It grieves me to see the constant bashing of Mike Montgomery on this board, the best basketball coach Cal has had in 50 years.

Obviously, he has not recruited the type of players that many who post here would like to see, but to constantly criticize him, and even suggest his firing, go way beyond reality.

First, we do not know the goals set by Sandy to judge Montgomery's performance, nor do we know the restrictions, if any, that she may have placed on his recruiting, in emphasizing which NCAA rules were important to not even give the appearance of violating, etc.

Montgomery has necessarily not been open about his recruiting, because of the nature of the recruiting business. You just can't say much in public about what you are doing, or the competition may take advantage of that.

Obviously, I have a pretty cynical view of big time recruiting. You all know that. But instead of bashing Mike Montgomery for not meeting your recruiting expectations, how about coming up with some positive ideas about HOW to recruit top talent?

When you get these ideas, don't just post them here where only us fans read them. Go talk to Coach Montgomery about these ideas of yours. He is very personable, and approachable.

I ran into Montgomery at a game where he was there to watch a recruit play. At halftime, I went over and introduced myself as a Cal fan, and we talked for most of the halftime about the team, recruiting, the recruit he came to see, and his expectations for the season. He'll talk to you, and he'll listen to your ideas. Instead of just posting blame all over this board and elsewhere, man up and go see Montgomery and talk with him. Make an appointment, or find out where he might be, maybe a recruit's game, or elsewhere, and go talk with him. He'll listen.

Try and be a help, not get him fired.

:Monty

It is likely that Monty knows more about recruiting than all of his critics on this site combined. He has been at it for many years.

And part of his knowing is a keen awareness of the difficulties of the job.

Still, it is a great suggestion that you make: Approach the man and share your wisdom with him! Given how much it is in his interest to do better recruiting, it just may be that he would benefit from the wisdom of his recruiting critics.

Of course, it is easier and less challenging just to rag on him from the comfort of one's computer.

I like to keep in mind what he is up against:

1. UCLA's NCAA history and glitz
2. Arizona's record as an NBA factory with minimally challenging academics
3. Oregon's Phil Knight subsidy and Nike aura
4. UW's minority coach and less than challenging academics
5. The Furd's deep pockets and private education offer

And yet, he has kept winning in the conference, bringing in real student-athletes and providing a clinic in team basketball.

Amazing that some board "experts" give him no credit for overcoming traditional Cal obstacles.

annarborbear;841892070 said:

---

I like to keep in mind what he is up against:

1. UCLA's NCAA history and glitz
2. Arizona's record as an NBA factory with minimally challenging academics
3. Oregon's Phil Knight subsidy and Nike aura
4. UW's minority coach and less than challenging academics
5. The Furd's deep pockets and private education offer

And yet, he has kept winning in the conference, bringing in real student-athletes and providing a clinic in team basketball.

Amazing that some board "experts" give him no credit for overcoming traditional Cal obstacles.

---

Guys I'm all for the stop bashing Monty meme. But let's not set up a straw man. How are we the sisters of the poor against these guys? We have the Bay area, relatively new facility, literally a few miles from some serious basketball talent, etc. Plus it's not just these guys we've been losing to, it's SDSU, UNLV, Gonzaga, Marquette, etc. We're beating out ASU and Utah for recruits right now. I think most people agree that Monty is a master at Xs and Os and there are not many equals. Also, there is no need to bash Monty, yes I agree. But to say he hasn't struggled at recruiting (perceived obstacles or no) would be to be completely non-objective.

Like Albert Pujols, Monty would probably agree that he is disappointed with his own [recruiting] performance and expect more of himself. Excuses for Pujols run from change in "atmosphere" to different and more difficult pitching. For Monty, the traditional Cal "obstacles" may be an excuse. Either way they are both in a slump and would probably man-up to the label. I'm rooting for Albert and Monty to both break out of their slumps and continue with thier hall of fame careers.

annarborbear;841892070 said:

---

I like to keep in mind what he is up against:

1. UCLA's NCAA history and glitz
2. Arizona's record as an NBA factory with minimally challenging academics
3. Oregon's Phil Knight subsidy and Nike aura
4. UW's minority coach and less than challenging academics
5. The Furd's deep pockets and private education offer

And yet, he has kept winning in the conference, bringing in real student-athletes and providing a clinic in team basketball.

