dan1997 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

another 100% inaccurate take from bearly with no knowledge of the situation or joe pasternack's thought process

reading ur stuff is kinda listening to an illiterate person discuss a gameplan to teach reading in schools

the streak continues#

---

What day did JP interview with Cal?

---

Second interview was in person on Thursday, first was Zoom last Sunday.

---

dan1997 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

another 100% inaccurate take from bearly with no knowledge of the situation or joe pasternack's thought process

reading ur stuff is kinda listening to an illiterate person discuss a gameplan to teach reading in schools

the streak continues#

---

What day did JP interview with Cal?

---

Second interview was in person on Thursday, first was Zoom last Sunday.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dan1997 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

another 100% inaccurate take from bearly with no knowledge of the situation or joe pasternack's thought process

reading ur stuff is kinda listening to an illiterate person discuss a gameplan to teach reading in schools

the streak continues#

---

What day did JP interview with Cal?

---

Second interview was in person on Thursday, first was Zoom last Sunday.

---

So he felt he was being strung out because he didn't get the job less than a week after his first interview and less than 3 days after his in person?

---

dan1997 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dan1997 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

another 100% inaccurate take from bearly with no knowledge of the situation or joe pasternack's thought process

reading ur stuff is kinda listening to an illiterate person discuss a gameplan to teach reading in schools

the streak continues#

---

What day did JP interview with Cal?

---

Second interview was in person on Thursday, first was Zoom last Sunday.

---

So he felt he was being strung out because he didn't get the job less than a week after his first interview and less than 3 days after his in person?

---

Leads me to believe, like Bennett, wasn't going to take the job even if offered.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

bearly, don't expect u to understand this, but ur part of the problem with respects to the tanking of the cal basketball program with ur remarkably consistent misinformed takes re: what it's gonna take for the mbb program to achieve success & also the motives of those with a much clearer vision of the necessary gameplan

---

Don't expect you to understand this, but I have nothing to do with anything other than being a voice on a message board. Cal is Cal. They do what they do. If you think Cal is going to ever turn control of the vision to medium frogs (athletic donors who fantasize they are big frogs) in a small pond (Cal sports) in a vast ocean (the University overall) whether I support that or not, you are crazy.

Cal only cares about basketball in the sense of what basketball can do for Cal. Bottom line. Neither our faculty nor potential candidates for our faculty care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our faculty. Neither our students or our potential applicants care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our student body. Net revenue does not appreciably rise with success, particularly with the risk that investing more money will not result in success, so lack of success does not substantially impact the bottom line in a way that hurts the university. Middle Aged wealthy alums have been completely apathetic about Cal sports so lack of success isn't stopping them from donating to the University.

The bottom line is that Cal revenue sports have never been the straw that stirs the drink at Cal, and that straw has become a toothpick over the years. The donations to Cal revenue sports are a pittance compared to anywhere that succeeds. Cal donors do not give enough to have the juice to make any major decisions in Cal revenue sports and their ideas over the years.

Hire Joe Pasternack is not a gameplan. I know exactly what it will take to achieve success. It will take a big donor or group of donors on the order of Phil Knight to walk into Christ's office and instead of saying "hire my friend" saying "what is it you need?" while simultaneously putting donations to the university in peril. It is the willingness to demand and pay for the hire of an expensive, proven athletic director who can manage a professional sports organization because that is what college revenue sports are. (given the many Cal alums with demonstrated significant success in sports management, it should not be hard if any of them actually thought the support was there to succeed) It is then the willingness to give that AD whatever money he needs to make good intelligent hires in every facet of the athletic department including coaching and to fund all the resources needed. Because Cal is not funding that. If we had anything remotely approaching that, the stadium would have been paid for before shovel hit dirt instead of saddling the athletic department and university with a mountain of debt. Hire my buddy and I'll throw some money in the NIL fund is not getting this done.

Cal and Cal donors are so far away from this reality it is laughable. This is not to blame the donors. I wouldn't give what it takes either, if I were them. It's just reality. Cal has failed for 60 years because the Cal community doesn't want it badly enough to provide the resources to make it happen. Which is fine. If Alabama wants it more, they should have it.

But if you think I, or anyone here, or everyone here has any impact on anything, you are kidding yourself. We can all march on Sproul and Cal will ask how much money we are willing to give. We are all just fans of the Chris Cohan Warriors hoping the hell we find Joe Lacob. That is your plan. Find your Joe Lacob and convince Cal that basketball is actually worth it to them. Otherwise you are just a bunch of Mean Girls deciding who gets to sit where in the cafeteria while we all enjoy today's helping of shyte on a shingle.

