calumnus said:

---

Agree about the AD. I really think we are at a point iin history where we need a real progressive innovator as our AD focused on the revenue sports and we have the complete opposite: a career Army officer/bureaucrat whose limited AD experience is at military academies. His sports expertise and passion is hockey. Frankly I am far more hopeful we see innovation and intelligence from Fox than from Knowlton.

---

Maybe our fast break looks weird because Knowlton doesn't like offside calls.

Stanford Jonah said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

calumnus said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last point about Fox is an interesting one as I now wonder what you think his ceiling is. It's interesting to me because I personally never saw Fox as a high-ceiling guy (even after last year). To me, last year was exactly why you hire a coach like Fox. He immediately raises the FLOOR of your program. So, again to me, this year is more concerning from the fact that I thought bringing in Fox would basically keep the floor of Cal's program respectable. It changes nothing about my expectations of ceiling, but it does change my expectations of floor, if that makes sense.

---

So I guess my view of his ceiling now is being at the top of the bottom-dwellers and occasionally challenging for middle of the Pac, which is a tier below where I thought. His floor is a tier below that .

---

My idea of a ceiling for him is still in the top-four or so of the league and getting an NCAA birth every once in a while. But I can understand why this year would cause hesitation towards that. I just still think it was a weird year and need some more data points before I feel good dropping his ceiling in my own opinion.

---

You keep saying "this year." What in last year or in his 9 years at Georgia makes you think that? What is it about his coaching philosophy, personality or tactics that you think is attractive to recruits and/or will get Cal to the top 4 in the league?

---

Because he's finished top-four in the SEC (a better league) and made it to the NCAA tournament "once in a while" at UGA. I'm not saying he does that at Cal. And I'm not saying that's the baseline. I'm saying that's what I imagined his ceiling would be when he was hired and I still think that could be the case. Maybe not. Maybe this is too much of a rebuild for him. We'll see.

---

1. The SEC is not better overall. Maybe the last few years, but that only makes the record he just set for PAC-12 losses even worse.

2. I think you need to look at how he "succeeded" at Georgia and if that translates to Cal. I don't think the style of basketball he favors plays well here on the West Coast in the shadow of Kerr's Warriors. His management style does not play well in the Bay Area and with student-athletes who would otherwise be attracted to Cal.

Nothing I've seen from him makes me think he has a good chance of elevating us to a top 40 team on a regular basis. We will peak next year with Wyking's remaining players as seniors.

---

Coach A takes over a last place team. 3 players leave shortly after meeting him. 2 years later His rotation is mostly made up of players he inherited and two lesser conference grad transfers who can't shoot. He finishes last place

Coach B takes over a last place team in late July after the spring recruiting is done. Half the team is gone before he walks in the door. 2 years later he has completely made over the roster. Almost every major contributor is his guy. He finishes first and wins the conference tourney.

Man that Coach B has to prove himself. Coach A is good to go.

---

At the mid-major level, success is defined by coaching acumen and player development. The players at the mid-major level had some flaw that caused them not to be recruited by the power conference schools. The most successful coaches separate the wheat from the chafe. But the WAC was a top heavy conference with a lot of bottom feeders.

At the power conference level, you win with players first and coaching second. If you can't get the best players to play for you, there is a ceiling on what you can do. Fox has proven in spades that he can't get the best players to come.

If I was to interview Dennis Gates for the position here, 80% of my questions would be about recruiting. If you can't recruit talent in a power conference, you are dead coach walking.

---

What if he could talk the talk, but couldn't walk the walk?

Big C said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

calumnus said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last point about Fox is an interesting one as I now wonder what you think his ceiling is. It's interesting to me because I personally never saw Fox as a high-ceiling guy (even after last year). To me, last year was exactly why you hire a coach like Fox. He immediately raises the FLOOR of your program. So, again to me, this year is more concerning from the fact that I thought bringing in Fox would basically keep the floor of Cal's program respectable. It changes nothing about my expectations of ceiling, but it does change my expectations of floor, if that makes sense.