Amazing that some board "experts" give him no credit for overcoming traditional Cal obstacles.

---

Let's stop with the "challenging academics" angle. Most of these guys aren't engineering majors or anything. Also, the football team hasn't struggled with recruiting and they have to bring in 85 guys.

First of all, I laud Coach Mongomery for all of the positive things he has done here at Cal, no question. Certainly, his severist critics on this board have been over the top.

That said, most of us were hoping for a bit more, especially as measured by the standard of NCAA Tournament victories. If improvement in that area was clearly visible on the horizon, I think we'd see more patience and understanding, but things seem to have plateaued. So sure, there are criticisms, because this is a fan board. It's what we do.

And I'm actually suggesting that folks do NOT approach Coach Montgomery with their brilliant suggestions. ("Coach, you should hire an Assistant that can recruit better, while still maintaining high ethical and academic standards!" Gosh, if only one of us had scheduled a meeting with him a few years ago... ) No, this board is exactly the right place for all our ideas.

Let's hope Monty can get a Jabari Bird and some others and ride out in a blaze of glory, be it for another two years or another ten. Beyond that, may his successor continue all the good things that Coach has done, while providing a little more "oomph" in recruiting (especially) and also in building the fan base and creating general excitement.

Go Bears!

FingeroftheBear;841892057 said:

---

Nice post SFCity Bear. Bashing Monty never made sense to me.

To be fair about talking to Monty, you might have received an introductory lift given (if I recall right) your Dad? Not bashing you but that would give you instant cred and more to talk about since Monty is most definitely a Bay Area guy now.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about. My dad played freshman basket ball at Cal for Nibs Price in 1930-31. After the season, the Dean of the Architecture school told him he was flunking out, and if he wanted to graduate eventually, he better give up playing sports. He quit playing basketball. He also gave up boxing and the freshman tennis team, and never played sports at Cal again. He loved going to all the games as you and I do, that's all.

My dad died seven years before Montgomery came to Cal, and there was no prior connection of him or me to Montgomery. I had no introduction to Montgomery from anyone. He accepted me simply as a Cal fan, and as it was halftime, he had nothing better to do, I guess, so we talked.

As one of the bashers let me clarify my frustration.....

A) The results are "not good" by any measure. I believe there is close to consensus on that point

B) My bigger frustration is the lack of information as to 'Why". Now lets contrast with football. Tedford communicated clearly and often that facilities were a problem. We had great selling points and kids were ready to go until they saw our substandard weight room, film room, etc. etc.

And guess what - that problem was addressed - by alumni who GENEROUSLY are providing serious support and got the high performance center done.

Now with basketball under Monty we have a black hole. As I have outlined in a number of posts there are multiple plausible explanations. in recent weeks more have been offered ("Monty needs a PLANE!!"). But so far NOTHING has been addressed.

Thus the frustration because

1) There is no way that supporters can help
2) It gives the impression that he is happy with the status quo

tsubamoto2001;841892104 said:

---

Let's stop with the "challenging academics" angle. Most of these guys aren't engineering majors or anything. Also, the football team hasn't struggled with recruiting and they have to bring in 85 guys.

---

You are right about that. You can't use the academic requirements issue much anymore, what with all the players admitted under hardship rules. Jim Harbaugh blew the whistle on Michigan for getting so many in that way, I believe, and boy, were they upset with him. And UCLA has only slightly lower academic standards as Cal, I believe.

Stanford, on the other hand, has higher academic standards than Cal, and all their recruited athletes must qualify academically, just like any other Stanford student. Montgomery used to complain about that all the time when he was the Stanford coach. I too, expected him to do better at recruiting at Cal, with the slightly lower standards and the hardship slots. But recruiting has changed a lot since he was at Stanford, and we also don't know what restrictions he is under now, what type of student athletes he has been told to recruit, what budget he has been given, and what goals he has been given, all by Sandy.