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

bearly, don't expect u to understand this, but ur part of the problem with respects to the tanking of the cal basketball program with ur remarkably consistent misinformed takes re: what it's gonna take for the mbb program to achieve success & also the motives of those with a much clearer vision of the necessary gameplan

---

Don't expect you to understand this, but I have nothing to do with anything other than being a voice on a message board. Cal is Cal. They do what they do. If you think Cal is going to ever turn control of the vision to medium frogs (athletic donors who fantasize they are big frogs) in a small pond (Cal sports) in a vast ocean (the University overall) whether I support that or not, you are crazy.

Cal only cares about basketball in the sense of what basketball can do for Cal. Bottom line. Neither our faculty nor potential candidates for our faculty care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our faculty. Neither our students or our potential applicants care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our student body. Net revenue does not appreciably rise with success, particularly with the risk that investing more money will not result in success, so lack of success does not substantially impact the bottom line in a way that hurts the university. Middle Aged wealthy alums have been completely apathetic about Cal sports so lack of success isn't stopping them from donating to the University.

The bottom line is that Cal revenue sports have never been the straw that stirs the drink at Cal, and that straw has become a toothpick over the years. The donations to Cal revenue sports are a pittance compared to anywhere that succeeds. Cal donors do not give enough to have the juice to make any major decisions in Cal revenue sports and their ideas over the years.

Hire Joe Pasternack is not a gameplan. I know exactly what it will take to achieve success. It will take a big donor or group of donors on the order of Phil Knight to walk into Christ's office and instead of saying "hire my friend" saying "what is it you need?" while simultaneously putting donations to the university in peril. It is the willingness to demand and pay for the hire of an expensive, proven athletic director who can manage a professional sports organization because that is what college revenue sports are. (given the many Cal alums with demonstrated significant success in sports management, it should not be hard if any of them actually thought the support was there to succeed) It is then the willingness to give that AD whatever money he needs to make good intelligent hires in every facet of the athletic department including coaching and to fund all the resources needed. Because Cal is not funding that. If we had anything remotely approaching that, the stadium would have been paid for before shovel hit dirt instead of saddling the athletic department and university with a mountain of debt. Hire my buddy and I'll throw some money in the NIL fund is not getting this done.

Cal and Cal donors are so far away from this reality it is laughable. This is not to blame the donors. I wouldn't give what it takes either, if I were them. It's just reality. Cal has failed for 60 years because the Cal community doesn't want it badly enough to provide the resources to make it happen. Which is fine. If Alabama wants it more, they should have it.

But if you think I, or anyone here, or everyone here has any impact on anything, you are kidding yourself. We can all march on Sproul and Cal will ask how much money we are willing to give. We are all just fans of the Chris Cohan Warriors hoping the hell we find Joe Lacob. That is your plan. Find your Joe Lacob and convince Cal that basketball is actually worth it to them. Otherwise you are just a bunch of Mean Girls deciding who gets to sit where in the cafeteria while we all enjoy today's helping of shyte on a shingle.

---

If Cal wants to succeed in athletics, they will need to somehow get into a major conference, plus find their Phil Knight to come about, and it'll need to be someone who carries enough levity to lift the university both academically and athletically. It's not going to be a Goldman or a Haas anymore who can carry our weight. We need to change the game rapidly.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

bearly, don't expect u to understand this, but ur part of the problem with respects to the tanking of the cal basketball program with ur remarkably consistent misinformed takes re: what it's gonna take for the mbb program to achieve success & also the motives of those with a much clearer vision of the necessary gameplan

---

Don't expect you to understand this, but I have nothing to do with anything other than being a voice on a message board. Cal is Cal. They do what they do. If you think Cal is going to ever turn control of the vision to medium frogs (athletic donors who fantasize they are big frogs) in a small pond (Cal sports) in a vast ocean (the University overall) whether I support that or not, you are crazy.

Cal only cares about basketball in the sense of what basketball can do for Cal. Bottom line. Neither our faculty nor potential candidates for our faculty care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our faculty. Neither our students or our potential applicants care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our student body. Net revenue does not appreciably rise with success, particularly with the risk that investing more money will not result in success, so lack of success does not substantially impact the bottom line in a way that hurts the university. Middle Aged wealthy alums have been completely apathetic about Cal sports so lack of success isn't stopping them from donating to the University.

The bottom line is that Cal revenue sports have never been the straw that stirs the drink at Cal, and that straw has become a toothpick over the years. The donations to Cal revenue sports are a pittance compared to anywhere that succeeds. Cal donors do not give enough to have the juice to make any major decisions in Cal revenue sports and their ideas over the years.

