https://instagr.am/p/CqdTIx3OkDL

Shocky1 said:

---

the flawed search process

so past resentments (and other conflicts of interest) against pasternack played a key role in him getting passed up by for mark madsen who is by all accounts a good coach who will elevate the program if he can find a true facilitating/distributing point guard between now & the 1st day of classes this fall

---

In addition to some true facilitating/distributing donors.

Shocky1 said:

---

the flawed search process
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/110786/replies/2151796

---

Seems to me the process was fine. JK listened to different constituents with different views, which he apparently did not do last time around. In the end, he's the boss and it is up to him to decide based on the varied input he received. It is not a democratic process wherein votes are tallied. As a result, he's also the one who takes the heat if it does not work out.

GoCal80 said:

---

Seems to me the process was fine. JK listened to different constituents with different views, which he apparently did not do last time around. In the end, he's the boss and it is up to him to decide based on the varied input he received. It is not a democratic process wherein votes are tallied. As a result, he's also the one who takes the heat if it does not work out.

---

What heat? Doesn't his contract run till 2029?

GoCal80 said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

the flawed search process
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/110786/replies/2151796

---

Seems to me the process was fine. JK listened to different constituents with different views, which he apparently did not do last time around. In the end, he's the boss and it is up to him to decide based on the varied input he received. It is not a democratic process wherein votes are tallied. As a result, he's also the one who takes the heat if it does not work out.

---

Agreed, and would add nor is it an auction to the highest NIL bidder.

https://instagr.am/p/COdMO6ujrLG
the reality is that mark madsen don't got the same support or relationships with whale donors at this time that are necessary for nil fundraising, this should've been a major criteria consideration for the con artist before walking joe pasternack to his car...yeah let's ignore doug goldman & see what happens

but make no mistake about it the con artist is indisputably the worst athletic director in the united states of america & his anger/resentment of football & basketball has no boundaries, the andrew mcgraw for athletic director era cannot arrive soon enough in berkeley california

don't be a dumb azz (better to palm/kiss a tight azz)#

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

He didn't listen to different constituents. He didn't take varied input. That seems to be what you are missing.

---

agreed bearly, knowlton didn't listen to his constituents including doug goldman who wanted joe pasternack, he didn't take varied input but rather only the predictable agenda driven advice of jj & monty and cal is now singing the panic at the disco song in tryna raise nil dollars for the basketball program when there wuz millions on the table with joe pasternack as the head coach

Shocky1 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

He didn't listen to different constituents. He didn't take varied input. That seems to be what you are missing.

---

agreed bearly, knowlton didn't listen to his constituents including doug goldman who wanted joe pasternack, he didn't take varied input but rather only the predictable agenda driven advice of jj & monty and cal is now singing the panic at the disco song in tryna raise nil dollars for the basketball program when there wuz millions on the table with joe pasternack as the head coach

---

So does this feedback go directly back to Christ who should have already known that any process led by this bozo is a suspect one?

She should have questioned him every step of the way and made sure the right constituents were brought along for the ride.

Or does his performance here not matter because of the lengthy contract extension (again all on Christ) and we just have to hope the investigation into this idiot is carried out competently and he is aptly discarded?

econ, luv u man but we're covering the same ground again

it is not the job of the chancellor of the #1 ranked public university in the world to micromanage any coaching hires, ok?...that's not gonna happen in berkeley

carol made a mistake hiring/extending knowlton, she now knows she made a mistake, and she's tryna correct her mistake by terminating him via the mckeever investigation

we got nobel peace prize winners in berkeley, it is not my expectation for the chancellor to question the athletic director re: his selection process in depth

but 100% agree with u that we have to hope the con artist investigation is carried out competently by dan mogoluf and that knowlton is walked to his car and that we begin the andrew mcgraw era in berkeley with less than 20 sport teams that are expected to compete for championships particularly in the revenue sports while still graduating student athletes with berkeley degrees

railing on a 78 year old benevolent christ who has financially supported cal athletics more than any other chancellor in history seems pointless particularly as she's tryna fix her major personnel mistake before the next chancellor arrives in berkeley who will almost assuredly not be as supportive of sports as carol

chancellor christ is not perfect but she is not the problem, got it?