SFCityBear;841892035 said:

---

It grieves me to see the constant bashing of Mike Montgomery on this board, the best basketball coach Cal has had in 50 years.

Obviously, he has not recruited the type of players that many who post here would like to see, but to constantly criticize him, and even suggest his firing, go way beyond reality.

First, we do not know the goals set by Sandy to judge Montgomery's performance, nor do we know the restrictions, if any, that she may have placed on his recruiting, in emphasizing which NCAA rules were important to not even give the appearance of violating, etc.

Montgomery has necessarily not been open about his recruiting, because of the nature of the recruiting business. You just can't say much in public about what you are doing, or the competition may take advantage of that.

Obviously, I have a pretty cynical view of big time recruiting. You all know that. But instead of bashing Mike Montgomery for not meeting your recruiting expectations, how about coming up with some positive ideas about HOW to recruit top talent?

When you get these ideas, don't just post them here where only us fans read them. Go talk to Coach Montgomery about these ideas of yours. He is very personable, and approachable.

I ran into Montgomery at a game where he was there to watch a recruit play. At halftime, I went over and introduced myself as a Cal fan, and we talked for most of the halftime about the team, recruiting, the recruit he came to see, and his expectations for the season. He'll talk to you, and he'll listen to your ideas. Instead of just posting blame all over this board and elsewhere, man up and go see Montgomery and talk with him. Make an appointment, or find out where he might be, maybe a recruit's game, or elsewhere, and go talk with him. He'll listen.

Try and be a help, not get him fired.

:Monty

---

I agree with the sentiment that bashing on Montgomery here doesn't serve much purpose. He's a good coach, he's Cal's coach, and it would be nice to focus a bit more on those facts. Obviously we all have our opinions on things like recruiting, but this board right now seems like nothing but a bitchfest on the one topic.

socaltownie;841892135 said:

---

As one of the bashers let me clarify my frustration.....

A) The results are "not good" by any measure. I believe there is close to consensus on that point

B) My bigger frustration is the lack of information as to 'Why". Now lets contrast with football. Tedford communicated clearly and often that facilities were a problem. We had great selling points and kids were ready to go until they saw our substandard weight room, film room, etc. etc.

And guess what - that problem was addressed - by alumni who GENEROUSLY are providing serious support and got the high performance center done.

Now with basketball under Monty we have a black hole. As I have outlined in a number of posts there are multiple plausible explanations. in recent weeks more have been offered ("Monty needs a PLANE!!"). But so far NOTHING has been addressed.

Thus the frustration because

1) There is no way that supporters can help
2) It gives the impression that he is happy with the status quo

---

I'm not really sure what the results are at this point in time. I won't at least until mid-season. I couldn't say what the consensus is. I'm a bit frustrated that we aren't getting more of our first choices, but I also haven't seen the guys we did get and I'm not willing to write them off until I see them. I suspect we may be pleasantly surprised by some of these guys.

I've only been really disappointed by one class so far. It also remains to be seen just how good the teams a lot of folk assume will be great will be. Recruiting rankings don't make teams.

bluesaxe;841892156 said:

---

but this board right now seems like nothing but a bitchfest on the one topic.

---

What else is this board, the football board, or sports message boards in general? It's the BF board!

:rant
:woohoo
:bluecarrot:

KoreAmBear;841892187 said:

---

What else is this board, the football board, or sports message boards in general? It's the BF board!

:rant
:woohoo
:bluecarrot:

---

I guess I get fooled by the occasional intelligent discussion of the game.

Oh, and I forgot that the offseason is always the offseason.

My bad.

Could it be as simple as the way Monty addresses prospects questions as to their first year roles? For example, a recruit asks: "Coach, will I start or see significant minutes early?"..Ans: "First, you have to learn the system, commit to playing defense, show you're better than the incumbent, then we'll talk about it." Most of the type of recruits we're whining about not getting, if not expecting to go to the NBA after 1 year, certainly expect to start or play big minutes early on. To hear that a learning curve might be expected, e.g., "maybe" rather than "sure", could be an early turn-off. I think the aversion to one/done is way overblown. He proved at LSJU with Jacobsen and others that those with the skills would get on the court from the get-go. Clearly, program success, frequent national exposure and willingness to throw the frosh in early are compelling advantages in recruiting. Personal charisma must be another major factor. I have no doubt that the "what can you do for me" response far outweighs that to "what kind of education will I get" (Cal's only clear advantage over anyone). The NBA has shown that there is no incentive to learning the game in college for the most gifted recruits since they can do that at the next level while earning millions.

