Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

I think it is fair that you come to a different conclusion than I do. I think that with the case that can be made on paper it is very problematic that a major member of the process had obvious conflicts.

I am going to say this on yours and others citing KenPom. I just don't think that is persuasive. The job is not to have the highest KenPom rating. It is to win. And for most, that means to win in your conference because those are your peers. If I didn't have things like conference records to look at, KenPom is a lot ore valuable. But to me that is akin to saying Team X is better than Team Y when Team Y just beat Team X because Team X has a better KenPom rating. We don't determine success by algorithm. If we did, you can bet everyone would change their style of play to game the algorithm.

Also, when we, as a high major team (hahahahaha!) look at things like Sagarin and KenPom it makes more sense because we are at the top of the food chain. In a division with hundreds of teams with conferences that vary wildly in resources and recruiting pool, these become far more problematic. You cannot, for instance expect Dennis Gates to go to Cleveland State and be able to compete in the same manner in national statistics that he does at Missouri. What you can do is basically say he was hired to win games and his ability to do that against similarly situated teams (his conference) is a pretty big indicator.

JP took over a last place team and has finished 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 5th, and 1st. He has won two conference tournaments and been to 2 NCAA tourneys. MM took over a second place team and went 8th, 1st, 7th, 1st with zero conference tourney championships or tourney appearances. They don't hang KenPom banners. I don't see how the actual results are close. Better conference finishes. Actual conference tourney championships and with that NCAA tourney appearances.

socaltownie said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

The place we disagree is I think in terms of strategic advantage. Yes. MM seems like a great guy and a "leader of men". He has a ton of charisma.

But.

1) I am not sure about cultural bias about that. He is well spoken. Uses big words. Passes the test at toastmasters. But you (and I) are not the audience.

2) And, though I think I am in the minority on this board, to me Cal needs to recruit well in Inglewood, Richmond, Compton, Riverside, San Bernadino, Hayward, Freemont. Elk Grove. California great working middleclass neighborhoods. I had confidence that AAR could do that. JP has a proven trackrecord in doing that. I am not sure MM can or at least doesn't have a track record.

But I am very much a broken record on that point. I will stop repeating myself. Ultimately he is going to sink or swim, IMHO, on really only that ability

---

I like the story about Madsen's team beating a team from Oakland and after the game seeing some players in a car at a convenience store and going over to them to greet them. Madsen isn't afraid to go recruit wherever he needs to recruit and his NBA credibility will get him far. Are you really suggesting that JP has an advantage in recruiting poor inner city kids over Madsen when he has never even dribbled a basketball?

socaltownie said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

The place we disagree is I think in terms of strategic advantage. Yes. MM seems like a great guy and a "leader of men". He has a ton of charisma.

But.

1) I am not sure about cultural bias about that. He is well spoken. Uses big words. Passes the test at toastmasters. But you (and I) are not the audience.

2) And, though I think I am in the minority on this board, to me Cal needs to recruit well in Inglewood, Richmond, Compton, Riverside, San Bernadino, Hayward, Freemont. Elk Grove. California great working middleclass neighborhoods. I had confidence that AAR could do that. JP has a proven trackrecord in doing that. I am not sure MM can or at least doesn't have a track record.

But I am very much a broken record on that point. I will stop repeating myself. Ultimately he is going to sink or swim, IMHO, on really only that ability

---

I think #1 really hit on what has been nagging me with some of the conversation about his charisma. I think you and some others have hurt yourself with an implication that we needed an African American coach to communicate to our players and recruits. But I think you hit on what concerns me with some people. We are not the audience. Believe it or not, some people specifically ate up Mark Fox's message in the infamous video. That one was easy for me to look at and say no. But it always amazes me how out of touch people can be with not only what resonates with youth today, but with what resonated with themselves when they were youth. I don't have specific concerns about Madsen's "charisma" and "leadership", but what I do have concerns about is that seems to be what 90% of his candidacy is riding on, and has anyone checked with anyone younger than 60 years old on that one. This is where I wanted significant input from specifically recent former basketball players at Cal because they are the closest thing we have to that audience. It doesn't appear he is their preferred candidate and one (albeit not so recent anymore) former player already dissed the hire. I'd really like to see what they thought. Because I agree he will probably win the press conference and hopefully that gets some NIL donors back on board, but I'm not the audience. And again, my biggest concern is that to turn this around on ducky, if it weren't for the perceived charisma, what are we basing this on. So we better be right about the charisma.

dimitrig said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

The place we disagree is I think in terms of strategic advantage. Yes. MM seems like a great guy and a "leader of men". He has a ton of charisma.