Hire Joe Pasternack is not a gameplan. I know exactly what it will take to achieve success. It will take a big donor or group of donors on the order of Phil Knight to walk into Christ's office and instead of saying "hire my friend" saying "what is it you need?" while simultaneously putting donations to the university in peril. It is the willingness to demand and pay for the hire of an expensive, proven athletic director who can manage a professional sports organization because that is what college revenue sports are. (given the many Cal alums with demonstrated significant success in sports management, it should not be hard if any of them actually thought the support was there to succeed) It is then the willingness to give that AD whatever money he needs to make good intelligent hires in every facet of the athletic department including coaching and to fund all the resources needed. Because Cal is not funding that. If we had anything remotely approaching that, the stadium would have been paid for before shovel hit dirt instead of saddling the athletic department and university with a mountain of debt. Hire my buddy and I'll throw some money in the NIL fund is not getting this done.

Cal and Cal donors are so far away from this reality it is laughable. This is not to blame the donors. I wouldn't give what it takes either, if I were them. It's just reality. Cal has failed for 60 years because the Cal community doesn't want it badly enough to provide the resources to make it happen. Which is fine. If Alabama wants it more, they should have it.

But if you think I, or anyone here, or everyone here has any impact on anything, you are kidding yourself. We can all march on Sproul and Cal will ask how much money we are willing to give. We are all just fans of the Chris Cohan Warriors hoping the hell we find Joe Lacob. That is your plan. Find your Joe Lacob and convince Cal that basketball is actually worth it to them. Otherwise you are just a bunch of Mean Girls deciding who gets to sit where in the cafeteria while we all enjoy today's helping of shyte on a shingle.

---

If Cal wants to succeed in athletics, they will need to somehow get into a major conference, plus find their Phil Knight to come about, and it'll need to be someone who carries enough levity to lift the university both academically and athletically. It's not going to be a Goldman or a Haas anymore who can carry our weight. We need to change the game rapidly.

---

Given your take on the realities, how does getting into a major conference help Cal? I'm starting to wonder if it really does. Are we better off in a weakened Pac12 (with an increased chance of winning) vs. being the door mat of B1G? Look at the teams that are in the final 4 - none from the SEC and maybe one from a p5 conference (if Texas wins).

Maybe its easier to build a program as the big fish in a smaller pond? SDSU has to this point fit that model and seems to be doing pretty well - better than Cal for sure in terms of W-L in football and mens hoops.

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

bearly, don't expect u to understand this, but ur part of the problem with respects to the tanking of the cal basketball program with ur remarkably consistent misinformed takes re: what it's gonna take for the mbb program to achieve success & also the motives of those with a much clearer vision of the necessary gameplan

---

Don't expect you to understand this, but I have nothing to do with anything other than being a voice on a message board. Cal is Cal. They do what they do. If you think Cal is going to ever turn control of the vision to medium frogs (athletic donors who fantasize they are big frogs) in a small pond (Cal sports) in a vast ocean (the University overall) whether I support that or not, you are crazy.

Cal only cares about basketball in the sense of what basketball can do for Cal. Bottom line. Neither our faculty nor potential candidates for our faculty care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our faculty. Neither our students or our potential applicants care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our student body. Net revenue does not appreciably rise with success, particularly with the risk that investing more money will not result in success, so lack of success does not substantially impact the bottom line in a way that hurts the university. Middle Aged wealthy alums have been completely apathetic about Cal sports so lack of success isn't stopping them from donating to the University.

The bottom line is that Cal revenue sports have never been the straw that stirs the drink at Cal, and that straw has become a toothpick over the years. The donations to Cal revenue sports are a pittance compared to anywhere that succeeds. Cal donors do not give enough to have the juice to make any major decisions in Cal revenue sports and their ideas over the years.

Hire Joe Pasternack is not a gameplan. I know exactly what it will take to achieve success. It will take a big donor or group of donors on the order of Phil Knight to walk into Christ's office and instead of saying "hire my friend" saying "what is it you need?" while simultaneously putting donations to the university in peril. It is the willingness to demand and pay for the hire of an expensive, proven athletic director who can manage a professional sports organization because that is what college revenue sports are. (given the many Cal alums with demonstrated significant success in sports management, it should not be hard if any of them actually thought the support was there to succeed) It is then the willingness to give that AD whatever money he needs to make good intelligent hires in every facet of the athletic department including coaching and to fund all the resources needed. Because Cal is not funding that. If we had anything remotely approaching that, the stadium would have been paid for before shovel hit dirt instead of saddling the athletic department and university with a mountain of debt. Hire my buddy and I'll throw some money in the NIL fund is not getting this done.

Cal and Cal donors are so far away from this reality it is laughable. This is not to blame the donors. I wouldn't give what it takes either, if I were them. It's just reality. Cal has failed for 60 years because the Cal community doesn't want it badly enough to provide the resources to make it happen. Which is fine. If Alabama wants it more, they should have it.