I think there is something to what KAB says (facetiously I believe) about the board being about having a bitchfest. I don't like it, but quite frankly, I think people like you and I are going to have to accept that we don't own the internet. The problem is I think you have groups that are incompatible - you have a group that wants to have discussions about the ins and outs of the program, skill sets of players, coaching schemes, recruiting strategies, etc., and then you have two other groups that are the flip side of the same coin 1 that really just wants to say that the team sucks, the coach sucks, the players suck, the AD sucks, the program sucks, everything sucks, and another who wants to come here to just feel good about us all being Cal and never wants to see anything negative.

Here's the thing that Monty has shown me to my dismay. (and thinking back, Holmoe showed me on the flip side) It's not about the team. It's not about the coach. It's not about the players. It's about the posters. These groups will all be here no matter what. If someone is angry about Cal basketball right now, flat out, they want to have something in their life to be angry about. If someone could be uniformly positive about Cal football under Holmoe, they want something to belong to and feel good about that they probably should be getting elsewhere like by watching reruns of the Waltons.

Let me be clear, I'm not talking about what you are satisfied with or not. I'm not talking about expectations, goals, or what you think we should strive for. I'm talking about the person that is just flat out pissed off, speaks about coaches and or players or anyone that disagrees with them with ridicule and scorn. Quite simply, maybe you have a higher standard in mind for Cal basketball, but there is no way in any reasonable person's mind that the results the past four years deserve anger and derision. Maybe they should be better we can debate that, but anger - no. On the flip side, getting mad at anyone that offers a critical view, even to the point of deriding obviously valid criticisms like in the Holmoe era, just says to me that you want to live in a little cocoon and don't want real life to intrude. Sorry guys, IMO, you all have issues (hell, don't we all) and you are using this board to deal with them.

Now, I wish people wouldn't use the board for this purpose, but so be it. The problem is that they won't let people have a reasonable conversation without coming in and blowing it up. If you were at a dinner party and you did that, everyone would acknowledge you were a rude SOB. But here, it's "free speech". So basically people roam around the living room entering discussions, wait for the tasteless boors to move in on their discussion, then slowly back out of it and try to congregate in another corner of the room until the tasteless boors notice them again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The other problem is we tend to define groups by opinion. If you are 51% on one side, you are a negabear. If you are 51% on the other you are a sunshine pumper. Negabear and sunshine pumper are not the relevant groupings in my opinion. I'd go with emotabear someone that is using the board to fulfill emotional needs, and discussionbear someone who comes here for essentially technical analysis. When you really think about it, most of us are okay with those that disagree. It's the emotion that gets to us. Unfortunately, when the emotion comes down, people tend to group with the people who hold a similar view rather than stick with the people who are all wondering why everything got some emotional and just want to continue a reasonable discussion.

Can I just humbly ask of the emotabears that you recognize that some threads are not appropriate for the "the coach is an incompetent idiot! Oh yeah! You Are! No You Are! No You Are" discussion and leave them be?

OaktownBear;841892265 said:

---

I think there is something to what KAB says (facetiously I believe) about the board being about having a bitchfest. I don’t like it, but quite frankly, I think people like you and I are going to have to accept that we don’t own the internet. The problem is I think you have groups that are incompatible - you have a group that wants to have discussions about the ins and outs of the program, skill sets of players, coaching schemes, recruiting strategies, etc., and then you have two other groups that are the flip side of the same coin – 1 that really just wants to say that the team sucks, the coach sucks, the players suck, the AD sucks, the program sucks, everything sucks, and another who wants to come here to just feel good about us all being Cal and never wants to see anything negative.

