http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/04/01/cal-basketball-great-school-tough-job-and-the-search-to-replace-montgomery/

Not that insightful nor great loss. Worse would be if the source had indicated that Sandy had reached out and gotten cold shoulder. That would give us an indication she was trolling in the flash in the pan waters.

Huh? Unless Cal reached out to him . . . wtf does this matter? Is he just asking any random name that's popped up on the internet if they're interested?

God he's an intolerable Stanford honk. I'm guessing his source was a teenage junior sports writer on the U of Dayton student newspaper. What a lazy clown.

Archie Miller would be crazy not to be interested in the Cal job. It's probably the best available job out there now, and it's a helluva lot better and higher profile than Dayton. Get real!

Golden One;842300062 said:

---

Archie Miller would be crazy not to be interested in the Cal job. It's probably the best available job out there now, and it's a helluva lot better and higher profile than Dayton. Get real!

---

Maybe he doesn't want to compete against his brother?

LongTimeBearFan;842300040 said:

---

God he's an intolerable Stanford honk. I'm guessing his source was a teenage junior sports writer on the U of Dayton student newspaper. What a lazy clown.

---

Thank you thank you thank you! Wilner absolutely lives to take pot shots at Cal, and rarely adds anything insightful to the conversation.

Golden One;842300062 said:

---

Archie Miller would be crazy not to be interested in the Cal job. It's probably the best available job out there now, and it's a helluva lot better and higher profile than Dayton. Get real!

---

Just because it's the "best available" right now does not mean that it's a great job, or that much better opportunities won't open up in the near future. As Wilner notes, one West Coast coach calls this a "hard job". Throw in that Cal hasn't been to the Sweet 16 since 1997? Not sure many of the names being thrown out there by fans are realistic, especially since I don't see the school paying top $$$.

Need to jump on board the Wilner hate-wagon. He just cant help himself when it comes to slamming anything Cal related. Granted, Sandy hasn't exactly made it difficult for him lately, but he's absolutely incorrigible on the matter.

grandmastapoop;842300065 said:

---

Maybe he doesn't want to compete against his brother?

---

Afraid to compete! He turned down USC?

BearInNeb;842300096 said:

---

Need to jump on board the Wilner hate-wagon. He just cant help himself when it comes to slamming anything Cal related. Granted, Sandy hasn't exactly made it difficult for him lately, but he's absolutely incorrigible on the matter.

---

+1

You have to have to consider the source. If it is being posted by Wilner consider it to have been posted by Amy. It may or may not be true, but the motive behind it is anti-Cal.

Everything he says there seems true to me. Cal is considered a hard job by coaches for obvious reasons. Do you think he's making that up? It's hard to get kids in, and it's hard to keep them eligible. This is a fact that's been discussed on this board many times, not sure why you guys are slamming him for reporting it.

It's hardly news that Archie Miller is not interested in the job. I've been trying to tell people here that for days. Ditto Shaka Smart and Gregg Marshall and Tommy Amaker, etc. But it doesn't stop people from posting whole threads about "hey, why don't we go after Mark Few?". And it won't stop people from complaining that Sandy should be fired when they don't come here, even though they were never going to in the first place.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating what I've written in other posts, but I keep seeing the same nonsense on here every day. I hate to break it to you, but sometimes things don't get done because they are difficult, not because the people trying to do them are incompetent.

I don't see Wilner as anti-Cal he's one of the few sources for knowledgeable insider information.:gobears:

What do you base your comments on?

DCW67MSW;842300133 said:

---

I don't see Wilner as anti-Cal he's one of the few sources for knowledgeable insider information.:gobears:

---

Some people see things like facts and reality as "anti-Cal"

LocoOso;842300160 said:

---

Some people see things like facts and reality as "anti-Cal"

---

I cant speak for "some people" but as someone who is not a fan of Wilner, I want to clarify that my distaste has nothing to do with him reporting facts. Its his constant habit of painting all Cal-related news as negative/incompetent. And this dates back long before Sandy started making things easy for him.

Simply put, Wilner has always taken shots at the Cal program while not being nearly as critical with Stanford. This was especially evident when Stanford's major revenue programs were abysmal.

Jon is a yearly call-in guest of the Cal Grid Club of Sacramento. As Past President, in personally dealing with him & then the audience of members to be friendly & knowledgeable about Cal football. I find right now his view of Stanford & Cal issues to be fact based & while not always what I want to hear, I find little basis for argument.:gobears:

DCW67MSW;842300185 said:

---

Jon is a yearly call-in guest of the Cal Grid Club of Sacramento. As Past President, in personally dealing with him & then the audience of members to be friendly & knowledgeable about Cal football. I find right now his view of Stanford & Cal issues to be fact based & while not always what I want to hear, I find little basis for argument.:gobears:

---

Okay, since you mentioned the word "fact", let me just say that I think you're letting facts get in the way of a good opinion about how yet another member of the mainstream media is anti-Cal.