But.

1) I am not sure about cultural bias about that. He is well spoken. Uses big words. Passes the test at toastmasters. But you (and I) are not the audience.

2) And, though I think I am in the minority on this board, to me Cal needs to recruit well in Inglewood, Richmond, Compton, Riverside, San Bernadino, Hayward, Freemont. Elk Grove. California great working middleclass neighborhoods. I had confidence that AAR could do that. JP has a proven trackrecord in doing that. I am not sure MM can or at least doesn't have a track record.

But I am very much a broken record on that point. I will stop repeating myself. Ultimately he is going to sink or swim, IMHO, on really only that ability

---

I like the story about Madsen's team beating a team from Oakland and after the game seeing some players in a car at a convenience store and going over to them to greet them. Madsen isn't afraid to go recruit wherever he needs to recruit and his NBA credibility will get him far. Are you really suggesting that JP has an advantage in recruiting poor inner city kids over Madsen when he has never even dribbled a basketball?

---

With respect to the last question, what we are saying is that JP HAS ACTUALLY DONE THAT WITH RESULTS. MM hasn't - mainly because he hasn't had the opportunity, but we don't know whether he will be able to do it. We aren't assuming results based on traits we think will work. Are you actually saying you know what will be an advantage in recruiting poor inner city kids? You actually just complimented him for not being afraid to talk to group of kids from Oakland.

I don't claim to know what it takes to recruit anywhere. I wouldn't have looked at JP and said he is the guy to recruit the East Bay. But what I think doesn't matter when he has actually done it. There are a whole lot of assumptions being made based on a youtube of a press conference and those assumptions better be right because it is what we are hanging this hire on.

dimitrig said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

The place we disagree is I think in terms of strategic advantage. Yes. MM seems like a great guy and a "leader of men". He has a ton of charisma.

But.

1) I am not sure about cultural bias about that. He is well spoken. Uses big words. Passes the test at toastmasters. But you (and I) are not the audience.

2) And, though I think I am in the minority on this board, to me Cal needs to recruit well in Inglewood, Richmond, Compton, Riverside, San Bernadino, Hayward, Freemont. Elk Grove. California great working middleclass neighborhoods. I had confidence that AAR could do that. JP has a proven trackrecord in doing that. I am not sure MM can or at least doesn't have a track record.

But I am very much a broken record on that point. I will stop repeating myself. Ultimately he is going to sink or swim, IMHO, on really only that ability

---

I like the story about Madsen's team beating a team from Oakland and after the game seeing some players in a car at a convenience store and going over to them to greet them. Madsen isn't afraid to go recruit wherever he needs to recruit and his NBA credibility will get him far. Are you really suggesting that JP has an advantage in recruiting poor inner city kids over Madsen when he has never even dribbled a basketball?

---

JP did it for a decade at zona. That is the point. Either that or he is a mad scientist of of X and Os and teaching.

Look. The Reason Zona is (and was) good wasn't because Tuscon is a garden spot. It isn't because they were horrifically corrupt (though Miller does push the rules to the boundaries). It is because they successfully recruited the BEST kids in SoCal....and ESPECIALLY the best kids in San DIego and Inland empire. Watched it now for 35 years.

JP doesn't have that track record and I am punting on Joe P as some video boy. But past success is the best prediction of future success. If you think (which I do) that Cal's alpha and omega is getting more talented than you get a proven recruiter.

Cal8285 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

The place we disagree is I think in terms of strategic advantage. Yes. MM seems like a great guy and a "leader of men". He has a ton of charisma.

But.

1) I am not sure about cultural bias about that. He is well spoken. Uses big words. Passes the test at toastmasters. But you (and I) are not the audience.

2) And, though I think I am in the minority on this board, to me Cal needs to recruit well in Inglewood, Richmond, Compton, Riverside, San Bernadino, Hayward, Freemont. Elk Grove. California great working middleclass neighborhoods. I had confidence that AAR could do that. JP has a proven trackrecord in doing that. I am not sure MM can or at least doesn't have a track record.