But if you think I, or anyone here, or everyone here has any impact on anything, you are kidding yourself. We can all march on Sproul and Cal will ask how much money we are willing to give. We are all just fans of the Chris Cohan Warriors hoping the hell we find Joe Lacob. That is your plan. Find your Joe Lacob and convince Cal that basketball is actually worth it to them. Otherwise you are just a bunch of Mean Girls deciding who gets to sit where in the cafeteria while we all enjoy today's helping of shyte on a shingle.

---

If Cal wants to succeed in athletics, they will need to somehow get into a major conference, plus find their Phil Knight to come about, and it'll need to be someone who carries enough levity to lift the university both academically and athletically. It's not going to be a Goldman or a Haas anymore who can carry our weight. We need to change the game rapidly.

---

Given your take on the realities, how does getting into a major conference help Cal? I'm starting to wonder if it really does. Are we better off in a weakened Pac12 (with an increased chance of winning) vs. being the door mat of B1G? Look at the teams that are in the final 4 - none from the SEC and maybe one from a p5 conference (if Texas wins).

Maybe its easier to build a program as the big fish in a smaller pond? SDSU has to this point fit that model and seems to be doing pretty well - better than Cal for sure in terms of W-L in football and mens hoops.

---

This is correct for basketball. 68 of 363 schools get into the tournament, 18.7 percent, which means even the mid-majors have a shot, as this year shows. Football is different. Even with a 16-team playoff, only 12 percent of the 133 teams get in, and I expect there will be a huge bias in at large picks for Power 5 schools. To have football success, you need to be in a major conference, but not in basketball.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

bearly, don't expect u to understand this, but ur part of the problem with respects to the tanking of the cal basketball program with ur remarkably consistent misinformed takes re: what it's gonna take for the mbb program to achieve success & also the motives of those with a much clearer vision of the necessary gameplan

---

Don't expect you to understand this, but I have nothing to do with anything other than being a voice on a message board. Cal is Cal. They do what they do. If you think Cal is going to ever turn control of the vision to medium frogs (athletic donors who fantasize they are big frogs) in a small pond (Cal sports) in a vast ocean (the University overall) whether I support that or not, you are crazy.

Cal only cares about basketball in the sense of what basketball can do for Cal. Bottom line. Neither our faculty nor potential candidates for our faculty care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our faculty. Neither our students or our potential applicants care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our student body. Net revenue does not appreciably rise with success, particularly with the risk that investing more money will not result in success, so lack of success does not substantially impact the bottom line in a way that hurts the university. Middle Aged wealthy alums have been completely apathetic about Cal sports so lack of success isn't stopping them from donating to the University.

The bottom line is that Cal revenue sports have never been the straw that stirs the drink at Cal, and that straw has become a toothpick over the years. The donations to Cal revenue sports are a pittance compared to anywhere that succeeds. Cal donors do not give enough to have the juice to make any major decisions in Cal revenue sports and their ideas over the years.

Hire Joe Pasternack is not a gameplan. I know exactly what it will take to achieve success. It will take a big donor or group of donors on the order of Phil Knight to walk into Christ's office and instead of saying "hire my friend" saying "what is it you need?" while simultaneously putting donations to the university in peril. It is the willingness to demand and pay for the hire of an expensive, proven athletic director who can manage a professional sports organization because that is what college revenue sports are. (given the many Cal alums with demonstrated significant success in sports management, it should not be hard if any of them actually thought the support was there to succeed) It is then the willingness to give that AD whatever money he needs to make good intelligent hires in every facet of the athletic department including coaching and to fund all the resources needed. Because Cal is not funding that. If we had anything remotely approaching that, the stadium would have been paid for before shovel hit dirt instead of saddling the athletic department and university with a mountain of debt. Hire my buddy and I'll throw some money in the NIL fund is not getting this done.

Cal and Cal donors are so far away from this reality it is laughable. This is not to blame the donors. I wouldn't give what it takes either, if I were them. It's just reality. Cal has failed for 60 years because the Cal community doesn't want it badly enough to provide the resources to make it happen. Which is fine. If Alabama wants it more, they should have it.

But if you think I, or anyone here, or everyone here has any impact on anything, you are kidding yourself. We can all march on Sproul and Cal will ask how much money we are willing to give. We are all just fans of the Chris Cohan Warriors hoping the hell we find Joe Lacob. That is your plan. Find your Joe Lacob and convince Cal that basketball is actually worth it to them. Otherwise you are just a bunch of Mean Girls deciding who gets to sit where in the cafeteria while we all enjoy today's helping of shyte on a shingle.

---

If Cal wants to succeed in athletics, they will need to somehow get into a major conference, plus find their Phil Knight to come about, and it'll need to be someone who carries enough levity to lift the university both academically and athletically. It's not going to be a Goldman or a Haas anymore who can carry our weight. We need to change the game rapidly.