What do you think of that?!?

:p

It just seems trendy to think of the Merc & Wilner & the Chron & Crumpacker as either slanted or incompetent to report on Cal & its programs. Were at a time of frus:gobears:tration but I don't see shooting the messinger as the way to make things better.

I think there's a difference between "Wilner is biased" and "Crumpacker is incompetent." I tend to agree with you that most of what Wilner writes is fact-basded. Crumpacker, on the other hand, is just lazy. Before his illness, there were far fewer articles about Cal than about Stanfurd (Tom FitzGerald), and most of the ones he wrote were fluff pieces. He repeated tired old rumors during the football search without adding anything new, despite his alleged access to sources. I know that Monty disliked him, and I don't think it was because he thought Crumpy was biased--just that he wasn't very sharp.

Wilner's bias is right there in the subject line and the blog post. Do we know if CAL was interested in Miller? Did he simply say no to the search firm. Do we know if he (miller) expressed disinterest in the job on the prompt "would you be interested?" Honestly it is akin to me saying "I have no interest in getting a free trip to climb Mount Everest". It is true. However, it also has not been offered.

This is from Wilner's recent post on the bb coaching search. I doubt there is another reporter anytime recently who has unequivocally stated that Cal is one of the world's great universities and is more rigorous than most of its Division 1 competitors including Stanford. Usually if there is mention of Cal academically it's couched in general terms or in reference to Cal being public which carries the implication it is inferior to the top privates. The emphasis is mine:

Both universities [Cal and Stanford] are among the finest in the world. But for a variety of reasons, including Cal's status as a public school, the Bears have lower admission standards for football and men's basketball players than does Stanford.

How much lower? That's difficult to quantify because transcripts and test scores are private.

But the discrepancy between the qualifications of some recruits and Cal's rigorous curriculum can make for an arduous academic experience.

It has also created a perception within the coaching industry that it's a tough, tough gig.

Cal is more rigorous than Stanford but lacks the reputation for selectivity in admissions that shapes the Cardinal's recruiting pipeline.

Cal is more rigorous than UCLA but lacks the tradition and easy access to elite prospects.

Cal is more rigorous than Arizona but lacks the rabid community support so many recruits find appealing.

Wilner deserves a break on this board.

DCW67MSW;842300185 said:

---

Jon is a yearly call-in guest of the Cal Grid Club of Sacramento. As Past President, in personally dealing with him & then the audience of members to be friendly & knowledgeable about Cal football. I find right now his view of Stanford & Cal issues to be fact based & while not always what I want to hear, I find little basis for argument.:gobears:

---

I've read his reporting for more years than I care to think about and my take is that he's basically lazy but gets more inside info from Stanford and is happy to run with it. Plus, back when the Merc-News wasn't the same paper as all the other BNG rags they were Peninsula oriented and did not cover Cal as in depth as Stanford.

He's no paragon of sports reporting, biased or not.

antipattern;842300117 said:

---

Everything he says there seems true to me. Cal is considered a hard job by coaches for obvious reasons. Do you think he's making that up? It's hard to get kids in, and it's hard to keep them eligible. This is a fact that's been discussed on this board many times, not sure why you guys are slamming him for reporting it.

It's hardly news that Archie Miller is not interested in the job. I've been trying to tell people here that for days. Ditto Shaka Smart and Gregg Marshall and Tommy Amaker, etc. But it doesn't stop people from posting whole threads about "hey, why don't we go after Mark Few?". And it won't stop people from complaining that Sandy should be fired when they don't come here, even though they were never going to in the first place.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating what I've written in other posts, but I keep seeing the same nonsense on here every day. I hate to break it to you, but sometimes things don't get done because they are difficult, not because the people trying to do them are incompetent.

---

+1

santacruzbear;842300286 said:

---

Cal is more rigorous than Stanford but lacks the reputation for selectivity in admissions that shapes the Cardinal's recruiting pipeline.

---

Selectivity in admissions isn't what top athletes are attracted to, they get preference everywhere they show interest. It's the fact that at Stanford there's no way they could ever face academic hardship as they're ushered to a well-respected degree that attracts them.

santacruzbear;842300286 said:

---

This is from Wilner's recent post on the bb coaching search. I doubt there is another reporter anytime recently who has unequivocally stated that Cal is one of the world's great universities and is more rigorous than most of its Division 1 competitors including Stanford. Usually if there is mention of Cal academically it's couched in general terms or in reference to Cal being public which carries the implication it is inferior to the top privates. The emphasis is mine:

Both universities [Cal and Stanford] are among the finest in the world. But for a variety of reasons, including Cal's status as a public school, the Bears have lower admission standards for football and men's basketball players than does Stanford.

How much lower? That's difficult to quantify because transcripts and test scores are private.

But the discrepancy between the qualifications of some recruits and Cal's rigorous curriculum can make for an arduous academic experience.

It has also created a perception within the coaching industry that it's a tough, tough gig.