Here’s the thing that Monty has shown me – to my dismay. (and thinking back, Holmoe showed me on the flip side) It’s not about the team. It’s not about the coach. It’s not about the players. It’s about the posters. These groups will all be here no matter what. If someone is angry about Cal basketball right now, flat out, they want to have something in their life to be angry about. If someone could be uniformly positive about Cal football under Holmoe, they want something to belong to and feel good about that they probably should be getting elsewhere – like by watching reruns of the Waltons.

Let me be clear, I’m not talking about what you are satisfied with or not. I’m not talking about expectations, goals, or what you think we should strive for. I’m talking about the person that is just flat out pissed off, speaks about coaches and or players or anyone that disagrees with them with ridicule and scorn. Quite simply, maybe you have a higher standard in mind for Cal basketball, but there is no way in any reasonable person’s mind that the results the past four years deserve anger and derision. Maybe they should be better – we can debate that, but anger - no. On the flip side, getting mad at anyone that offers a critical view, even to the point of deriding obviously valid criticisms like in the Holmoe era, just says to me that you want to live in a little cocoon and don’t want real life to intrude. Sorry guys, IMO, you all have issues (hell, don’t we all) and you are using this board to deal with them.

Now, I wish people wouldn’t use the board for this purpose, but so be it. The problem is that they won’t let people have a reasonable conversation without coming in and blowing it up. If you were at a dinner party and you did that, everyone would acknowledge you were a rude SOB. But here, it’s “free speech”. So basically people roam around the living room entering discussions, wait for the tasteless boors to move in on their discussion, then slowly back out of it and try to congregate in another corner of the room until the tasteless boors notice them again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The other problem is we tend to define groups by opinion. If you are 51% on one side, you are a negabear. If you are 51% on the other you are a sunshine pumper. Negabear and sunshine pumper are not the relevant groupings in my opinion. I’d go with emotabear – someone that is using the board to fulfill emotional needs, and discussionbear – someone who comes here for essentially technical analysis. When you really think about it, most of us are okay with those that disagree. It’s the emotion that gets to us. Unfortunately, when the emotion comes down, people tend to group with the people who hold a similar view rather than stick with the people who are all wondering why everything got some emotional and just want to continue a reasonable discussion.

Can I just humbly ask of the emotabears that you recognize that some threads are not appropriate for the “the coach is an incompetent idiot! Oh yeah! You Are! No You Are! No You Are” discussion and leave them be?

---

Man that was a good read. I believe internet message boards, sports or otherwise, leave tact out of the equation. It scares me because to me, tact is what allows us to have civil discourse and live, well, civilly. We have that normally outside of the internet. But the sports culture that nurtures concepts like Raider or Red Sox Nation and not being a "soft" bandwagon fan, is slowly eroding tact even outside of the internet. I think the proliferation of guys like Howard Stern and Jim Rome to stoke the fire of those who are insecure and therefore use their leadership to justify obnoxious, pushy and bully behavior, is symptomatic of the root troubles people have in their lives. Tact and civil discourse is seen as weakness. Go hard or go home is the motto. Add some alcohol to that and you have that Dodger fan beat down of that Giant fan. To me, this stuff is all related. Sports has become way too important.

KoreAmBear;841892271 said:

---

Sports has become way too important.

---

Last night on KQED radio Jonah Lehrer was discussing creativity and what kind of interactions and environments foster it. He mentioned the USA is now in an era of cultivating sports, contrasted with Elizabethan England which was cultivating education. IMHO sports is just one facet of the entertainment industry, and I've never understood why most Americans consider either so important. Excuse me, I'm heading back to my cave now.

stu;841892279 said:

---

Last night on KQED radio Jonah Lehrer was discussing creativity and what kind of interactions and environments foster it. He mentioned the USA is now in an era of cultivating sports, contrasted with Elizabethan England which was cultivating education. IMHO sports is just one facet of the entertainment industry, and I've never understood why most Americans consider either so important. Excuse me, I'm heading back to my cave now.

---

NFL is king. That's why people rich and poor have $200 NFL jerseys. Such a cash cow. It's way over the top.

