Bears trying to run with the big dogs of college football. The real problem is that our folks demand that the university, rather than boosters, pay for all the things that boosters happily pay for at more successful programs, including buying out the contracts of failed coaches and ADs. Even in our own (new) conference -- at Clemson, Florida State, even SMU, boosters would have written those buyout checks long ago.

(Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud.)
Is that actually true? I had always presumed that boosters were paying for this stuff, but if the university is actually paying for all of these bloated contracts, it makes far more sense why some of the contract terms and language that have been plaguing us (a fully guaranteed contract for a .500 coach who never had a winning record in his conference? Really??) make a lot more sense.


Boosters give the money to the university, my understanding is Cal chancellors never get booster input on hiring or firing ADs and Cal ADs rarely make head coach hiring and firing decisions based on booster input.

calumnus, do you have a desire to return to Berkeley and become the athletic director of the University of California? If we could have an election for this position, I'd vote for you.

Make Cal Great Again.
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.