But I am very much a broken record on that point. I will stop repeating myself. Ultimately he is going to sink or swim, IMHO, on really only that ability

---

I like the story about Madsen's team beating a team from Oakland and after the game seeing some players in a car at a convenience store and going over to them to greet them. Madsen isn't afraid to go recruit wherever he needs to recruit and his NBA credibility will get him far. Are you really suggesting that JP has an advantage in recruiting poor inner city kids over Madsen when he has never even dribbled a basketball?

---

JP did it for a decade at zona. That is the point. Either that or he is a mad scientist of of X and Os and teaching.

Look. The Reason Zona is (and was) good wasn't because Tuscon is a garden spot. It isn't because they were horrifically corrupt (though Miller does push the rules to the boundaries). It is because they successfully recruited the BEST kids in SoCal....and ESPECIALLY the best kids in San DIego and Inland empire. Watched it now for 35 years.

You don't have that track record and I am punting on Joe P as some video boy. But past success is the best prediction of future success. If you think (which I do) that Cal's alpha and omega is getting more talented than you get a proven recruiter.

---

I don't see how JP is a proven recruiter because of Arizona. Who was really responsible? Miller? A lower assistant? Zona WAS corrupt, the JP supporters want to point to JP having been cleared, but that suggests that he wasn't a guy really doing the closing in recruiting. Even if we say, "Well, it is all legal now," it still doesn't say that JP is the guy who made Arizona, that seems totally false to me.

In part, Arizona recruits itself with its history, but even ignoring that, Donut Boy (and perhaps some cheaters underneath him) had way more to do with Arizona recruiting than JP. I'm definitely not ready to anoint JP as some great recruiter because of his Arizona tenure.

---

He is on the staff for a decade. Of COURSE HE WAS RECRUITING.

Look it is comforting to think that the only reason Zona was good was because they were corrupt and that is the only reason they beat us. But no. They recruit hard. They understand the importance of AAU relationships and are VERY willing to engage there (really we haven't since Braun....Monty hated it and Martin didn't have time). Is that world gross? Yes. Adults using kids to make money. But it is CRITICAL to modern recruting. And JP did that. Relentlessly.

(And yes, it is a SUCKY thing. I am sure Monty hated it as well to spend Saturday mornings fawing over 14 year olds with a bunch of "coaches" that closely resemble Al Bundy reliving HS Glory days. But that is the game....and you better play it).

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

I think it is fair that you come to a different conclusion than I do. I think that with the case that can be made on paper it is very problematic that a major member of the process had obvious conflicts.

I am going to say this on yours and others citing KenPom. I just don't think that is persuasive. The job is not to have the highest KenPom rating. It is to win. And for most, that means to win in your conference because those are your peers. If I didn't have things like conference records to look at, KenPom is a lot ore valuable. But to me that is akin to saying Team X is better than Team Y when Team Y just beat Team X because Team X has a better KenPom rating. We don't determine success by algorithm. If we did, you can bet everyone would change their style of play to game the algorithm.

Also, when we, as a high major team (hahahahaha!) look at things like Sagarin and KenPom it makes more sense because we are at the top of the food chain. In a division with hundreds of teams with conferences that vary wildly in resources and recruiting pool, these become far more problematic. You cannot, for instance expect Dennis Gates to go to Cleveland State and be able to compete in the same manner in national statistics that he does at Missouri. What you can do is basically say he was hired to win games and his ability to do that against similarly situated teams (his conference) is a pretty big indicator.

JP took over a last place team and has finished 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 5th, and 1st. He has won two conference tournaments and been to 2 NCAA tourneys. MM took over a second place team and went 8th, 1st, 7th, 1st with zero conference tourney championships or tourney appearances. They don't hang KenPom banners. I don't see how the actual results are close. Better conference finishes. Actual conference tourney championships and with that NCAA tourney appearances.

---

Most of the statistical models are far too biased in favor of high major teams, but a) there isn't much bias in favor of the Mountain West over the Big West, and b) they all are an attempt to measure winning in light of strength of schedule. The biggest flaw, IMO, is that if you lose to enough good teams, it can really help your rankings. I care about how good a team is, which include winning and who you beat and who you lost to, which the statistical models, flawed as they are, do their best to consider.