FingeroftheBear;841892280 said:

---

Very nicely said and I agree.

Leave your baggage at the door and enjoy things and stop crapping on the parade. From my observations, the freer the environment the more personal baggage gets tossed around, in person or on the interwebs.

It's sports and that's all it is so quit sucking the fun out of it.

I'm here for fun, not weird outbursts but out of principle I swing back because that's called showing some fight. Otherwise I do enjoy the general open Berkeley debate thing with generally intelligent people, just like back in the day, just not dysfunction.

---

Ya it's a delicate balance. You don't want things to get weird where criticism is unwelcome. On the other hand, if one criticizes, one should do it constructively. Otherwise, what's the point? Random venting? Yes, sometimes there is room for venting and it is actually therapeutic. I've done it to my dismay. Still guys who are no longer on the board see criticism with some restraint as being sheep. I used to think like that, kind of. But that's immature thinking. There's ways to express yourself, get your full conviction and opinion across, without acting like a d-bag. There's no selling out, there's no compromise. But there is even room under those circumstances, to act respectfully and graciously.

I'd like to give an example. A friend of mine is just crazy uber right wing. He's Jewish but seems to hate Jewish liberal secular hollywood types who seem to dominate left wing thought. He loves the Midwest and syncs better with the Heartland type culture. Fox guy all the way.

Anyway, I emailed him and another Jewish friend that I was sad that an icon and hero of my youth, Adam Yauch ("MCA") died. He replied-all and went into this rampage on how awful a man Adam was that Adam blamed the US for 9/11 and that he was an anti-American liberal who was a quasi Buddhist and a supporter of terrorists. Whatever he thought, he didn't have to 1) reply-all, 2) do it with that kind of emotion right then and there. He saw that I respected and admired MCA but yet instead of going, "well, I respect your opinion but I disagree as to the kind of man Adam was and we can leave it at that. If you want to know more, let me know." Something like that. No, he had to basically crap all over my email and do it in front of my other friend. If that's done in the name of being true to your beliefs and not being a sellout, then I would say this is not all that virtuous.

+1 otb

SFCityBear;841892035 said:

---

It grieves me to see the constant bashing of Mike Montgomery on this board, the best basketball coach Cal has had in 50 years.

Obviously, he has not recruited the type of players that many who post here would like to see, but to constantly criticize him, and even suggest his firing, go way beyond reality.

First, we do not know the goals set by Sandy to judge Montgomery's performance, nor do we know the restrictions, if any, that she may have placed on his recruiting, in emphasizing which NCAA rules were important to not even give the appearance of violating, etc.

Montgomery has necessarily not been open about his recruiting, because of the nature of the recruiting business. You just can't say much in public about what you are doing, or the competition may take advantage of that.

Obviously, I have a pretty cynical view of big time recruiting. You all know that. But instead of bashing Mike Montgomery for not meeting your recruiting expectations, how about coming up with some positive ideas about HOW to recruit top talent?

When you get these ideas, don't just post them here where only us fans read them. Go talk to Coach Montgomery about these ideas of yours. He is very personable, and approachable.

I ran into Montgomery at a game where he was there to watch a recruit play. At halftime, I went over and introduced myself as a Cal fan, and we talked for most of the halftime about the team, recruiting, the recruit he came to see, and his expectations for the season. He'll talk to you, and he'll listen to your ideas. Instead of just posting blame all over this board and elsewhere, man up and go see Montgomery and talk with him. Make an appointment, or find out where he might be, maybe a recruit's game, or elsewhere, and go talk with him. He'll listen.

Try and be a help, not get him fired.

:Monty

---

No. It is not bashing to correctly discuss the fact that he is failing at a key element of the job. I fully recognize that he's great at virtually all other elements of the job. But its pretty irrefutable that there are serious issues on the recruiting front. And it is not our job to recommend how this should be fixed. He's the highly paid and seasoned coach, he should already know how to do it, evaluate what isn't working and fix it.

tequila4kapp;841892409 said:

---

No. It is not bashing to correctly discuss the fact that he is failing at a key element of the job. I fully recognize that he's great at virtually all other elements of the job. But its pretty irrefutable that there are serious issues on the recruiting front. And it is not our job to recommend how this should be fixed. He's the highly paid and seasoned coach, he should already know how to do it, evaluate what isn't working and fix it.

