Cal8285 said:

---

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.

---

socaltownie said:

---

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

---

stu said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

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

---

Good read.

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

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.

---

I was relayed something Monty said privately at a recent Stanford basketball event that has me thinking this was FAR more a Knowlton decision than a Monty decision.

---

annarborbear said:

---

I am betting that in two years, everyone will claim that they had, in fact, recommended Madsen themselves, and that it was their own personal advice that Knowlton followed.

---

GMP said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

GMP said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

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.

---

I'm sorry to hear you are frustrated. But I don't agree it's pretty clear. I think a lot of people are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.

---

Gotta be honest, I am getting pretty frustrated with people who I know have access to facts from reputable sources in other places pretending like those of us commenting based on knowledge of facts they know we know are jumping to conclusions. I don't know what that game is about. I'll grant you that there may be some room for interpretation as to whether Monty had above average influence, high influence l, or total influence, it is clear he had very significant influence. The notion that people saying Knowlton didn't listen to others are jumping to conclusions is total BS unless you want to claim he could have been listening to his cat, his palm reader, and the voices in his head. It is well established he didn't listen to the people who mattered

---

I'm not trying to argue semantics with you. But it seems to me you are arguing that this is binary: Knowlton chose Monty's preferred candidate and not Donor X's favorite candidate, thus Knowlton didn't listen to Donor X.

A lot goes into a decision like this. I think of when I consider a job change. I seek advice of trusted people. They don't always agree. But I listen to them. I consider their advice, their thoughts. Then I make my decision. I think Knowlton could have done this. He might not have. But I don't think anyone knows with certainty.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

GMP said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

GMP said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

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.

---

I'm sorry to hear you are frustrated. But I don't agree it's pretty clear. I think a lot of people are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.

---

Gotta be honest, I am getting pretty frustrated with people who I know have access to facts from reputable sources in other places pretending like those of us commenting based on knowledge of facts they know we know are jumping to conclusions. I don't know what that game is about. I'll grant you that there may be some room for interpretation as to whether Monty had above average influence, high influence l, or total influence, it is clear he had very significant influence. The notion that people saying Knowlton didn't listen to others are jumping to conclusions is total BS unless you want to claim he could have been listening to his cat, his palm reader, and the voices in his head. It is well established he didn't listen to the people who mattered

---

I'm not trying to argue semantics with you. But it seems to me you are arguing that this is binary: Knowlton chose Monty's preferred candidate and not Donor X's favorite candidate, thus Knowlton didn't listen to Donor X.

A lot goes into a decision like this. I think of when I consider a job change. I seek advice of trusted people. They don't always agree. But I listen to them. I consider their advice, their thoughts. Then I make my decision. I think Knowlton could have done this. He might not have. But I don't think anyone knows with certainty.

---

By "listen to" I don't mean he didn't do what they want. It is well established he paid lip service to communicating with them at the very beginning and then didn't communicate with them either by speaking or hearing throughout the test of the process.

---

annarborbear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

GMP said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

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.

---

I'm sorry to hear you are frustrated. But I don't agree it's pretty clear. I think a lot of people are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.

---

Gotta be honest, I am getting pretty frustrated with people who I know have access to facts from reputable sources in other places pretending like those of us commenting based on knowledge of facts they know we know are jumping to conclusions. I don't know what that game is about. I'll grant you that there may be some room for interpretation as to whether Monty had above average influence, high influence l, or total influence, it is clear he had very significant influence. The notion that people saying Knowlton didn't listen to others are jumping to conclusions is total BS unless you want to claim he could have been listening to his cat, his palm reader, and the voices in his head. It is well established he didn't listen to the people who mattered

---

Ok, but time for all of us to stop dragging this out. The new coaching era is now here. Let's not blow it by staying divided. I'm reacquiring season tickets and upping my donations. Haas used to be my favorite place. Let's make it that way again.

We can still work on getting rid of Knowlton. But's let's all again be Cal basketball supporters.

---

annarborbear said:

---

The debate is over. Support the new coach and let's bring back winning basketball. You can also root for UCSB when they are not playing us.

---

socaltownie said:

---

Moreover, it is great he played with Kobe and Shaq but I am not sure that translates. Now if we hired Steve Kerr or Draymond? Well yes. That works. But the Lakers from 15 years ago for a NorCal School as well as a very different style of BB than played in the league today.

---

Californium said:

---

Richard_Lee said:

---

Steph Curry and Klay Thompson are great players and future Hall of Famers, but they are not in the same class as Kobe and Shaq as legends, superstars, and pop culture icons.

---

Minor point and super tangential to your argument, but ...

I guess time will tell about Steph, since he is still playing, but I don't think that fact is NEARLY as unequivocal as you claim. There are already arguments about how high Steph fits in the all time pantheon of NBA players.

---

Richard_Lee said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

It doesn't seem so obvious to me that JP is better than MM. I would take MM over JP…

I absolutely hated the Jones and Fox hires, they were both horrific.

---

Agree on the above. Wyking Jones was an absolute zero in terms of a hire. That was easy to see. That hire made me want to throw up. And he took Cal basketball down into the toilet.