If we're looking at 2022-23, both won a conference, MM didn't win his conference tourney, but I do care about winning and losing and beating good teams. This season, MM beat Oregon in Eugene. He beat BYU in Provo. He took Wake Forest to OT in Winston-Salem. JP didn't have any wins (or losses) that impress me. I don't know all the circumstances that led to 7th in 2021-22, but I will never pin anything on one disappointing year.

I want some proof you can compete with (and if you are a mid-major, sometimes punch up and beat) the power conference teams. MM has shown me that. Not so sure about JP. I think there are plenty of people who would look at 2022-23 and prefer MM's results to JP's, and not just because of KenPom, Sagarin, et al.

Look, my point isn't that MM is the better choice, my point is that you say, "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." If you are just comparing resumes, and ignoring donor/NIL issues, I disagree. I think that if we're looking at JP versus MM, it is closer to 5 out of 10 people with no dog in the fight who come out JP.

Me, I have biases against both JP and MM (part of the reason I probably would have chosen AAR, assuming he would have come), but based on resumes alone, I pick MM, and it goes beyond KenPom, ESPN power ratings, Sagarin, etc.

And look, now we're arguing about 3 out of 10 people, does this really tell that MM clearly has the inferior resume?

I agree that the process was flawed, it absolutely appears that Montgomery had too much say in it. Knowlton is a moron, so he recognized he doesn't know enough to make the hire and seems to have been a moron and chosen someone to maybe totally rely on who is probably out of touch with what Cal needs, plus had some conflicts. It sucks.

I probably would have held my nose and picked JP if AAR wouldn't come because of the importance of the donor/NIL issues. I can't fault JK TOO much if he decided to ignore donor/NIL issues in making the hire (although he needed to do a MUCH, MUCH better job of massaging donors and trying to smooth a route for MM to get donor/NIL funds), even though I would have held my nose and considered those issues. It was definitely NOT okay to ignore donor/NIL issues in terms of the need to maintain donor relations in making a hire that didn't have pre-promised donor/NIL backing.

But outside of the need for maintaining relations, IF it was okay for the process to ignore donor/NIL issues in making the choice, then I can't say the outcome was clearly wrong. Ignoring donor/NIL issues, I would have had AAR as first choice, MM second, and I'm not sure if I would have had Johnson or JP third, but I just don't think it is clear cut, and (again, ignoring donor/NIL issues), I can't say who I would have chosen if I had been part of the process.

I don't think you need to suggest that MM is so clearly worse on paper to say the process was crap, and I don't think MM is clearly worse on paper (ignoring donor/NIL issues). If MM is indeed coming here, I'm okay with it IF MM/Cal manages to get NIL backing for the MBB program. But that's a big IF.

socaltownie said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

The place we disagree is I think in terms of strategic advantage. Yes. MM seems like a great guy and a "leader of men". He has a ton of charisma.

But.

1) I am not sure about cultural bias about that. He is well spoken. Uses big words. Passes the test at toastmasters. But you (and I) are not the audience.

2) And, though I think I am in the minority on this board, to me Cal needs to recruit well in Inglewood, Richmond, Compton, Riverside, San Bernadino, Hayward, Freemont. Elk Grove. California great working middleclass neighborhoods. I had confidence that AAR could do that. JP has a proven trackrecord in doing that. I am not sure MM can or at least doesn't have a track record.

But I am very much a broken record on that point. I will stop repeating myself. Ultimately he is going to sink or swim, IMHO, on really only that ability

---

I'm not quite sure what the cultural bias is that would make me favor MM over JP. Give me a guy with JP's background versus the Danville guy who went to Stanford, I'll be heavily biased in favor of JP.

If I had been the one doing the hire AND NIL were irrelevant, I think I would have picked AAR over MM, in part for the reasons you say, in part because, well, Stanford (there comes my cultural bias again).

The ONLY reason I would have picked JP would have been the donor/NIL stuff. AAR or JP would have been an easy call for me over MM because of the NIL stuff, and I think at the end of the day, with the NIL being relevant, the more I think about it the more I think I would have been a lot more comfortable with AAR over JP, but because of donors/NIL I would have take either over MM.