---

So I guess my view of his ceiling now is being at the top of the bottom-dwellers and occasionally challenging for middle of the Pac, which is a tier below where I thought. His floor is a tier below that .

---

My idea of a ceiling for him is still in the top-four or so of the league and getting an NCAA birth every once in a while. But I can understand why this year would cause hesitation towards that. I just still think it was a weird year and need some more data points before I feel good dropping his ceiling in my own opinion.

---

You keep saying "this year." What in last year or in his 9 years at Georgia makes you think that? What is it about his coaching philosophy, personality or tactics that you think is attractive to recruits and/or will get Cal to the top 4 in the league?

---

Because he's finished top-four in the SEC (a better league) and made it to the NCAA tournament "once in a while" at UGA. I'm not saying he does that at Cal. And I'm not saying that's the baseline. I'm saying that's what I imagined his ceiling would be when he was hired and I still think that could be the case. Maybe not. Maybe this is too much of a rebuild for him. We'll see.

---

1. The SEC is not better overall. Maybe the last few years, but that only makes the record he just set for PAC-12 losses even worse.

2. I think you need to look at how he "succeeded" at Georgia and if that translates to Cal. I don't think the style of basketball he favors plays well here on the West Coast in the shadow of Kerr's Warriors. His management style does not play well in the Bay Area and with student-athletes who would otherwise be attracted to Cal.

Nothing I've seen from him makes me think he has a good chance of elevating us to a top 40 team on a regular basis. We will peak next year with Wyking's remaining players as seniors.

---

Coach A takes over a last place team. 3 players leave shortly after meeting him. 2 years later His rotation is mostly made up of players he inherited and two lesser conference grad transfers who can't shoot. He finishes last place

Coach B takes over a last place team in late July after the spring recruiting is done. Half the team is gone before he walks in the door. 2 years later he has completely made over the roster. Almost every major contributor is his guy. He finishes first and wins the conference tourney.

Man that Coach B has to prove himself. Coach A is good to go.

---

At the mid-major level, success is defined by coaching acumen and player development. The players at the mid-major level had some flaw that caused them not to be recruited by the power conference schools. The most successful coaches separate the wheat from the chafe. But the WAC was a top heavy conference with a lot of bottom feeders.

At the power conference level, you win with players first and coaching second. If you can't get the best players to play for you, there is a ceiling on what you can do. Fox has proven in spades that he can't get the best players to come.

If I was to interview Dennis Gates for the position here, 80% of my questions would be about recruiting. If you can't recruit talent in a power conference, you are dead coach walking.

---

What if he could talk the talk, but couldn't walk the walk?

---

I think the point many of us in the Cal-should-have-hired-someone-other-than-Fox (and obviously Jones) camp are making is that in the position that Cal is hiring from, every realistic hire is going to come with some risk. It's either risk that they are stepping up a level (P5 assistant to P5 HC, or mid-major HC to P5 HC), or that they have proven themselves average in a P5 HC role and we are hoping they have learned and can be better. Gates, or DeCuire, or someone in that mold, at least have not already proven they can't consistently win at the P5 level. If the hire was guaranteed to be a homerun, that hire would be way out of Cal's league.

Stanford Jonah said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Big C said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

calumnus said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last point about Fox is an interesting one as I now wonder what you think his ceiling is. It's interesting to me because I personally never saw Fox as a high-ceiling guy (even after last year). To me, last year was exactly why you hire a coach like Fox. He immediately raises the FLOOR of your program. So, again to me, this year is more concerning from the fact that I thought bringing in Fox would basically keep the floor of Cal's program respectable. It changes nothing about my expectations of ceiling, but it does change my expectations of floor, if that makes sense.

---

So I guess my view of his ceiling now is being at the top of the bottom-dwellers and occasionally challenging for middle of the Pac, which is a tier below where I thought. His floor is a tier below that .