---

Given your take on the realities, how does getting into a major conference help Cal? I'm starting to wonder if it really does. Are we better off in a weakened Pac12 (with an increased chance of winning) vs. being the door mat of B1G? Look at the teams that are in the final 4 - none from the SEC and maybe one from a p5 conference (if Texas wins).

Maybe its easier to build a program as the big fish in a smaller pond? SDSU has to this point fit that model and seems to be doing pretty well - better than Cal for sure in terms of W-L in football and mens hoops.

---

This is correct for basketball. 68 of 363 schools get into the tournament, 18.7 percent, which means even the mid-majors have a shot, as this year shows. Football is different. Even with a 16-team playoff, only 12 percent of the 133 teams get in, and I expect there will be a huge bias in at large picks for Power 5 schools. To have football success, you need to be in a major conference, but not in basketball.

---

I think football playoff expansion is coming albeit not to 68 schools.

But in reality, there are 2 major football conferences - SEC and B1G - with the other three P5s clearly a step below (not to mention other conferences and ND). Yet every year at least one team from the other conferences makes the current playoffs - e.g., TCU this year. I think TCU had an easier path than an SEC or B1G school, which is my larger point.

I think the Pac12/10 teams are realizing they may be better off w/o UCLA or USC then joining a larger conference. For Cal, if we make the B1G (in a western pod), are we likely to win a football championship any time soon, if ever? I'd like Cal's chances better in the re-configured P12/10.

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

bearly, don't expect u to understand this, but ur part of the problem with respects to the tanking of the cal basketball program with ur remarkably consistent misinformed takes re: what it's gonna take for the mbb program to achieve success & also the motives of those with a much clearer vision of the necessary gameplan

---

Don't expect you to understand this, but I have nothing to do with anything other than being a voice on a message board. Cal is Cal. They do what they do. If you think Cal is going to ever turn control of the vision to medium frogs (athletic donors who fantasize they are big frogs) in a small pond (Cal sports) in a vast ocean (the University overall) whether I support that or not, you are crazy.

Cal only cares about basketball in the sense of what basketball can do for Cal. Bottom line. Neither our faculty nor potential candidates for our faculty care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our faculty. Neither our students or our potential applicants care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our student body. Net revenue does not appreciably rise with success, particularly with the risk that investing more money will not result in success, so lack of success does not substantially impact the bottom line in a way that hurts the university. Middle Aged wealthy alums have been completely apathetic about Cal sports so lack of success isn't stopping them from donating to the University.

The bottom line is that Cal revenue sports have never been the straw that stirs the drink at Cal, and that straw has become a toothpick over the years. The donations to Cal revenue sports are a pittance compared to anywhere that succeeds. Cal donors do not give enough to have the juice to make any major decisions in Cal revenue sports and their ideas over the years.

Hire Joe Pasternack is not a gameplan. I know exactly what it will take to achieve success. It will take a big donor or group of donors on the order of Phil Knight to walk into Christ's office and instead of saying "hire my friend" saying "what is it you need?" while simultaneously putting donations to the university in peril. It is the willingness to demand and pay for the hire of an expensive, proven athletic director who can manage a professional sports organization because that is what college revenue sports are. (given the many Cal alums with demonstrated significant success in sports management, it should not be hard if any of them actually thought the support was there to succeed) It is then the willingness to give that AD whatever money he needs to make good intelligent hires in every facet of the athletic department including coaching and to fund all the resources needed. Because Cal is not funding that. If we had anything remotely approaching that, the stadium would have been paid for before shovel hit dirt instead of saddling the athletic department and university with a mountain of debt. Hire my buddy and I'll throw some money in the NIL fund is not getting this done.

Cal and Cal donors are so far away from this reality it is laughable. This is not to blame the donors. I wouldn't give what it takes either, if I were them. It's just reality. Cal has failed for 60 years because the Cal community doesn't want it badly enough to provide the resources to make it happen. Which is fine. If Alabama wants it more, they should have it.

But if you think I, or anyone here, or everyone here has any impact on anything, you are kidding yourself. We can all march on Sproul and Cal will ask how much money we are willing to give. We are all just fans of the Chris Cohan Warriors hoping the hell we find Joe Lacob. That is your plan. Find your Joe Lacob and convince Cal that basketball is actually worth it to them. Otherwise you are just a bunch of Mean Girls deciding who gets to sit where in the cafeteria while we all enjoy today's helping of shyte on a shingle.

---

If Cal wants to succeed in athletics, they will need to somehow get into a major conference, plus find their Phil Knight to come about, and it'll need to be someone who carries enough levity to lift the university both academically and athletically. It's not going to be a Goldman or a Haas anymore who can carry our weight. We need to change the game rapidly.