Shocky1 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

He didn't listen to different constituents. He didn't take varied input. That seems to be what you are missing.

---

agreed bearly, knowlton didn't listen to his constituents including doug goldman who wanted joe pasternack, he didn't take varied input but rather only the predictable agenda driven advice of jj & monty and cal is now singing the panic at the disco song in tryna raise nil dollars for the basketball program when there wuz millions on the table with joe pasternack as the head coach

---

Major donors should have their chance to provide input into the process, but they do not make hiring decisions. If it ever gets to the point when donors are making major hiring decisions and not Cal's administrators and faculty, the university will have sold out and lost its soul. The faculty and administrators are responsible for setting priorities and standards in a manner consistent with the Cal's values and mission. Neither I nor any of you knows who was allowed to give input into the decision. In the end, it is the athletic director's job to make coach hiring decisions. The AD weighs all the input and decides on the hire based an assessment of which advice aligns with the university's philosophy and values. Pasternak was not universally favored. He carries baggage from his association with a corrupt University of Arizona basketball program, and some find his personality to be somewhat irritating and his ego to be large. If Mark Masden ends up being our coach, I hope the Cal alumni and donors will unite around him. He is a high caliber person with signs of an upward coaching trajectory, and he is admired by those who have played with him, those who have coached with him, and those who have been coached by him.

GoCal80 said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

He didn't listen to different constituents. He didn't take varied input. That seems to be what you are missing.

---

agreed bearly, knowlton didn't listen to his constituents including doug goldman who wanted joe pasternack, he didn't take varied input but rather only the predictable agenda driven advice of jj & monty and cal is now singing the panic at the disco song in tryna raise nil dollars for the basketball program when there wuz millions on the table with joe pasternack as the head coach

---

Major donors should have their chance to provide input into the process, but they do not make hiring decisions. If it ever gets to the point when donors are making major hiring decisions and not Cal's administrators and faculty, the university will have sold out and lost its soul. The faculty and administrators are responsible for setting priorities and standards in a manner consistent with the Cal's values and mission. Neither I nor any of you knows who was allowed to give input into the decision. In the end, it is the athletic director's job to make coach hiring decisions. The AD weighs all the input and decides on the hire based an assessment of which advice aligns with the university's philosophy and values. Pasternak was not universally favored. He carries baggage from his association with a corrupt University of Arizona basketball program, and some find his personality to be somewhat irritating and his ego to be large. If Mark Masden ends up being our coach, I hope the Cal alumni and donors will unite around him. He is a high caliber person with signs of an upward coaching trajectory, and he is admired by those who have played with him, those who have coached with him, and those who have been coached by him.

---

This is a quaint notion that was true at places like Cal pre-NIL. It has never been true at schools that actually have winning football and mens basketball programs - donors have significant input and impose the type of accountability that Cal has been sorely lacking for 50+ years.

We live in the NIL era. Any AD that wants to win MUST HAVE A COMPETITIVE NIL PROGRAM. It is not optional. When you're making a hiring decision, you absolutely must have an NIL plan. So, like or not, the donors have a ton of control (if you want to win).

I get that JP may have been disqualified due to his past baggage. There is a way for the AD to navigate that issue with JP's supporters (reportedly the Goldmans) and get them to support a different candidate. AAR apparently had a lot of support from NIL donors. And I bet the Goldmans and other JP supporters would come around if they have a decent explanation as to why Cal was passing on JP and the plan for the new guy.

What the AD absolutely cannot do is burn the donor/NIL bridges and hire a guy who has no committed NIL support. That is the definition of stupid. If that is what happened with Madsen (??), then Knowlton is even worse than I thought.

And I'll disagree with Shocky a bit. Christ absolutely should have understood the NIL dynamics before approving the offer/hire. The job is important enough for her to ask for a full explanation of the options and decision.