AAR seems like a great guy, a leader of men, and he has tons of charisma, AND I have more faith in his ability to build the connections he needs out here and recruit the areas you talk about than MM. I don't know if AAR would have taken the job (in part because I think he's the kind of guy who isn't all about money and glory), and I think there is reason to hope that MM can recruit the areas you talk about. If I knew AAR would have taken the job, I'd be more aggravated that it was MM over AAR, especially because of donor/NIL, but I don't know that he would have said yes.

Cal8285 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP EXCEPT for the fact that JP would have pre-promised big NIL money (at least in theory). Throw that out, and I'd take MM, in spite of your arguments. I'll start with one thing. MM had better overall seasons than JP both of the last two years if you look at the statistic based rankings (KenPom and a half dozen others).

It is interesting, there are donors who had personal interactions with JP who apparently liked him and supported him. There are many who interacted with him who don't like him.

In some ways, I go back to Gladstone, who talked about leadership qualities being more important than other things. My gut is that MM is a better guy than JP to lead a program. Other than having big money donors who support him for no rational reason, I'll take MM.

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific. If MM is the guy, the only reason I have a problem with it is the NIL question. Given the realistic options we had, that's it, that's my only problem.

I agree that the process was flawed. I'm not sure I'm more in love with the process that gives the job to the guy who has the most money willing to support him, even if there may be some sense in the real world to that process. If we had a process that was proper yet ignored who had the most "donor" money ready to support him, MM might (or might not) have gotten the job.

In my view, it really is the process and not the outcome that was the problem.

---

I think it is fair that you come to a different conclusion than I do. I think that with the case that can be made on paper it is very problematic that a major member of the process had obvious conflicts.

I am going to say this on yours and others citing KenPom. I just don't think that is persuasive. The job is not to have the highest KenPom rating. It is to win. And for most, that means to win in your conference because those are your peers. If I didn't have things like conference records to look at, KenPom is a lot ore valuable. But to me that is akin to saying Team X is better than Team Y when Team Y just beat Team X because Team X has a better KenPom rating. We don't determine success by algorithm. If we did, you can bet everyone would change their style of play to game the algorithm.

Also, when we, as a high major team (hahahahaha!) look at things like Sagarin and KenPom it makes more sense because we are at the top of the food chain. In a division with hundreds of teams with conferences that vary wildly in resources and recruiting pool, these become far more problematic. You cannot, for instance expect Dennis Gates to go to Cleveland State and be able to compete in the same manner in national statistics that he does at Missouri. What you can do is basically say he was hired to win games and his ability to do that against similarly situated teams (his conference) is a pretty big indicator.

JP took over a last place team and has finished 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 5th, and 1st. He has won two conference tournaments and been to 2 NCAA tourneys. MM took over a second place team and went 8th, 1st, 7th, 1st with zero conference tourney championships or tourney appearances. They don't hang KenPom banners. I don't see how the actual results are close. Better conference finishes. Actual conference tourney championships and with that NCAA tourney appearances.

---

Most of the statistical models are far too biased in favor of high major teams, but a) there isn't much bias in favor of the Mountain West over the Big West, and b) they all are an attempt to measure winning in light of strength of schedule. The biggest flaw, IMO, is that if you lose to enough good teams, it can really help your rankings. I care about how good a team is, which include winning and who you beat and who you lost to, which the statistical models, flawed as they are, do their best to consider.

If we're looking at 2022-23, both won a conference, MM didn't win his conference tourney, but I do care about winning and losing and beating good teams. This season, MM beat Oregon in Eugene. He beat BYU in Provo. He took Wake Forest to OT in Winston-Salem. JP didn't have any wins (or losses) that impress me. I don't know all the circumstances that led to 7th in 2021-22, but I will never pin anything on one disappointing year.

I want some proof you can compete with (and if you are a mid-major, sometimes punch up and beat) the power conference teams. MM has shown me that. Not so sure about JP. I think there are plenty of people who would look at 2022-23 and prefer MM's results to JP's, and not just because of KenPom, Sagarin, et al.

Look, my point isn't that MM is the better choice, my point is that you say, "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." If you are just comparing resumes, and ignoring donor/NIL issues, I disagree. I think that if we're looking at JP versus MM, it is closer to 5 out of 10 people with no dog in the fight who come out JP.

Me, I have biases against both JP and MM (part of the reason I probably would have chosen AAR, assuming he would have come), but based on resumes alone, I pick MM, and it goes beyond KenPom, ESPN power ratings, Sagarin, etc.