---

Given your take on the realities, how does getting into a major conference help Cal? I'm starting to wonder if it really does. Are we better off in a weakened Pac12 (with an increased chance of winning) vs. being the door mat of B1G? Look at the teams that are in the final 4 - none from the SEC and maybe one from a p5 conference (if Texas wins).

Maybe its easier to build a program as the big fish in a smaller pond? SDSU has to this point fit that model and seems to be doing pretty well - better than Cal for sure in terms of W-L in football and mens hoops.

---

This is correct for basketball. 68 of 363 schools get into the tournament, 18.7 percent, which means even the mid-majors have a shot, as this year shows. Football is different. Even with a 16-team playoff, only 12 percent of the 133 teams get in, and I expect there will be a huge bias in at large picks for Power 5 schools. To have football success, you need to be in a major conference, but not in basketball.

---

I think football playoff expansion is coming albeit not to 68 schools.

But in reality, there are 2 major football conferences - SEC and B1G - with the other three P5s clearly a step below (not to mention other conferences and ND). Yet every year at least one team from the other conferences makes the current playoffs - e.g., TCU this year. I think TCU had an easier path than an SEC or B1G school, which is my larger point.

I think the Pac12/10 teams are realizing they may be better off w/o UCLA or USC then joining a larger conference. For Cal, if we make the B1G (in a western pod), are we likely to win a football championship any time soon, if ever? I'd like Cal's chances better in the re-configured P12/10.

---

I would agree with you if it was 10 years ago, but now we are in the NIL era and the kids making the big bucks are going to want the goodies that big time revenue brings in. Every time we find some good players they are going to get poached.

---

6956bear said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

Intuit said:

---

That's a fantasy you are spreading 4rth Gen. It totally lacks credibility in lieu of the powerful public campaigning and visible leaks about support that was lined up to support his program.

It stretches creditability to think he just got his nose out of joint because the selection process dragged on and then went quiet. He didn't walk away from a multiyear 7figure contract and sign a low 6 figure contract because Cal was tardy getting back to him.

It seems he likely was not the first choice and he got out of contention to save face in Santa Barbara

---

intuit, ur a completely unreliable source & probably a bureaucrat within the cal athletic department

4th gen bear has bought 2 houses for cal football/basketball which houses are jaydn ott among other bears, a lotta the guys who have passed on the transfer portal are because of 4th gen bear

---

He is a great Golden Bear no question. And his support for the programs is terrific. But he clearly has a dog in this fight. He was all in on Pasternack. That is not a bad choice. I would have been fine with JP. But that does not mean he is the only choice that can succeed.

Before I pass total judgement on the choice, I want to see who gets selected. And I want to have a better understanding on the support that will be given.

We do know that there is growing support for AAR. But the long time donors were Pasternack supporters. They are likely to be upset. I get that and it could end badly. But I want to see the choice and the staff that choice can assemble along with who the major supporters of that choice are.

There is a lot of talk around west coast ties, Prolific Prep ties, Oakland Soldiers ties. They are important. But Jaylen Brown was not a west coast guy. Nor Shareef. Many of the players at Prolific are not west coast guys. Some are international guys.

I can understand the anger regarding Pasternack. Especially with Knowlton leading the search. But is AAR if he is chosen really such a bad hire?

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

bearly, don't expect u to understand this, but ur part of the problem with respects to the tanking of the cal basketball program with ur remarkably consistent misinformed takes re: what it's gonna take for the mbb program to achieve success & also the motives of those with a much clearer vision of the necessary gameplan

---

Don't expect you to understand this, but I have nothing to do with anything other than being a voice on a message board. Cal is Cal. They do what they do. If you think Cal is going to ever turn control of the vision to medium frogs (athletic donors who fantasize they are big frogs) in a small pond (Cal sports) in a vast ocean (the University overall) whether I support that or not, you are crazy.

Cal only cares about basketball in the sense of what basketball can do for Cal. Bottom line. Neither our faculty nor potential candidates for our faculty care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our faculty. Neither our students or our potential applicants care whether Cal succeeds in basketball, so lack of success does not hurt the quality of our student body. Net revenue does not appreciably rise with success, particularly with the risk that investing more money will not result in success, so lack of success does not substantially impact the bottom line in a way that hurts the university. Middle Aged wealthy alums have been completely apathetic about Cal sports so lack of success isn't stopping them from donating to the University.

The bottom line is that Cal revenue sports have never been the straw that stirs the drink at Cal, and that straw has become a toothpick over the years. The donations to Cal revenue sports are a pittance compared to anywhere that succeeds. Cal donors do not give enough to have the juice to make any major decisions in Cal revenue sports and their ideas over the years.