Cal is not now and never will be a "win at all costs" institution. We are much closer to Stanford than Alabama in essentially ever way possible, including how we view athletics' role and centrality institutionally.

GoCal80 said:

---

Cal is not now and never will be a "win at all costs" institution. We are much closer to Stanford than Alabama in essentially ever way possible, including how we view athletics' role and centrality institutionally.

---

Except they've actually won rose bowls and been to the final four in modern times. They have a right to say it's not just about wins and losses. We say that as an excuse.

GoCal80 said:

---

Cal is not now and never will be a "win at all costs" institution. We are much closer to Stanford than Alabama in essentially ever way possible, including how we view athletics' role and centrality institutionally.

---

Who said win at all costs? I didn't.

What I did say is the donor input and support is critical - more important that a former men's basketball coach (Monty) who had no interest in modern recruiting.

From what I've heard/read on this board, the Goldmans don't really throw their weight around (i.e., "meddle" in AD decisions). It would be better if they did.

GoCal80 said:

---

The stars have aligned for them but they run a clean program and I've never heard of Stanford donors usurping the AD's authority.

---

You didn't hear about it because at a private school - where donor support is critical - its a given that donors have huge impact. An AD at Furd would know better than to go rogue.

And if you have some time maybe google "Arrillaga" and "Stanford athletics". Based on your post, I think you'll be surprised what you read.

GoCal80 said:

---

Cal is not now and never will be a "win at all costs" institution. We are much closer to Stanford than Alabama in essentially ever way possible, including how we view athletics' role and centrality institutionally.

---

Stanford's success can quite literally be heavily attributed to a billionaire coming in and throwing his weight around and asking "what checks do I need to sign to make us competitive". Every single successful national program does this.

I very much respect your ideals regarding donors not controlling the process, but that is what Cal has done for years and we suck because of it. No use beating around the bush. We suck because our athletic department is poorly run. We do not have a smart AD. We have many, many useless overpaid bureaucrats sitting in offices doing close to nothing all day. We cannot even get normal things to function, like cheerleaders for games, a dance team, the sound system to work evenly/consistently, etc. We even were so pathetic that we put up a graphic bemoaning how many games we lost due to injury this past year. That graphic had to pass at least 5 different AD folks' eyes before being approved. And yet, it was.

If you want to live in the dream world where we can run our athletics programs the "right" way without donors really running the show, we will continue to be the laughingstock of the Pac and nation. It is pathetic that we only won 3 games last year. It is pathetic that we gave Wilcox a full guaranteed 25M extension after not once putting up a winning conference record (and I like Wilcox)! It is pathetic that we have a loser athletic director who has botched nearly every hiring process he has conducted, continues to try and prop up his fiscally irresponsible 30 sport empire, left our football team out to dry when COVID struck, refused to fire an obviously underperforming basketball coach, gave a public interview where he basically blamed most of our lack of success on Cal's shortcomings, blatantly ignored or shut down key donors, likely ignored criminal-level allegations of abuse at the hands of a coach, and generally has been one of, if not the worst athletics director in the nation. At any competently run athletic department, the past years' results and events get everyone involved fired. Notice how in all the efforts to balance the athletics budget, the administrative salaries don't seem to get touched? Notice how there's very little effort to rightsize the bloated departments or cut pay for the useless bureaucrats who do 1/5th of a job? That's because they will always protect their own, no matter how bad of a job they do.

The best thing that could happen to Cal would be our far smarter, much more capable donors taking a lead and getting this ship righted. Folks like 4thGen, Sebastabear, BG, to name a few (there are many more here) who have business and legal acumen, the funds to propel us forward, an insider knowledge of Cal, and a desire to win.

Again, I respect your desire to play cleanly and the right way. But let's be real; college athletics is a business. There is a lot of money involved. Every single program that wants to win has the big money donors calling the shots. That's just how it is. We either play to win in this environment or let's give up entirely, drop down to D3 and we can celebrate beating Caltech or some nonsense. I won't be around to watch, but maybe you can enjoy that.