And look, now we're arguing about 3 out of 10 people, does this really tell that MM clearly has the inferior resume?

I agree that the process was flawed, it absolutely appears that Montgomery had too much say in it. Knowlton is a moron, so he recognized he doesn't know enough to make the hire and seems to have been a moron and chosen someone to maybe totally rely on who is probably out of touch with what Cal needs, plus had some conflicts. It sucks.

I probably would have held my nose and picked JP if AAR wouldn't come because of the importance of the donor/NIL issues. I can't fault JK TOO much if he decided to ignore donor/NIL issues in making the hire (although he needed to do a MUCH, MUCH better job of massaging donors and trying to smooth a route for MM to get donor/NIL funds), even though I would have held my nose and considered those issues. It was definitely NOT okay to ignore donor/NIL issues in terms of the need to maintain donor relations in making a hire that didn't have pre-promised donor/NIL backing.

But outside of the need for maintaining relations, IF it was okay for the process to ignore donor/NIL issues in making the choice, then I can't say the outcome was clearly wrong. Ignoring donor/NIL issues, I would have had AAR as first choice, MM second, and I'm not sure if I would have had Johnson or JP third, but I just don't think it is clear cut, and (again, ignoring donor/NIL issues), I can't say who I would have chosen if I had been part of the process.

I don't think you need to suggest that MM is so clearly worse on paper to say the process was crap, and I don't think MM is clearly worse on paper (ignoring donor/NIL issues). If MM is indeed coming here, I'm okay with it IF MM/Cal manages to get NIL backing for the MBB program. But that's a big IF.

---

But how do you figure in the (supposed) practice facility? One guy has a donor who is rumored to say "Hire him and you get the practice facility talked about for 2+ decades). The other has a funny dance video.

Honestly I can agree with all of this. I think you could make an argument that we are coin tossing. Manytime that is what hiring a college coach is - as evidenced by all the great MM coaches who just didn't work out at a P5.

But when you have the opportunity to get a physical asset on the balance sheet you just gotta go with door number 1 absent VERY compelling evidence to say otherwise. This is especially true if the rumored out is that MONTY will lead the fundraising drive. Of all the funny things (not really funny haha but funny sad) is that. He is in the George Castanza category of fundraisers.

Near as I can tell some of you just don't like how distasteful that all is. No doubt seemy. But christ - that is the world we live in and I for one welcome Cal getting someone who cares like Uncle Phil about sports success and who is mad as hell and isnt' going to take it any more.

A rainy day, so I did some research. I took a look at UCSB's current roster. Of the top seven players, five were portal transfers. Only one four-star that I can identify. The rest were three stars in high school. Of the two that were recruited as freshmen, one was an international player and the other had best alternative offers from Fresno and Montana. No one recruited from an inner city, unless you count Fresno and Stockton. That is probably why they lost to Duquesne and Northern Arizona this year, and went out in the first round of the tournament.

In total, UCSB had 8 black players on the roster. Utah Valley has 10.

Here's a question related to Cal's hiring process:
How did the Madsen selection get leaked to the press? I assume the ethical approach is that Madsen has been verbally offered the job with some terms specified and that he's verbally accepted, but nothing can/should be put in writing until his commitment to Utah Valley St is complete. But it seems Cal has nothing to gain and everything to lose by spilling the beans early. Another school could swoop in with a much better offer (I'm sure that wouldn't be hard) and Cal would really be embarrassed. Maybe JK began belatedly selling donors on Madsen and one of them leaked? Or maybe the consulting firm which, as a reward for screwing the pooch with Fox, was apparently RETAINED AGAIN.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

...
We are not the audience. Believe it or not, some people specifically ate up Mark Fox's message in the infamous video. That one was easy for me to look at and say no. But it always amazes me how out of touch people can be with not only what resonates with youth today, but with what resonated with themselves when they were youth. I don't have specific concerns about Madsen's "charisma" and "leadership", but what I do have concerns about is that seems to be what 90% of his candidacy is riding on, and has anyone checked with anyone younger than 60 years old on that one. This is where I wanted significant input from specifically recent former basketball players at Cal because they are the closest thing we have to that audience. It doesn't appear he is their preferred candidate and one (albeit not so recent anymore) former player already dissed the hire. I'd really like to see what they thought. Because I agree he will probably win the press conference and hopefully that gets some NIL donors back on board, but I'm not the audience. And again, my biggest concern is that to turn this around on ducky, if it weren't for the perceived charisma, what are we basing this on. So we better be right about the charisma.