---

My idea of a ceiling for him is still in the top-four or so of the league and getting an NCAA birth every once in a while. But I can understand why this year would cause hesitation towards that. I just still think it was a weird year and need some more data points before I feel good dropping his ceiling in my own opinion.

---

You keep saying "this year." What in last year or in his 9 years at Georgia makes you think that? What is it about his coaching philosophy, personality or tactics that you think is attractive to recruits and/or will get Cal to the top 4 in the league?

---

Because he's finished top-four in the SEC (a better league) and made it to the NCAA tournament "once in a while" at UGA. I'm not saying he does that at Cal. And I'm not saying that's the baseline. I'm saying that's what I imagined his ceiling would be when he was hired and I still think that could be the case. Maybe not. Maybe this is too much of a rebuild for him. We'll see.

---

1. The SEC is not better overall. Maybe the last few years, but that only makes the record he just set for PAC-12 losses even worse.

2. I think you need to look at how he "succeeded" at Georgia and if that translates to Cal. I don't think the style of basketball he favors plays well here on the West Coast in the shadow of Kerr's Warriors. His management style does not play well in the Bay Area and with student-athletes who would otherwise be attracted to Cal.

Nothing I've seen from him makes me think he has a good chance of elevating us to a top 40 team on a regular basis. We will peak next year with Wyking's remaining players as seniors.

---

Coach A takes over a last place team. 3 players leave shortly after meeting him. 2 years later His rotation is mostly made up of players he inherited and two lesser conference grad transfers who can't shoot. He finishes last place

Coach B takes over a last place team in late July after the spring recruiting is done. Half the team is gone before he walks in the door. 2 years later he has completely made over the roster. Almost every major contributor is his guy. He finishes first and wins the conference tourney.

Man that Coach B has to prove himself. Coach A is good to go.

---

At the mid-major level, success is defined by coaching acumen and player development. The players at the mid-major level had some flaw that caused them not to be recruited by the power conference schools. The most successful coaches separate the wheat from the chafe. But the WAC was a top heavy conference with a lot of bottom feeders.

At the power conference level, you win with players first and coaching second. If you can't get the best players to play for you, there is a ceiling on what you can do. Fox has proven in spades that he can't get the best players to come.

If I was to interview Dennis Gates for the position here, 80% of my questions would be about recruiting. If you can't recruit talent in a power conference, you are dead coach walking.

---

What if he could talk the talk, but couldn't walk the walk?

---

I think the point many of us in the Cal-should-have-hired-someone-other-than-Fox (and obviously Jones) camp are making is that in the position that Cal is hiring from, every realistic hire is going to come with some risk. It's either risk that they are stepping up a level (P5 assistant to P5 HC, or mid-major HC to P5 HC), or that they have proven themselves average in a P5 HC role and we are hoping they have learned and can be better. Gates, or DeCuire, or someone in that mold, at least have not already proven they can't consistently win at the P5 level. If the hire was guaranteed to be a homerun, that hire would be way out of Cal's league.

---

That is most certainly NOT the point.

---

So I was trying to respond to the question of "what if gates were to give all the right answers re: recruiting in the interview, but then failed when actually recruiting?" And I was trying to make the point that yes, you do run that risk, but every hire that Cal is realistically going to make is going to come with some risk. I'm not denying or changing the point away from whether recruiting is the most important part of the job (or the only point of the job). I'm only pointing out that every hire is going to have some risk. Even if you believe that recruiting is the only important part of the job, Cal is not in the running to hire someone who is guaranteed to recruit at a high level. Cal can target someone who they believe will (1) prioritize it, and (2) have a plan for it, but until they do it here it's all talk.

That was my point re: risk. You can understand the risks of the person you are hiring and have a plan for it, but Cal's inherent limitations (current state of the program, lack of money, no practice facility, etc.) realistically means that we are not hiring anyone who is guaranteed to be a success. You just have to choose which risks you want to live with.