I have heard a rumor that Carol has taken Knowlton out of the decision-making process during the internal investigation. Since Monty is there and she respects him, his opinions have then been given more weight. I personally like Madsen's background, so I am ok with it if true.

It might make more sense to put JK on paid leave as I think was done with McKeever. That could also motivate some of his minions to become useful.

GoCal80 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

The stars have aligned for them but they run a clean program and I've never heard of Stanford donors usurping the AD's authority.

---

You didn't hear about it because at a private school - where donor support is critical - its a given that donors have huge impact. An AD at Furd would know better than to go rogue.

And if you have some time maybe google "Arrillaga" and "Stanford athletics". Based on your post, I think you'll be surprised what you read.

---

Of course I know about Arrillaga. I'm missing your point - did he choose Harbough? Montgomery?

---

First of all I was clear yesterday that they should not "make the decision". They should have a voice. They didn't .

You are mistaken on Stanford. Donors are very much in control of that program.

Let me ask you a question. If Candidate A comes with $5m of alumni support and Candidate B comes with $500k of alumni support, don't you think you should reach out enough to know this? Maybe it doesn't make the decision for you, but don't you think that should factor in? Don't you think if you are leaning toward Candidate B that you should go to donors and see if you can rally their support to close the gap in that figure before you close the deal?

Or should you just do whatever you want and be surprised when they don't give you unconditional support

Well said east coast. TY for saying all of it. Agree entirely.

I worked for five years at Stanford. Many people I met thought that Arriaga and his family had far too much influence. They even had their own private office. I was also at Michigan. They have many large and influential donors. But I never heard of anyone dictating the selection of coaches. You still have to try to have a professionally-managed organization.

eastcoastcal said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

Cal is not now and never will be a "win at all costs" institution. We are much closer to Stanford than Alabama in essentially ever way possible, including how we view athletics' role and centrality institutionally.

---

Stanford's success can quite literally be heavily attributed to a billionaire coming in and throwing his weight around and asking "what checks do I need to sign to make us competitive". Every single successful national program does this.

I very much respect your ideals regarding donors not controlling the process, but that is what Cal has done for years and we suck because of it. No use beating around the bush. We suck because our athletic department is poorly run. We do not have a smart AD. We have many, many useless overpaid bureaucrats sitting in offices doing close to nothing all day. We cannot even get normal things to function, like cheerleaders for games, a dance team, the sound system to work evenly/consistently, etc. We even were so pathetic that we put up a graphic bemoaning how many games we lost due to injury this past year. That graphic had to pass at least 5 different AD folks' eyes before being approved. And yet, it was.

If you want to live in the dream world where we can run our athletics programs the "right" way without donors really running the show, we will continue to be the laughingstock of the Pac and nation. It is pathetic that we only won 3 games last year. It is pathetic that we gave Wilcox a full guaranteed 25M extension after not once putting up a winning conference record (and I like Wilcox)! It is pathetic that we have a loser athletic director who has botched nearly every hiring process he has conducted, continues to try and prop up his fiscally irresponsible 30 sport empire, left our football team out to dry when COVID struck, refused to fire an obviously underperforming basketball coach, gave a public interview where he basically blamed most of our lack of success on Cal's shortcomings, blatantly ignored or shut down key donors, likely ignored criminal-level allegations of abuse at the hands of a coach, and generally has been one of, if not the worst athletics director in the nation. At any competently run athletic department, the past years' results and events get everyone involved fired. Notice how in all the efforts to balance the athletics budget, the administrative salaries don't seem to get touched? Notice how there's very little effort to rightsize the bloated departments or cut pay for the useless bureaucrats who do 1/5th of a job? That's because they will always protect their own, no matter how bad of a job they do.

The best thing that could happen to Cal would be our far smarter, much more capable donors taking a lead and getting this ship righted. Folks like 4thGen, Sebastabear, BG, to name a few (there are many more here) who have business and legal acumen, the funds to propel us forward, an insider knowledge of Cal, and a desire to win.