---

All I know is what I saw in the video of MM's introduction to UVU. I got interested when he started talking basketball. Everything leading up to that seemed like what any generic politician might say. Yawn. But maybe MM can read an audience and knows what's appropriate in different circumstances. When he's recruiting he needs to be good one-on-one but we'll never see that side of him.

HearstMining said:

---

Here's a question related to Cal's hiring process:
How did the Madsen selection get leaked to the press? ...

---

I don't like the leak and I have no idea how it got out. But I can guess that protracted silence due to the circumstances of this case might cause more trouble than a leak.

HearstMining said:

---

Here's a question related to Cal's hiring process:
How did the Madsen selection get leaked to the press? I assume the ethical approach is that Madsen has been verbally offered the job with some terms specified and that he's verbally accepted, but nothing can/should be put in writing until his commitment to Utah Valley St is complete. But it seems Cal has nothing to gain and everything to lose by spilling the beans early. Another school could swoop in with a much better offer (I'm sure that wouldn't be hard) and Cal would really be embarrassed. Maybe JK began belatedly selling donors on Madsen and one of them leaked? Or maybe the consulting firm which, as a reward for screwing the pooch with Fox, was apparently RETAINED AGAIN.

---

Very good question.

HearstMining said:

---

Here's a question related to Cal's hiring process:
How did the Madsen selection get leaked to the press? I assume the ethical approach is that Madsen has been verbally offered the job with some terms specified and that he's verbally accepted, but nothing can/should be put in writing until his commitment to Utah Valley St is complete. But it seems Cal has nothing to gain and everything to lose by spilling the beans early. Another school could swoop in with a much better offer (I'm sure that wouldn't be hard) and Cal would really be embarrassed. Maybe JK began belatedly selling donors on Madsen and one of them leaked? Or maybe the consulting firm which, as a reward for screwing the pooch with Fox, was apparently RETAINED AGAIN.

---

I just assumed it was put out by Knowlton and the Department to reduce criticism for inaction. Can you imagine if nothing was announced up until now? Pitchforks and torches in front of Haas!

I wouldn't rule that out quite yet.

Madsen checks the boxes I thought would be needed. Younger coach, (he's youngish lol), consistent winning from the get go. I don't know the hiring process, but Madsen will know the area for recruiting probably better than anybody we could have got. He definitely seems like a total basketball guy and not stuck in the past. Give him a chance.

I know this comes across cynical and is purely speculation, but I just assumed it was JPs agent.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

25 years Ago

Hall of Fame Coach, Bill Walsh, who coached at Cal, Stanford and the local NFL franchise, recommended Cal hire his former player, Tom Holmoe, as Cal's Head Football Coach. Holmoe was hired with Walsh's recommendation over other potential candidates, including African Americans, that some thought were better qualified and would be a better fit.

Tom Holmoe, a devout LDS member raised in suburban Southern California starred at BYU before playing professionally for Walsh and the 49ers where he won Superbowls and was well liked by his more famous teammates like Joe Montana and Jerry Rice.

After his pro career he coached at Stanford and professionally before being recommended by Walsh for the Cal DC and then HC jobs, where he failed spectacularly but was extended because he was just such a nice guy.

Today

Hall of Fame Coach, Mike Montgomery, who coached at Cal, Stanford and the local NBA franchise, recommended Cal hire his former player, Mark Madsen as Cal's Head Basketball Coach.

Madsen, a devout LDS member raised in suburban Northern California starred at Stanford before playing professionally for the Lakers where he won NBA championships and was well liked by his more famous and more talented teammates like Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal.

After his pro career he coached at Stanford, then professionally and as HC at Utah Valley College before Montgomery recommended his former player for the Cal HC job, boosting Madsen over other potential candidates, including African Americans, that some thought were better qualified and would be a better fit for Cal.

As 25 years earlier, people are touting his personality and professional connections. Hopefully it works out better this time but the process, relying on a retired coach whose college legacy is at Stanford and who does not really understand Cal touting his own guy, is definitely a faulty hiring process.