Cal is more rigorous than Stanford but lacks the reputation for selectivity in admissions that shapes the Cardinal's recruiting pipeline.

Cal is more rigorous than UCLA but lacks the tradition and easy access to elite prospects.

Cal is more rigorous than Arizona but lacks the rabid community support so many recruits find appealing.

Wilner deserves a break on this board.

---

I don't know Wilner, but we on the faculty do believe, based on the evidence we've seen, that he is correct in saying we are more rigorous than Stanford or the Ivies. Don't know his motives, but the statements seem correct to me.

Hey Bearprof, just curious, did you do your undergrad in Berkeley ?

socaliganbear;842300342 said:

---

Hey Bearprof, just curious, did you do your undergrad in Berkeley ?

---

No, I did not

Bearprof;842300345 said:

---

No, I did not

---

That worked out well for you.

UrsaMajor;842300219 said:

---

I think there's a difference between "Wilner is biased" and "Crumpacker is incompetent." I tend to agree with you that most of what Wilner writes is fact-basded. Crumpacker, on the other hand, is just lazy. Before his illness, there were far fewer articles about Cal than about Stanfurd (Tom FitzGerald), and most of the ones he wrote were fluff pieces. He repeated tired old rumors during the football search without adding anything new, despite his alleged access to sources. I know that Monty disliked him, and I don't think it was because he thought Crumpy was biased--just that he wasn't very sharp.

---

I have gone off on Crumpacker before and exactly for the reasons that he just repeats what other people say. Hie is perfect for the Chronicle in that regard.

As for Wilner, he never lets facts get in his way. Where do I begin? How about Jeff Tedford will have his contract extended. I could care less that he seems nice at a Grid Club function and can not make a arse of himself when talking to an audience. The guy has a habit of printing stuff about Cal that just is plain BS. Is that called biased?

Edit: I don't take exception to anything he said in this article, but I also don't know the dynamics inside the Cal administration, and candidly, I wonder how Wilner does?

Bearprof;842300345 said:

---

No, I did not

---

Makes sense. You sound much less sports depressed than the rest of our lot.

DCW67MSW;842300133 said:

---

I don't see Wilner as anti-Cal he's one of the few sources for knowledgeable insider information.:gobears:

---

Are you basing this on when he said there was absolutely no chance that Cal would hire Monty or are you talking about when he said that JT wasn't going to be fired in 2012, mere days before he got the axe?

I didn't actually think that his original article, "Two issues shape Cal's search for its next men's basketball coach", was really unfair. Cal does have an identity issue and has since I was there (in the early '80's). Witness:

Cal
UC Berkeley
Berkeley
The University of California

All of these refer to Cal, but I've spoken with many people (even in the Bay Area) who didn't know that all of the above were the same university! It certainly is true outside of California that people have no idea that they're all the same.

I think that the things which were downplayed in his article were the fantastic (non-rev sports) hires which Sandy has had:

Dave Durden
Amanda Augustus
Lindsay Gottleib

Football and Men's Basketball run the show, however, so right or not, she'll be ultimately judged by those hires.

Btw, I do think that it's commendable that Sandy got the stadium and HPC done. The HPC funding was fine. It was the stadium which was questionable, but you have to realize that the Regents had given Cal until 2010 (or maybe 2011) to seismically retrofit Memorial or abandon it. There really were no options other than just playing elsewhere forever. The seismic retrofit was the lions share of the cost, so doing the other "upgrades" to pay for it really was a no-brainer.

CalBear84;842300434 said:

---

I didn't actually think that his original article, "Two issues shape Cal's search for its next men's basketball coach", was really unfair. Cal does have an identity issue and has since I was there (in the early '80's). Witness:

Cal
UC Berkeley
Berkeley
The University of California

All of these refer to Cal, but I've spoken with many people (even in the Bay Area) who didn't know that all of the above were the same university! It certainly is true outside of California that people have no idea that they're all the same.

I think that the things which were downplayed in his article were the fantastic (non-rev sports) hires which Sandy has had:

Dave Durden
Amanda Augustus
Lindsay Gottleib

Football and Men's Basketball run the show, however, so right or not, she'll be ultimately judged by those hires.

Btw, I do think that it's commendable that Sandy got the stadium and HPC done. The HPC funding was fine. It was the stadium which was questionable, but you have to realize that the Regents had given Cal until 2010 (or maybe 2011) to seismically retrofit Memorial or abandon it. There really were no options other than just playing elsewhere forever. The seismic retrofit was the lions share of the cost, so doing the other "upgrades" to pay for it really was a no-brainer.

---

Honest question - is it really true that the Regents said fix it or abandon? That seems silly as then you would have this rotting structure in the middle of the university. Not a civil engineer (but play one on TV) and I can't imagine you could have torn down CMS and restored the site for anything less than $30 to $50 million (basing that on the oft thrown around cost for doing the same at the Qualcomm Stadium site in SD).

Archie's not interested? What about Jughead?