You cannot possibly ask the "right" questions in an interview and then know whether a candidate who has never been HC at the P5 level can recruit.

Between whatever background the coach has, and questions answered, you might get an idea. You might get an idea of personality, and how the coach might relate to recruits. But you can't know just by asking questions whether a guy who has never recruited on the P5 level can recruit. If only it were that easy.

On the other hand, you can get an idea whether a guy can recruit on the P5 level if he's been a P5 coach before. My personal opinion is that if you're hiring a guy who has shown he can recruit very well at the P5 level, you're not hiring the right guy, no matter what questions you ask. My personal opinion is also that if you are hiring a guy based way more on how he relates to the AD than how he relates to recruits, you're using the wrong criteria. But those are just my personal opinions.

Mike Williams may not have recognized who he was interviewing or for which sport.

BearGreg said:

---

Gates' challenge in his interview was his lack of preparation. He didn't do any homework on the roster or the team.

That was, however, not the high-order bit. The entire process was broken and doomed given Mike Williams' approach.

---

BG, can you elaborate at all there? Is it as simple as the process was "get to Wyking Jones as the answer any way possible", or was it anything more?

And not that I want to dispute the interview thing any further, but Wyking Jones' hiring was announced on 3/24/17 (Cuonzo left for Mizzou on 3/15/17. Gates' FSU was in the post-season until the night of 3/18/17. Depending on when the interview was, I'm not sure that's the best thing to be hung up on with that time frame.

Also unclear what the rush was to name a coach so fast (esp. when the post-season tournaments were still going on), but that might get back to the process issues you mentioned.

CalLifer said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Gates' challenge in his interview was his lack of preparation. He didn't do any homework on the roster or the team.

That was, however, not the high-order bit. The entire process was broken and doomed given Mike Williams' approach.

---

BG, can you elaborate at all there? Is it as simple as the process was "get to Wyking Jones as the answer any way possible", or was it anything more?

And not that I want to dispute the interview thing any further, but Wyking Jones' hiring was announced on 3/24/17 (Cuonzo left for Mizzou on 3/15/17. Gates' FSU was in the post-season until the night of 3/18/17. Depending on when the interview was, I'm not sure that's the best thing to be hung up on with that time frame.

Also unclear what the rush was to name a coach so fast (esp. when the post-season tournaments were still going on), but that might get back to the process issues you mentioned.

---

Exactly. If the metric is "who knows more about the current roster" it is always going to be the current 4th assistant vs. a guy who is still in the middle of his post season. Or a guy who is unemployed and coached by his search firm versus a guy still in the middle of his team's post season.

Williams fast hire of Jones (to show stability) after Cuonzo left suddenly was like Kassers hire of Holmoe to show stability and maintain recruiting after Mooch left suddenly. In both cases it was a panicked reaction and somewhat excusable. Holmoe's extension was not. Giving them contracts with large buyouts for Cal was not.

Knowlton's handling of the transition from Wyking to Fox was far more incompetent and unforgivable because he controlled the process. It was not sprung on him. He had all season to evaluate Jones and plan but said he'd wait until after the season (and apparently actually meant it) initially said Jones would be back, then fired him, brought in a search firm and hired Fox in a week all while the NCAA Tournament was still going on. Then put out that stupid press indicating that his criterion was stupid (major conference HC "experience) and that Fox was essentially an affinity hire. Knowlton is clearly a guy who was unprepared to be an AD at a major program and especially at a place like Cal where there are cultural issues for which he has zero background. The best we can hope for is that he is learning on the job.

The case of Cal basketball is intriguing because we absolutely destroyed a solid program, and did it to ourselves, it didn't happen to us. The actual athletic department led by its 2 AD's caused the destruction. I guess that's what happens when you hire back to back AD's without big time college athletics experience?
It's like we sanctioned ourselves for fun.

Stanford Jonah said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

You cannot possibly ask the "right" questions in an interview and then know whether a candidate who has never been HC at the P5 level can recruit.

