This commentary is not about Mark Madsen. I'll probably comment on that later. Short version. I don't love the hire, don't hate it. Gotta say, I don't really like it, but I don't hate it. I wasn't ever going to love anyone who was taking this job, so not hating was about as good as it was going to get. (although, there are different levels to not hating) I see positives and I see red flags. This commentary is about the process to getting to this hire.
This process sucked, man. It is pretty clear that the so called reaching out to players and alums and members of the Cal community was just window dressing and that Knowlton again didn't do his job and just farmed his decision out to Monty. Monty did what Monty always does. He pumped his guy. Which is why you don't capitulate the decision to one guy. Especially not one guy with a clear conflict in the process no matter how much you respect that guy. Now, yes, farming the decision out to Monty is going to yield a better result than Knowlton making the decision on his own, but it isn't how you get the best candidate except maybe by luck. Also, it is clearly a CYA move by Knowlton and if he can't take responsibility for his job, I don't know what we pay him for.
Basically, the actual decision making group seems to be made up of:
Jim Knowlton: Nothing in his background demonstrating he would understand anything about Cal and nothing in 5 years demonstrating he actually does understand anything about Cal. Nothing that indicates he understands anything about basketball. And he's Jim Knowlton
Monty: I know that this commentary is going to be deeply unpopular with some of you, but here goes. I have massive respect for Monty. He is literally one of the best X's and O's coach in the business. He could have held open roster tryouts at RSF and done better than the last two coaches. I want him to be a part of this process. That part is being one of the guys who is advising the people making the decision. It is not being one of the guys making the decision let alone basically being the guy making a decision (when JK, Jay John, and Monty make a joint decision, Monty made the decision). Monty last coached 9 years ago. He walked away at exactly the right time. The program was getting stale. We all felt it. I would say the overwhelming feeling at the time was not horror over Monty leaving, but a respectful thank you to Monty for doing a great job for us matched with a palpable excitement about injecting some energy in the program. (Oh how naive we were). Monty's success at Cal was largely driven by his coaching prowess and if anything was hampered by his abilities to communicate with players and recruits in the modern era and his open disdain for not only recruiting but for the people that, like it or not, you needed on your side in order to sign recruits. You cannot basically call people sleazeballs in the media when you need their help. And to be clear, they are sleazeballs, and I respect the hell out of Monty for not liking what the college game and college recruiting have become I don't either but that is the job now. I think Monty knew to keep succeeding he was going to have change in ways he didn't want to. He won a title with Braun's players, but never really figured out how to recruit at Cal and was showing signs of having difficulty adjusting to today's player (the infamous shove). Monty was a 10++ at coaching but about a 4 at everything else, which made him an 8 for us overall. But the problem is that no one is going to match his coaching prowess. While I want him doing THAT evaluation for us, I don't see that I want him judging recruiting, NIL, ability to communicate with players, ability to succeed in Cal's culture, etc. He should be a valuable member of the selection committee, but not the whole committee.
Jay John Loser coach. Apparently good assistant in his day. Hasn't coached in 11 years. For some reason Monty has been dragging his carcass around for a good long time. Shouldn't be involved at all.
Word is the supposed including various stakeholders in the process was just window dressing. Former players and important alums were given courtesy calls at the beginning and then the doors were closed for a week and a half while those guys above made the decision. To be clear, I don't want former Cal players making the decision, but I do want them in the process as I think they have valuable input as a younger group who can better evaluate ability to communicate with today's players. To be clear, I don't want alums making the decision (as I made abundantly clear yesterday), but I do want them in the process especially since their support is desperately needed. And to be clear, I don't want Monty making the decision, but I want him in the process as he is the best guy we have to evaluate the X's and O's ability of the candidates. All of those (and maybe a few others) should have been part of the process. (and, by the way, if you were going to stupidly leave anyone out of the process, you should have at least kept up the pretense with them to make them think they were actually part of the process). That would actually be a pretty good group that would have covered a lot of the bases you needed covered. And then JK should have done his damned job and listened to a diverse group of experts and stakeholders and made a damned decision. Yeah, I don't have confidence in him either, but it is what we pay him for. His response to having his half assed process when he hired Fox blow up in his face should have been to have some guts, have a brain, be an active listener, and make a decision, not run scared and delegate the thing.