Mark Fox was also a zero when he got hired, but then Fox went out and proved everyone wrong. That is, Fox actually turned out to be LESS THAN ZERO. Fox took us out of Wyking's toilet and onto the street corner, hooked on hard drugs and getting bent over and violated on a nightly basis by strangers

Less Than Zero. Just like Bret Easton Ellis imagined.

Thank you, Mark Fox. I have felt nothing but shame, embarrassment, guilt, and low self-esteem for the past 4 years whenever Cal basketball crosses my mind or the screen of my TV or phone.

I also agree on the preference for Mark Madsen over Ben Braun's old 4th string assistant videotape indexing manager. I'm not a fan of the audio-visual squad guy. Never have been. Even before he kicked Jorge Gutierrez, my all-time favorite Cal basketball player, my impression of Joe was "meh." After that, and after observing Joe's attitude and non-apology, my impression was "go *****yourself."

When it comes to leadership and program building, being a high character guy and role model counts for something. Mark Madsen, even though the thought of Mark, in his Stanford uniform, destroying our Cal teams led by Sean Lampley back at the Oakland Coliseum / Arena, remains a huge turnoff, has always played and carried himself as a model human being. I wanted to dislike him when he played for Stanford, but I couldn't. It was much easier to dislike mouthy guys like Brevin Knight and Casey Jacobsen or really ugly guys like Matt Lottich.

Coaches have to recruit to parents as well as the high school players. Madsen can do that.

i would have preferred Shantay Legans or Amir Abdur-Rahim over Madsen, but I'll take Madsen anyday of the week over someone I can't stand.

Madsen actually makes me kind of excited about Cal basketball again! It's been a long time. I had almost given up.

In fact, I was feeling pretty refreshed and almost able to move on with my life, having given up on all our former hopes and dreams. I could focus on positive things in life…i.e., anything other than Cal basketball. Happy happy joy joy!

Now, I'm back to feeling like a traumatized, delusional girlfriend who keeps getting cheated on, disappointed by, and lied to by her loser boyfriend. But now, the loser boyfriend has a new job, suddenly cleaned up his appearance, smiles a lot more, converted to being a Mormon, and revealed himself to have played in the NBA for a decade alongside my 2 of the greatest players of all time, Kobe and Shaq.

Deep down, I know it's just a con. I know the loser is just going to disappoint us in the future again and break all our hearts. This time in the future, we might not be able to put ourselves back together after the inevitable wreckage. We will never love again. We will never be whole. We will always have a void inside that is impossible to fill.

But whatever! Mark Madsen brings positive energy, an NBA career, a Pac 12 star pedigree as the leader of Stanford's Final Four team, and an infectious enthusiasm. So I'm willing to once again completely ignore the plethora of red flags that continue to inundate the Cal Athletic Department and Cal basketball program.

So I'm coming back for one more cycle of abuse. Whoo hoo! Bring it on! LOL

---

sycasey said:

---

Californium said:

---

Richard_Lee said:

---

Steph Curry and Klay Thompson are great players and future Hall of Famers, but they are not in the same class as Kobe and Shaq as legends, superstars, and pop culture icons.

---

Minor point and super tangential to your argument, but ...

I guess time will tell about Steph, since he is still playing, but I don't think that fact is NEARLY as unequivocal as you claim. There are already arguments about how high Steph fits in the all time pantheon of NBA players.

---

Yeah, I would argue that Steph is either approaching that pantheon or already in it.

---

Richard_Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Californium said:

---

Richard_Lee said:

---

Steph Curry and Klay Thompson are great players and future Hall of Famers, but they are not in the same class as Kobe and Shaq as legends, superstars, and pop culture icons.

---

Minor point and super tangential to your argument, but ...

I guess time will tell about Steph, since he is still playing, but I don't think that fact is NEARLY as unequivocal as you claim. There are already arguments about how high Steph fits in the all time pantheon of NBA players.

---

Yeah, I would argue that Steph is either approaching that pantheon or already in it.

---

LOL

I think it is primarily SF Bay Area people who would make that argument.. :-)

---

sycasey said:

---

Richard_Lee said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Californium said:

---

Richard_Lee said:

---

Steph Curry and Klay Thompson are great players and future Hall of Famers, but they are not in the same class as Kobe and Shaq as legends, superstars, and pop culture icons.

---

Minor point and super tangential to your argument, but ...

I guess time will tell about Steph, since he is still playing, but I don't think that fact is NEARLY as unequivocal as you claim. There are already arguments about how high Steph fits in the all time pantheon of NBA players.

---

Yeah, I would argue that Steph is either approaching that pantheon or already in it.

---

LOL

I think it is primarily SF Bay Area people who would make that argument.. :-)

---

Or it's self-centered Laker fans who won't accept anyone other than their own guys going in.

https://www.si.com/nba/warriors/news/nba-reveals-steph-curry-is-most-popular-player-on-social-media

https://morningconsult.com/2022/10/18/stephen-curry-is-the-nbas-most-liked-player/

---