Between whatever background the coach has, and questions answered, you might get an idea. You might get an idea of personality, and how the coach might relate to recruits. But you can't know just by asking questions whether a guy who has never recruited on the P5 level can recruit. If only it were that easy.

On the other hand, you can get an idea whether a guy can recruit on the P5 level if he's been a P5 coach before. My personal opinion is that if you're hiring a guy who has shown he can recruit very well at the P5 level, you're not hiring the right guy, no matter what questions you ask. My personal opinion is also that if you are hiring a guy based way more on how he relates to the AD than how he relates to recruits, you're using the wrong criteria. But those are just my personal opinions.

---

Thank you for wasting our time with that gibberish

---

Here's the thing: There's tons of evidence that "the interview" is not a very good predictor of job performance. What you get is the person who made the best first impression at a specific point in time.

Also, no need for rudeness. As they say in the posting realm, "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

Article on Gates in USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2021/03/12/gates-has-cleveland-state-dreaming-dancing-into-ncaa-field/43461253/

Article on Cleveland State's amazing turnaround focusing on their AD and Gates' hiring and contract
https://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/2021/03/scott-garretts-gamble-and-the-amazing-rise-of-cleveland-state-basketball-under-dennis-gates-terry-pluto.html

Gates a likely candidate for the Boston College job. Apparently his wife is an associate athletic director there?
https://www.bcinterruption.com/2021/3/12/22323700/coach-candidate-dennis-gates-boston-college-eagles-cleveland-state-vikings-ncaa-march-madness

Susie's son got his team into the tournament. The kicker got his team in as well. Not that either would have been hired at Cal. Recruiting is a lot, but not everything. Lavin showed that at UCLA but I would give Lavin a shot at Cal. Not sure what happened with Lavin being fired st St Johns but he had some success there. He is not the youngster anymore.

ncbears said:

---

Susie's son got his team into the tournament. The kicker got his team in as well. Not that either would have been hired at Cal. Recruiting is a lot, but not everything. Lavin showed that at UCLA but I would give Lavin a shot at Cal. Not sure what happened with Lavin being fired st St Johns but he had some success there. He is not the youngster anymore.

---

I generally assume Lavin's happier doing TV vs coaching at most places at this point in his life. My take on Lavin, was he was better at recruiting than other aspects of coaching. That probably works better at UCLA than St Johns.

I'm not saying he's a bad coach, but he's not a great coach. Maybe a place like Cal would be good for him. Similar to Monty - he's not worried about Cal hindering his career - and can see it as a nice place to coach again. Definitely an upgrade over FOX, IMHO.

BearGreg said:

---

Gates' challenge in his interview was his lack of preparation. He didn't do any homework on the roster or the team.

That was, however, not the high-order bit. The entire process was broken and doomed given Mike Williams' approach.

---

Agreed on Gates background - Had Musselman ready to go until a university prof was clearly going to contest his potential hiring (since he had earlier hired Huffnagel), Amaker was a possibility, but He wanted a university teaching position for his wife and Turner though impressive, came across arrogant to Williams. Joe Pasternak did not even get an interview - though he had prior HC experience, knows Cal extremely well, understands Admission restrictions, has the ear of some major donors and has strong ties to some former players. HIs 22-4 record this season with league and conf tournament titles albeit in Big West was very impressive.

Stanford Jonah said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Gates' challenge in his interview was his lack of preparation. He didn't do any homework on the roster or the team.

That was, however, not the high-order bit. The entire process was broken and doomed given Mike Williams' approach.

---

Agreed on Gates background - Had Musselman ready to go until a university prof was clearly going to contest his potential hiring (since he had earlier hired Huffnagel), Amaker was a possibility, but He wanted a university teaching position for his wife and Turner though impressive, came across arrogant to Williams. Joe Pasternak did not even get an interview - though he had prior HC experience, knows Cal extremely well, understands Admission restrictions, has the ear of some major donors and has strong ties to some former players. HIs 22-4 record this season with league and conf tournament titles albeit in Big West was very impressive.