No one that went to Cal was part of the process. No one who has played the game in the last million years was part of the process. No one who has coached in the last nine years was part of the process. No one under 63 was part of the process. No one African American was part of the process. No one representing donors was part of the process. We had a very small, very homogeneous in all facets group. The primary input came from a guy who had a very specific conflict in favor of one candidate and a very specific conflict against another candidate. Even if that didn't play a role (and I highly doubt it didn't), you don't do that if you want anyone to have confidence in your process. This looks like an old boy's network hire where it isn't what you know, it is who you know. It isn't fair to any of the candidates, especially Madsen. And to be clear, I don't think Monty would tell us to hire a guy he doesn't believe in, but I could have told you who he'd believe in. If you told me the process and candidates going in, I would have told you this is where we'd end up, because I would have said Monty would want to offer who he thinks is the best guy, and that would be Bennett because from a coaching perspective he is clearly the most qualified, and when he turned us down it would go to the guy Monty knows.
And here is the thing. When Mark Fox was hired it was patently a moronic hire. This has nothing in common with that. But I have to say, that my big issue with the Fox hire is that there was a known candidate that was clearly better on paper in Decuire. Now, I'm not saying Decuire was or should have been the best we could get, but he was a known candidate and he was clearly better on paper than Fox. And then JK opened up his mouth about the process and it was like "Oh, that is how that happened".
Madsen isn't Fox. He doesn't clearly suck. He may be good. He may be great. We could be getting in on the ground floor of something awesome. But where there is commonality in the process is that, I'm sorry, there was a known candidate that on paper was much more qualified. If anyone reads my posts from the last couple days, they would know I was not on the Pasternack train. (I wasn't off it either). But I just don't see any way if you compare their resumes that 8 out of 10 people with no dog in the fight don't come out with Pasternack. Beyond playing in the NBA for 9 seasons, I don't see what else you can put in Madsen's column over Pasternack. Recruiting isn't close. Pasternack has years experience recruiting at a high major level. Madsen has zero. Pasternack has actively recruited the West Coast and specifically the Bay Area for high major programs for years and developed those specific relationships while some seem to be saying Madsen has West Coast ties because he grew up in Walnut Creek, played at Stanford and was an assistant with the Lakers, but none of those things have anything to do with developing recruiting relationships. Further, Pasternack massively kicked our ass in recruiting our own back yard which seems to have been treated as a negative in the process because the guys making the decision were the guys whose asses were kicked. Pasternack has spent a lot of years as an assistant in the Pac-12, including being an Associate Head Coach at arguably the top program in the conference. Madsen has zero. Madsen was an NBA assistant which isn't remotely the same, and he had one year coaching in the D League, which, c'mon guys, seriously? Pasternack has substantially more head coaching experience. Pasternack took over a team that finished last in conference and immediately turned it into a 2nd place conference finish and in 6 years at UCSB has finished first or second 5 times. Madsen took over a team that had finished 2nd place in conference two years in a row and then finished 8th. He has finished 8th, 1st, 7th, 1st. Pasternack has turned around a losing program and Madsen has not. Pasternack has coached several years at Cal, has relationships here and knows the place. He has 6 years head coaching experience at a UC. None of Madsen's experience is anywhere remotely like Cal or the UC. While I think people are dreaming if they think our donors are going to step up in a way that is competitive with the big boys, they were prepared to step up day one for Pasternack in a way that is much better than they have because they have that relationship. They aren't going to do that day one for Madsen. He is going to have to forge those relationships and we don't know how well he will be able to do that.
To sum up, Pasternack is clearly a better candidate in D1 experience, Recruiting, Coaching record, proven ability to turn a loser into a winner, experience at Cal and UC, and connection to donors. On paper, the obvious preference should easily go to Pasternack and what actually happened was an obvious preference developed for Madsen. And the only (legitimate) thing that is possibly left to go in Madsen's column is the interview process. And then you have a giant elephant sitting in the corner that one of three guys in the room is Madsen's coach. It is extremely hard to believe that didn't have a much bigger impact on the process than it should have in the 21st century. And to be clear, I don't give a damned about social justice on this one. I want the best candidate and that is not the way to get that done. And further, that nagging feeling could have very much been ameliorated by knowing that a lot of other stakeholders were in the process and came to the same conclusion. And if they didn't come to the same conclusion, I think you would have wanted to know that.