---

How do you or any of us know that Monty "should already know how to do it, evaluate what isn't working and fix it"?

None of walks in his shoes. None of us knows exactly how the recruiting process is changing, is different from what it was even 5 or 10 years ago.

I would assume that Monty is trying hard to "fix" his recruiting. Not that it is flat out horrible, as some suggest, but because he wants to win, to compete as best as he can.

Why not give him some respect and a little bit of slack and see how it goes in the next few years? After all, he has given us the best results in his first four years that we have seen at Cal since Newell.

...which isn't about recruiting...some continue to talk about recruiting...

Criticism of Monty is exaggerated in this thread.

No one is saying he should be fired (some might question the long-term extension). No one is saying he is not a good coach. Everyone acknowledges he is a good guy and good representative of the University.

His recruiting has not been good and people are critical of this- is this earth-shattering?

Some have an emotional stake in the team, some have a financial stake in the team. It is not a crime to have high expectations of coaches who require high compensation packages, let alone express them on an internet chat board. Relax.

south bender;841892413 said:

---

How do you or any of us know that Monty "should already know how to do it, evaluate what isn't working and fix it"?

None of walks in his shoes. None of us knows exactly how the recruiting process is changing, is different from what it was even 5 or 10 years ago.

I would assume that Monty is trying hard to "fix" his recruiting. Not that it is flat out horrible, as some suggest, but because he wants to win, to compete as best as he can.

Why not give him some respect and a little bit of slack and see how it goes in the next few years? After all, he has given us the best results in his first four years that we have seen at Cal since Newell.

---

Because he's been a D1 coach for what, like 30 years. If he doesn't know how to do it by now then he really should be fired. But since by all appearances he's intelligent, competitive, competent at everything else and has a track record of recruiting talented players elsewhere, I think it is pretty darn safe to conclude he has some beliefs about what he thinks he knows about recruiting.

Monty gets a ton of respect and has already been given a lot of slack with regard to recruiting. Year one nobody expected anything and he got a complete pass. Year two he landed a class with highly regarded talent. Then there were a string of classes where - but for Wallace this year - the recruiting process was absurd.

Recruiting has several elements. It takes no talent at all to target a bunch of five stars. However, if those players are not available to you for whatever reason, it takes a great deal of talent to identify and bring in under-the-radar types like Jorge, Kravish, MSF and Justin Cobbs. But again, why give Monty any credit for that since he "can't recruit".

tequila4kapp;841892457 said:

---

Because he's been a D1 coach for what, like 30 years. If he doesn't know how to do it by now then he really should be fired. But since by all appearances he's intelligent, competitive, competent at everything else and has a track record of recruiting talented players elsewhere, I think it is pretty darn safe to conclude he has some beliefs about what he thinks he knows about recruiting.

Monty gets a ton of respect and has already been given a lot of slack with regard to recruiting. Year one nobody expected anything and he got a complete pass. Year two he landed a class with highly regarded talent. Then there were a string of classes where - but for Wallace this year - the recruiting process was absurd.

---

1. I would say he HASN'T gotten the pass on his first class that he should have. He came into the class halfway through the process and had only two schollies to give. He, very reasonably IMO, felt he had to get an experienced big in right away and used one schollie on a JC transfer (that worked out well). Honestly, I think he set his sights too high for the other schollie given how behind in the process he was and ended up settling for Bak. Not good. Smith he took on a promise for a future schollie again I think reasonable under the circumstances because he was facing a huge class balance issue. Bottom line is that our roster would look pretty good right now if we had one high level contributor from that class, but Monty had really 1 schollie to do that.

2. See, I'm concerned about recruiting also, but this is the type of exaggeration that keeps bringing me back to thinking the criticism has gone from sensible to unfair. A "string" of classes where the process has been "absurd"? That would be two classes made up of 6 schollies. The first of those classes had a player that made the freshman all conference team. It also includes a transfer that was Mr. Missouri as a senior. The second class includes one player you except out of your comment and a foreign player that is frankly outside the rankings so is hard to really judge. With respect to Rodriguez, I admittedly scratch my head as it doesn't seem like anyone else wanted him, but Monty did. It's not like he settled for him.