Hire Joe Pasternack is not a gameplan. I know exactly what it will take to achieve success. It will take a big donor or group of donors on the order of Phil Knight to walk into Christ's office and instead of saying "hire my friend" saying "what is it you need?" while simultaneously putting donations to the university in peril. It is the willingness to demand and pay for the hire of an expensive, proven athletic director who can manage a professional sports organization because that is what college revenue sports are. (given the many Cal alums with demonstrated significant success in sports management, it should not be hard if any of them actually thought the support was there to succeed) It is then the willingness to give that AD whatever money he needs to make good intelligent hires in every facet of the athletic department including coaching and to fund all the resources needed. Because Cal is not funding that. If we had anything remotely approaching that, the stadium would have been paid for before shovel hit dirt instead of saddling the athletic department and university with a mountain of debt. Hire my buddy and I'll throw some money in the NIL fund is not getting this done.

Cal and Cal donors are so far away from this reality it is laughable. This is not to blame the donors. I wouldn't give what it takes either, if I were them. It's just reality. Cal has failed for 60 years because the Cal community doesn't want it badly enough to provide the resources to make it happen. Which is fine. If Alabama wants it more, they should have it.

But if you think I, or anyone here, or everyone here has any impact on anything, you are kidding yourself. We can all march on Sproul and Cal will ask how much money we are willing to give. We are all just fans of the Chris Cohan Warriors hoping the hell we find Joe Lacob. That is your plan. Find your Joe Lacob and convince Cal that basketball is actually worth it to them. Otherwise you are just a bunch of Mean Girls deciding who gets to sit where in the cafeteria while we all enjoy today's helping of shyte on a shingle.

---

If Cal wants to succeed in athletics, they will need to somehow get into a major conference, plus find their Phil Knight to come about, and it'll need to be someone who carries enough levity to lift the university both academically and athletically. It's not going to be a Goldman or a Haas anymore who can carry our weight. We need to change the game rapidly.

---

Given your take on the realities, how does getting into a major conference help Cal? I'm starting to wonder if it really does. Are we better off in a weakened Pac12 (with an increased chance of winning) vs. being the door mat of B1G? Look at the teams that are in the final 4 - none from the SEC and maybe one from a p5 conference (if Texas wins).

Maybe its easier to build a program as the big fish in a smaller pond? SDSU has to this point fit that model and seems to be doing pretty well - better than Cal for sure in terms of W-L in football and mens hoops.

---

This is correct for basketball. 68 of 363 schools get into the tournament, 18.7 percent, which means even the mid-majors have a shot, as this year shows. Football is different. Even with a 16-team playoff, only 12 percent of the 133 teams get in, and I expect there will be a huge bias in at large picks for Power 5 schools. To have football success, you need to be in a major conference, but not in basketball.

---

I think football playoff expansion is coming albeit not to 68 schools.

But in reality, there are 2 major football conferences - SEC and B1G - with the other three P5s clearly a step below (not to mention other conferences and ND). Yet every year at least one team from the other conferences makes the current playoffs - e.g., TCU this year. I think TCU had an easier path than an SEC or B1G school, which is my larger point.

I think the Pac12/10 teams are realizing they may be better off w/o UCLA or USC then joining a larger conference. For Cal, if we make the B1G (in a western pod), are we likely to win a football championship any time soon, if ever? I'd like Cal's chances better in the re-configured P12/10.

---

I would agree with you if it was 10 years ago, but now we are in the NIL era and the kids making the big bucks are going to want the goodies that big time revenue brings in. Every time we find some good players they are going to get poached.

---

Why? NIL dollars are donor dollars. If anything, NIL takes away the disparity of conference TV contract payments to the AD if (and its a big if) program donors are willing to spend on NIL.

Cal doesn't have to lose players to teams in larger conferences, but Cal needs to raise NIL $$. Sebastabear and others get that - the question is whether donors do.

---

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

Intuit said:

---

That's a fantasy you are spreading 4rth Gen. It totally lacks credibility in lieu of the powerful public campaigning and visible leaks about support that was lined up to support his program.

It stretches creditability to think he just got his nose out of joint because the selection process dragged on and then went quiet. He didn't walk away from a multiyear 7figure contract and sign a low 6 figure contract because Cal was tardy getting back to him.

It seems he likely was not the first choice and he got out of contention to save face in Santa Barbara

---

intuit, ur a completely unreliable source & probably a bureaucrat within the cal athletic department

4th gen bear has bought 2 houses for cal football/basketball which houses are jaydn ott among other bears, a lotta the guys who have passed on the transfer portal are because of 4th gen bear

---

He is a great Golden Bear no question. And his support for the programs is terrific. But he clearly has a dog in this fight. He was all in on Pasternack. That is not a bad choice. I would have been fine with JP. But that does not mean he is the only choice that can succeed.