This process sucked, man. It is pretty clear that the so called reaching out to players and alums and members of the Cal community was just window dressing and that Knowlton again didn't do his job and just farmed his decision out to Monty. Monty did what Monty always does. He pumped his guy. Which is why you don't capitulate the decision to one guy. Especially not one guy with a clear conflict in the process no matter how much you respect that guy. Now, yes, farming the decision out to Monty is going to yield a better result than Knowlton making the decision on his own, but it isn't how you get the best candidate except maybe by luck. Also, it is clearly a CYA move by Knowlton and if he can't take responsibility for his job, I don't know what we pay him for.
Basically, the actual decision making group seems to be made up of:
Jim Knowlton: Nothing in his background demonstrating he would understand anything about Cal and nothing in 5 years demonstrating he actually does understand anything about Cal. Nothing that indicates he understands anything about basketball. And he's Jim Knowlton
Monty: I know that this commentary is going to be deeply unpopular with some of you, but here goes. I have massive respect for Monty. He is literally one of the best X's and O's coach in the business. He could have held open roster tryouts at RSF and done better than the last two coaches. I want him to be a part of this process. That part is being one of the guys who is advising the people making the decision. It is not being one of the guys making the decision let alone basically being the guy making a decision (when JK, Jay John, and Monty make a joint decision, Monty made the decision). Monty last coached 9 years ago. He walked away at exactly the right time. The program was getting stale. We all felt it. I would say the overwhelming feeling at the time was not horror over Monty leaving, but a respectful thank you to Monty for doing a great job for us matched with a palpable excitement about injecting some energy in the program. (Oh how naive we were). Monty's success at Cal was largely driven by his coaching prowess and if anything was hampered by his abilities to communicate with players and recruits in the modern era and his open disdain for not only recruiting but for the people that, like it or not, you needed on your side in order to sign recruits. You cannot basically call people sleazeballs in the media when you need their help. And to be clear, they are sleazeballs, and I respect the hell out of Monty for not liking what the college game and college recruiting have become I don't either but that is the job now. I think Monty knew to keep succeeding he was going to have change in ways he didn't want to. He won a title with Braun's players, but never really figured out how to recruit at Cal and was showing signs of having difficulty adjusting to today's player (the infamous shove). Monty was a 10++ at coaching but about a 4 at everything else, which made him an 8 for us overall. But the problem is that no one is going to match his coaching prowess. While I want him doing THAT evaluation for us, I don't see that I want him judging recruiting, NIL, ability to communicate with players, ability to succeed in Cal's culture, etc. He should be a valuable member of the selection committee, but not the whole committee.
Jay John Loser coach. Apparently good assistant in his day. Hasn't coached in 11 years. For some reason Monty has been dragging his carcass around for a good long time. Shouldn't be involved at all.
Word is the supposed including various stakeholders in the process was just window dressing. Former players and important alums were given courtesy calls at the beginning and then the doors were closed for a week and a half while those guys above made the decision. To be clear, I don't want former Cal players making the decision, but I do want them in the process as I think they have valuable input as a younger group who can better evaluate ability to communicate with today's players. To be clear, I don't want alums making the decision (as I made abundantly clear yesterday), but I do want them in the process especially since their support is desperately needed. And to be clear, I don't want Monty making the decision, but I want him in the process as he is the best guy we have to evaluate the X's and O's ability of the candidates. All of those (and maybe a few others) should have been part of the process. (and, by the way, if you were going to stupidly leave anyone out of the process, you should have at least kept up the pretense with them to make them think they were actually part of the process). That would actually be a pretty good group that would have covered a lot of the bases you needed covered. And then JK should have done his damned job and listened to a diverse group of experts and stakeholders and made a damned decision. Yeah, I don't have confidence in him either, but it is what we pay him for. His response to having his half assed process when he hired Fox blow up in his face should have been to have some guts, have a brain, be an active listener, and make a decision, not run scared and delegate the thing.