Again, I respect your desire to play cleanly and the right way. But let's be real; college athletics is a business. There is a lot of money involved. Every single program that wants to win has the big money donors calling the shots. That's just how it is. We either play to win in this environment or let's give up entirely, drop down to D3 and we can celebrate beating Caltech or some nonsense. I won't be around to watch, but maybe you can enjoy that.

---

Thank you for writing this. I wanted to say these things, but you did a much better job.

There is no institutional pressure to win at Cal or, for that matter, to run the AD in a professional manner. It has to come from donors.

No person will give to a charity that is poorly run and doesn't deliver on promises. Major donors absolutely add conditions to donations. Cal is asking for charitable donations to the AD.

annarborbear said:

---

I worked for five years at Stanford. Many people I met thought that Arriaga and his family had far too much influence. They even had their own private office. I was also at Michigan. They have many large and influential donors. But I never heard of anyone dictating the selection of coaches. You still have to try to have a professionally-managed organization.

---

Exactly. Cal's last two men's hoops coaches have been awful and fans are frustrated. When one or more donors push the narrative that a certain candidate is the answer to Cal's problems, the AD should listen. However, if that candidate carries ethical baggage and has annoyed people at Cal who know him, the AD is obligated to find someone who is a better fit and then rally as many donors and other alumni as possible around that candidate. I like everything I've read about Masden and hope people will enthusiastically support him.

GoCal80 said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

I worked for five years at Stanford. Many people I met thought that Arriaga and his family had far too much influence. They even had their own private office. I was also at Michigan. They have many large and influential donors. But I never heard of anyone dictating the selection of coaches. You still have to try to have a professionally-managed organization.

---

Exactly. Cal's last two men's hoops coaches have been awful and fans are frustrated. When one or more donors push the narrative that a certain candidate is the answer to Cal's problems, the AD should listen. However, if that candidate carries ethical baggage and has annoyed people at Cal who know him, the AD is obligated to find someone who is a better fit and then rally as many donors and other alumni as possible around that candidate. I like everything I've read about Masden and hope people will enthusiastically support him.

---

Did AAR carry ethical baggage?

You're missing the point - this has very little to do with JP or for that matter Madsen. This has everything to do with building support for your program from key donors and former players which is critical for a variety of reasons including NIL and the practice facility.

With the right process, Knowlton could have hired Madsen and maintained that support. But he failed at that - again -- because he's incompetent and arrogant.

BearGoggles said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

I worked for five years at Stanford. Many people I met thought that Arriaga and his family had far too much influence. They even had their own private office. I was also at Michigan. They have many large and influential donors. But I never heard of anyone dictating the selection of coaches. You still have to try to have a professionally-managed organization.

---

Exactly. Cal's last two men's hoops coaches have been awful and fans are frustrated. When one or more donors push the narrative that a certain candidate is the answer to Cal's problems, the AD should listen. However, if that candidate carries ethical baggage and has annoyed people at Cal who know him, the AD is obligated to find someone who is a better fit and then rally as many donors and other alumni as possible around that candidate. I like everything I've read about Masden and hope people will enthusiastically support him.

---

Did AAR carry ethical baggage?

You're missing the point - this has very little to do with JP or for that matter Madsen. This has everything to do with building support for your program from key donors and former players which is critical for a variety of reasons including NIL and the practice facility.

With the right process, Knowlton could have hired Madsen and maintained that support. But he failed at that - again -- because he's incompetent and arrogant.

---

Absolutely no one said donors should dictate the hire, so they are arguing against a straw man. As I said elsewhere, a good AD hires who he wants and makes the donors think it was their idea. The problem is hiring whoever you want and making the donors think you don't care what they think. Especially when the last time they were asked to pay for a buyout and you did what you wanted they got Mark Fox, an extension, and then asked to fund another buyout.

It is amazing to me how many people here seem to think that donors are morally obligated to give money. We should be apologizing for how we have squandered their charity over the years