---

If even 10% of that is true (other than Pasternack not getting an interview, that is actually true), I'll eat my Cal baseball cap.

And Pasternack not being interviewed is a good thing, as he is a dirty coach that gets caught, which is the absolute worst kind of dirty coach. But it's clear you have a mancrush on him. Maybe you're even related to Roxy Bernstein somehow.

---

Ha - I will respond for the banter - 100% true so be sure and put some catsup and relish on your hat. I would add that technically Muscleman did pull out when he felt there would be a drawn out approval process. Joe is certainly not dirty and in part why he left the Zona program, because he wanted no part of the shenanigans there, but mainly to work his way up to desired HC jobs. And no relation to Roxy - though I think highly of him. Joe has always thought of the Cal HC job as his dream job and still believes that.

One of Gates landing spots, Penn St, just hired someone else

calumnus said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Gates' challenge in his interview was his lack of preparation. He didn't do any homework on the roster or the team.

That was, however, not the high-order bit. The entire process was broken and doomed given Mike Williams' approach.

---

Agreed on Gates background - Had Musselman ready to go until a university prof was clearly going to contest his potential hiring (since he had earlier hired Huffnagel), Amaker was a possibility, but He wanted a university teaching position for his wife and Turner though impressive, came across arrogant to Williams. Joe Pasternak did not even get an interview - though he had prior HC experience, knows Cal extremely well, understands Admission restrictions, has the ear of some major donors and has strong ties to some former players. HIs 22-4 record this season with league and conf tournament titles albeit in Big West was very impressive.

---

If even 10% of that is true (other than Pasternack not getting an interview, that is actually true), I'll eat my Cal baseball cap.

And Pasternack not being interviewed is a good thing, as he is a dirty coach that gets caught, which is the absolute worst kind of dirty coach. But it's clear you have a mancrush on him. Maybe you're even related to Roxy Bernstein somehow.

---

Ha - I will respond for the banter - 100% true so be sure and put some catsup and relish on your hat. I would add that technically Muscleman did pull out when he felt there would be a drawn out approval process. Joe is certainly not dirty and in part why he left the Zona program, because he wanted no part of the shenanigans there, but mainly to work his way up to desired HC jobs. And no relation to Roxy - though I think highly of him. Joe has always thought of the Cal HC job as his dream job and still believes that.

---

He left UofA after 6 years under Sean Miller in 2017 when he was named head coach at UCSB. He only noticed when he had a better job? Moreover, Pasternak was specifically mentioned in the Yahoo and NCAA investigations as the lead assistant who was working with the agents to land players.

---

The investigation from the NCAA was directed at Emanuel "Book" Richardson and Mark Phelps under Sean Miller not Joe Pasternak. Joe was not a party nor charged with those illegal acts by those mentioned above.

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Gates' challenge in his interview was his lack of preparation. He didn't do any homework on the roster or the team.

That was, however, not the high-order bit. The entire process was broken and doomed given Mike Williams' approach.

---

Agreed on Gates background - Had Musselman ready to go until a university prof was clearly going to contest his potential hiring (since he had earlier hired Huffnagel), Amaker was a possibility, but He wanted a university teaching position for his wife and Turner though impressive, came across arrogant to Williams. Joe Pasternak did not even get an interview - though he had prior HC experience, knows Cal extremely well, understands Admission restrictions, has the ear of some major donors and has strong ties to some former players. HIs 22-4 record this season with league and conf tournament titles albeit in Big West was very impressive.

---

If even 10% of that is true (other than Pasternack not getting an interview, that is actually true), I'll eat my Cal baseball cap.

And Pasternack not being interviewed is a good thing, as he is a dirty coach that gets caught, which is the absolute worst kind of dirty coach. But it's clear you have a mancrush on him. Maybe you're even related to Roxy Bernstein somehow.