I was concerned previously that we were relying too heavily on guys who are not HS fall signees. I still am (though in this year's case it seems like our spring signee was the result of schollies opening up, not failing to get our guys in the fall). Recruiting has not been good enough. But it has not been the disaster that some have made it out to be. It's been hit and miss. You absolutely have to reformulate your ideas when a guy like Kravish, who Cal seemed to want throughout the process, turns out to be a lot better than anyone expected. Fact is, Monty's first ever recruit was a guy nobody wanted and he turned out to be conference player of the year. That is a success no matter what he was ranked coming out of HS. It is way too early to judge the success of these two recruiting classes.

As for my concern about relying on non-HS fall signees, I might need to rethink (not there yet). With a 40% transfer rate, the secondary recruiting market might be a very valid part of the process even if it doesn't look too pretty. I know I'm not looking to toss Cobbs aside any time soon.

As for my concern about relying on non-HS fall signees, I might need to rethink (not there yet). With a 40% transfer rate, the secondary recruiting market might be a very valid part of the process even if it doesn't look too pretty. I know I'm not looking to toss Cobbs aside any time soon.

I'm starting to think that for every Gary Franklin or D.J. Seeley that flames out here and decides they need to go elsewhere, there's potentially a Justin Cobbs or Ricky Kreklow that flames out somewhere else, and decides to come to Cal instead. Not every player, even a 5*, is in fact ready to make the transition to Division I, where a high percentage of the players dominated their high school competition. If a player can work out the emotionaly kinks at Minnesota or Missouri, then come here as a transfer and contribute, I'm all for that, because it can make up for not getting your first targets as freshman.

Oh, don't pick on poor Monty!! He coached a top 10 program at Furd, got big-time recruits, and here at Cal he isn't doing half that. There's no excuse. He's got has-been written all over him. We can and should do better - for whatever reason, he won't.

It isn't quite irrefutable unless/until his recruits flop as badly as his critics expect them to.

We haven't done better for more than 50 years so why would you expect us to now? For that matter, where does this sense of entitlement that we "deserve better" come from? You, and others, vent your criticism at Monty but, it seems to me, your beef is really with the administration. It has been suggested in other posts that Monty is giving the administration "what it wants". That suggests to me that all the angry venting by posters is just pissing into the wind.

"Cal should be a power athletically, not an after thought." Again I ask, why? Where is it so written? While I'm a huge college sports fan and, indeed, was drawn to Cal in part because of that, I have to confess I see some merit in the notion that the underlying goal of higher education has never been more at odds with the culture of big time sports.

I love some of the comments on this board. If you're not the best, kill yourself huh? Forget about striving to get better. Results now or you suck. Second place might as well be last place. It surprises me that such elite, successful people have so much time to spend on a message board criticising a coach who's finished 4th, 1st, 4th and 2nd. But when you're so successful in your own personal life, I guess you have little patience for people who are so bad at what they do that they can't win everything, all the time. Funny thing is, you'd think people as successful as you all obviously are would have a more direct line to the AD's office than BI. That's a real head scratcher.

OldBlue1999;841892662 said:

---

I love some of the comments on this board. If you're not the best, kill yourself huh? Forget about striving to get better. Results now or you suck. Second place might as well be last place. It surprises me that such elite, successful people have so much time to spend on a message board criticising a coach who's finished 4th, 1st, 4th and 2nd. But when you're so successful in your own personal life, I guess you have little patience for people who are so bad at what they do that they can't win everything, all the time. Funny thing is, you'd think people as successful as you all obviously are would have a more direct line to the AD's office than BI. That's a real head scratcher.

---

You would also think that people this successful would also have enough money so that Cal's athletic budget could be at least the size of Wisconsin's, let alone tOSU's, which would solve a lot of the problem. Or perhaps the reason these folks are so successful is that they're also cheap.