---

Holmoe was a great recruiter who sucked at other aspects of the job. In football that gets you fired but in basketball it gets you to the Sweet Sixteen.

---

Madsen has already been successful as a head coach at a smaller program, unlike Holmoe who had no track record at all. Madsen isn't my first choice and might not work out, but he's not the same.

---

Coordinator at a P5 school in football is equivalent or even a higher level than HC at Utah Valley in basketball. Wilcox and Tedford were coordinators. It is one of the normal promotion paths. That said, Holmoe's defense was the worst in D1, so…. yeah. Madsen is a far better candidate than Holmoe was. I just find the parallels and the 25 year anniversary interesting.

The point is more that relying too heavily on Walsh or Montgomery pushing their former players is not a good process for Cal.

Though I recently was told something that makes it sound like this is more Knowlton's decision than is being let on.

In short, white dinosaurs should not have spearheaded the search. Agree.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

SmellinRoses said:

---

In short, white dinosaurs should not have spearheaded the search. Agree.

---

Nice to see casual racism on the Bear Insider board. It's been so overt on this board lately, you have to wonder if the board owners are huge fans of it.

---

Racism = prejudice based upon race PLUS power. For a better understanding highly recommend the book Caste.

What? Comment wasn't remotely racist. DEI - hello??
Gent made the point that no persons of color had real influence in the process. What's the point of of the whole DEI thing then? I believe the D stand for diversity- maybe I need lessons from the woke among us.

GMP said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

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.

---

I don't see how this is pretty clear. What it sounds like people (and you're not the only one) are saying is that Monty made the decision because the person selected was who Monty supported. If it had been Pasternack, would Braun have made the decision? If Abdur-Rahim had been selected, would Shareef had made the decision? Why was it all a dog-and-pony show? Why couldn't Knowlton have listened to everyone earnestly, weighed the options, and then made his choice?

As I said elsewhere - I think Knowlton failed here in not trying to sell the donors on Madsen before the final decision was made. To let them behind the curtain and allow them to feel a part of the process. That was a terrible mistake, and not a surprising one from Knowlton.

But that doesn't mean he didn't listen to people. And it doesn't mean he farmed his decision out to Monty just because the final pick happened to be the guy Monty supported.

---

Knowlton made the decision. Did he make it himself or farm his decision out? Does it really matter? In the end, Knowlton decided.

Knowlton doesn't know squat about basketball, he pretty much admits that, and based on his tenure so far, he doesn't seem to know much about hiring people, either.

As much as I don't like the idea of Monty making the decision, I probably feel worse about the idea of Knowlton making the decision, and in the end, it was Knowlton's decision. If Knowlton decided, "I'll won't trust myself, other than to just pick whoever Monty wants," that's bad, if he decided "I'll listen, weigh options, and pick who I want," that might be worse, because as much as Monty has his biases and dinosaur views, I'd trust him more than Knowlton.

I'm guessing that reaching out to players and alums and members of the Cal community was just window dressing because players and alums and members of the Cal community have indicated it was just window dressing. If there are those outside Monty and Jay John who can say, "Yes, Knowlton sincerely made us part of the process," I'd love to hear it.

The problem is it seems clear that a lot of the existing (and perhaps some potential) donor community feels the reaching out was just window dressing and they are pissed. Which in many ways puts the program back at square one in terms of trying to raise NIL money. I hope Madsen can heal some of this, although the number one thing that could help heal is if Knowlton was no longer AD.

GMP said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

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.

---

I don't see how this is pretty clear. What it sounds like people (and you're not the only one) are saying is that Monty made the decision because the person selected was who Monty supported. If it had been Pasternack, would Braun have made the decision? If Abdur-Rahim had been selected, would Shareef had made the decision? Why was it all a dog-and-pony show? Why couldn't Knowlton have listened to everyone earnestly, weighed the options, and then made his choice?

As I said elsewhere - I think Knowlton failed here in not trying to sell the donors on Madsen before the final decision was made. To let them behind the curtain and allow them to feel a part of the process. That was a terrible mistake, and not a surprising one from Knowlton.

But that doesn't mean he didn't listen to people. And it doesn't mean he farmed his decision out to Monty just because the final pick happened to be the guy Monty supported.

---

Gotta be honest. I'm getting a little frustrated with people who I know know exactly why I'm saying things are pretty clear questioning why it is pretty clear.