---

Ha - I will respond for the banter - 100% true so be sure and put some catsup and relish on your hat. I would add that technically Muscleman did pull out when he felt there would be a drawn out approval process. Joe is certainly not dirty and in part why he left the Zona program, because he wanted no part of the shenanigans there, but mainly to work his way up to desired HC jobs. And no relation to Roxy - though I think highly of him. Joe has always thought of the Cal HC job as his dream job and still believes that.

---

He left UofA after 6 years under Sean Miller in 2017 when he was named head coach at UCSB. He only noticed when he had a better job? Moreover, Pasternak was specifically mentioned in the Yahoo and NCAA investigations as the lead assistant who was working with the agents to land players.

---

The investigation from the NCAA was directed at Emanuel "Book" Richardson and Mark Phelps under Sean Miller not Joe Pasternak. Joe was not a party nor charged with those illegal acts by those mentioned above.

---

https://www.azdesertswarm.com/basketball/2018/2/23/17047258/arizona-wildcats-assistants-joe-pasternack-book-richardson-emails-fbi-investigation-sean-miller

Quote:

---

"He is saying that hes [sic] not in place with [NBA agent Dan] Fegan," Dawkins wrote of Pasternack. "Vye, if you have to make a call to these guys the kid that they want from me is Brian Bowen." He goes on to encourage Vye, a veteran ASM agent, to build a relationship with Markkanen's father. "Arizona will do pretty much whatever we ask of them right now, until my kid decides on a school."

---

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

Stanford Jonah said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Gates' challenge in his interview was his lack of preparation. He didn't do any homework on the roster or the team.

That was, however, not the high-order bit. The entire process was broken and doomed given Mike Williams' approach.

---

Agreed on Gates background - Had Musselman ready to go until a university prof was clearly going to contest his potential hiring (since he had earlier hired Huffnagel), Amaker was a possibility, but He wanted a university teaching position for his wife and Turner though impressive, came across arrogant to Williams. Joe Pasternak did not even get an interview - though he had prior HC experience, knows Cal extremely well, understands Admission restrictions, has the ear of some major donors and has strong ties to some former players. HIs 22-4 record this season with league and conf tournament titles albeit in Big West was very impressive.

---

If even 10% of that is true (other than Pasternack not getting an interview, that is actually true), I'll eat my Cal baseball cap.

And Pasternack not being interviewed is a good thing, as he is a dirty coach that gets caught, which is the absolute worst kind of dirty coach. But it's clear you have a mancrush on him. Maybe you're even related to Roxy Bernstein somehow.

---

Ha - I will respond for the banter - 100% true so be sure and put some catsup and relish on your hat. I would add that technically Muscleman did pull out when he felt there would be a drawn out approval process. Joe is certainly not dirty and in part why he left the Zona program, because he wanted no part of the shenanigans there, but mainly to work his way up to desired HC jobs. And no relation to Roxy - though I think highly of him. Joe has always thought of the Cal HC job as his dream job and still believes that.

---

He left UofA after 6 years under Sean Miller in 2017 when he was named head coach at UCSB. He only noticed when he had a better job? Moreover, Pasternak was specifically mentioned in the Yahoo and NCAA investigations as the lead assistant who was working with the agents to land players.

---

The investigation from the NCAA was directed at Emanuel "Book" Richardson and Mark Phelps under Sean Miller not Joe Pasternak. Joe was not a party nor charged with those illegal acts by those mentioned above.

---

The issue is not the NCAA investigation, but Federal investigation that noted that Joe was aware of and discussing with Dawkins and recruits families some of these activities. Probably not enough to get indicted (The Feds indicted ONE assistant from each school) but enough taint to probably dissuade a number of Cal shareholders from working against Joe's hiring or even interviewing. I'm not against second chances, juts saying that there are likely Cal shareholders that are.

Gates' name is being mentioned at Minnesota and Depaul. Mark Fox does not appear to be under consideration at either school