No one that went to Cal was part of the process. No one who has played the game in the last million years was part of the process. No one who has coached in the last nine years was part of the process. No one under 63 was part of the process. No one African American was part of the process. No one representing donors was part of the process. We had a very small, very homogeneous in all facets group. The primary input came from a guy who had a very specific conflict in favor of one candidate and a very specific conflict against another candidate. Even if that didn't play a role (and I highly doubt it didn't), you don't do that if you want anyone to have confidence in your process. This looks like an old boy's network hire where it isn't what you know, it is who you know. It isn't fair to any of the candidates, especially Madsen. And to be clear, I don't think Monty would tell us to hire a guy he doesn't believe in, but I could have told you who he'd believe in. If you told me the process and candidates going in, I would have told you this is where we'd end up, because I would have said Monty would want to offer who he thinks is the best guy, and that would be Bennett because from a coaching perspective he is clearly the most qualified, and when he turned us down it would go to the guy Monty knows.
And here is the thing. When Mark Fox was hired it was patently a moronic hire. This has nothing in common with that. But I have to say, that my big issue with the Fox hire is that there was a known candidate that was clearly better on paper in Decuire. Now, I'm not saying Decuire was or should have been the best we could get, but he was a known candidate and he was clearly better on paper than Fox. And then JK opened up his mouth about the process and it was like "Oh, that is how that happened".
Madsen isn't Fox. He doesn't clearly suck. He may be good. He may be great. We could be getting in on the ground floor of something awesome. But where there is commonality in the process is that, I'm sorry, there was a known candidate that on paper was much more qualified. If anyone reads my posts from the last couple days, they would know I was not on the Pasternack train. (I wasn't off it either). But I just don't see any way if you compare their resumes that 8 out of 10 people with no dog in the fight don't come out with Pasternack. Beyond playing in the NBA for 9 seasons, I don't see what else you can put in Madsen's column over Pasternack. Recruiting isn't close. Pasternack has years experience recruiting at a high major level. Madsen has zero. Pasternack has actively recruited the West Coast and specifically the Bay Area for high major programs for years and developed those specific relationships while some seem to be saying Madsen has West Coast ties because he grew up in Walnut Creek, played at Stanford and was an assistant with the Lakers, but none of those things have anything to do with developing recruiting relationships. Further, Pasternack massively kicked our ass in recruiting our own back yard which seems to have been treated as a negative in the process because the guys making the decision were the guys whose asses were kicked. Pasternack has spent a lot of years as an assistant in the Pac-12, including being an Associate Head Coach at arguably the top program in the conference. Madsen has zero. Madsen was an NBA assistant which isn't remotely the same, and he had one year coaching in the D League, which, c'mon guys, seriously? Pasternack has substantially more head coaching experience. Pasternack took over a team that finished last in conference and immediately turned it into a 2nd place conference finish and in 6 years at UCSB has finished first or second 5 times. Madsen took over a team that had finished 2nd place in conference two years in a row and then finished 8th. He has finished 8th, 1st, 7th, 1st. Pasternack has turned around a losing program and Madsen has not. Pasternack has coached several years at Cal, has relationships here and knows the place. He has 6 years head coaching experience at a UC. None of Madsen's experience is anywhere remotely like Cal or the UC. While I think people are dreaming if they think our donors are going to step up in a way that is competitive with the big boys, they were prepared to step up day one for Pasternack in a way that is much better than they have because they have that relationship. They aren't going to do that day one for Madsen. He is going to have to forge those relationships and we don't know how well he will be able to do that.
To sum up, Pasternack is clearly a better candidate in D1 experience, Recruiting, Coaching record, proven ability to turn a loser into a winner, experience at Cal and UC, and connection to donors. On paper, the obvious preference should easily go to Pasternack and what actually happened was an obvious preference developed for Madsen. And the only (legitimate) thing that is possibly left to go in Madsen's column is the interview process. And then you have a giant elephant sitting in the corner that one of three guys in the room is Madsen's coach. It is extremely hard to believe that didn't have a much bigger impact on the process than it should have in the 21st century. And to be clear, I don't give a damned about social justice on this one. I want the best candidate and that is not the way to get that done. And further, that nagging feeling could have very much been ameliorated by knowing that a lot of other stakeholders were in the process and came to the same conclusion. And if they didn't come to the same conclusion, I think you would have wanted to know that.