Before I pass total judgement on the choice, I want to see who gets selected. And I want to have a better understanding on the support that will be given.

We do know that there is growing support for AAR. But the long time donors were Pasternack supporters. They are likely to be upset. I get that and it could end badly. But I want to see the choice and the staff that choice can assemble along with who the major supporters of that choice are.

There is a lot of talk around west coast ties, Prolific Prep ties, Oakland Soldiers ties. They are important. But Jaylen Brown was not a west coast guy. Nor Shareef. Many of the players at Prolific are not west coast guys. Some are international guys.

I can understand the anger regarding Pasternack. Especially with Knowlton leading the search. But is AAR if he is chosen really such a bad hire?

---

Shareef and Jaylen were McDonald's All Americans from Georgia who could have gone to ANY program in the country, but chose Cal largely because we had African American coaches that could sell Cal's diversity and history of fighting for social Justice. If anything, social Justice issues are even more important to the current generation.

The future will also be driven by NIL and the transfer portal. Pasternack has ties to the Haas famiky and others, but Amir has ties to Jaylen Brown and Shareef.

Reports that Monty holds sway and is pushing Madsen and his son are troubling. He knows his Xs and Os, but was the anti-recruiter. I don't think Madsen is a great fit for Cal, I think it takes time to line up the donors to back him. At Cal he would be a bit like Troy Taylor at Stanford, good coach and good person at the wrong school with enthusiasm and success limited as a result.

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

Intuit said:

---

That's a fantasy you are spreading 4rth Gen. It totally lacks credibility in lieu of the powerful public campaigning and visible leaks about support that was lined up to support his program.

It stretches creditability to think he just got his nose out of joint because the selection process dragged on and then went quiet. He didn't walk away from a multiyear 7figure contract and sign a low 6 figure contract because Cal was tardy getting back to him.

It seems he likely was not the first choice and he got out of contention to save face in Santa Barbara

---

intuit, ur a completely unreliable source & probably a bureaucrat within the cal athletic department

4th gen bear has bought 2 houses for cal football/basketball which houses are jaydn ott among other bears, a lotta the guys who have passed on the transfer portal are because of 4th gen bear

---

He is a great Golden Bear no question. And his support for the programs is terrific. But he clearly has a dog in this fight. He was all in on Pasternack. That is not a bad choice. I would have been fine with JP. But that does not mean he is the only choice that can succeed.

Before I pass total judgement on the choice, I want to see who gets selected. And I want to have a better understanding on the support that will be given.

We do know that there is growing support for AAR. But the long time donors were Pasternack supporters. They are likely to be upset. I get that and it could end badly. But I want to see the choice and the staff that choice can assemble along with who the major supporters of that choice are.

There is a lot of talk around west coast ties, Prolific Prep ties, Oakland Soldiers ties. They are important. But Jaylen Brown was not a west coast guy. Nor Shareef. Many of the players at Prolific are not west coast guys. Some are international guys.

I can understand the anger regarding Pasternack. Especially with Knowlton leading the search. But is AAR if he is chosen really such a bad hire?

---

Shareef and Jaylen were McDonald's All Americans from Georgia who could have gone to ANY program in the country, but chose Cal largely because we had African American coaches that could sell Cal's diversity and history of fighting for social Justice. If anything, social Justice issues are even more important to the current generation.

The future will also be driven by NIL and the transfer portal. Pasternack has ties to the Haas famiky and others, but Amir has ties to Jaylen Brown and Shareef.

Reports that Monty holds sway and is pushing Madsen and his son are troubling. He knows his Xs and Os, but was the anti-recruiter. I don't think Madsen is a great fit for Cal, I think it takes time to line up the donors to back him. At Cal he would be a bit like Troy Taylor at Stanford, good coach and good person at the wrong school with enthusiasm and success limited as a result.

---

Madsen is intriguing because he brings NBA cred and he has won a COTY award as well. I would have liked to see success at a higher level but it is the sort of risky hire that could work out or blow up spectacularly like Jerod Haase.

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

In some ways he is kind of like the Dennis Gates hire when Gates' only HC credit was Cleveland State when Mizzou hired him. No other P5 programs wanted to take a chance on hiring a HC with such a thin, non-P5 resume. And, it seems, Mizzou hit a home run. Maybe Madsen is our "Gates".

---

But as a Cal alum, Gates would have been even bigger at Cal.

---

dimitrig said:

---

Good article on Madsen.

"He's going to be a fantastic coach," says Ervin Johnson, his friend and former teammate. "The players will enjoy playing for him. There are going to be growing pains, but he's a guy who's going to always see the glass as full. If anybody can do it, he can."

https://www.deseret.com/2019/7/13/8936648/pixie-dust-and-basketball-mark-madsen-and-his-improbable-journey-from-the-nba-to-utah-valley

---