Has anyone asked Knowlton if Jason Kidd is really a candidate for the job or have Jeff Goodman and the Chron reported this instead?

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Can I ask whether you (or other donors or even the AD) are at all concerned with kidd's alleged off court indiscretions. I'm just curious whether this is going to play any role in the decision.

I'm also mildly surprised you're a Kidd guy. What are some reasons you prefer him over a guy like turner?

---

Donors want wins is my guess and access to the coach. My guess is donors changed the original decision on the basis of pulling /providing support, and JK blinked. And yes, donors want Kidd.

I'm not sure what impact his off the court indiscretions will have. He has made the rounds at Berkeley for various events recently and has been well received. On the domestic abuse side, this Chancellor's support would help. If you are asking me, he is very different than the guy that was a player (nothing like being on the management side to get a different perspective).

As for coaching, in his last gig, the Bucks turned from one of the worst to one of the best defenses in the Association. Cal needs huge help in this area. He has been very good at developing guards and wings, and hired the right guy to help on bigs. I think recruiting would get stronger. You are a five star guard and he comes in the door and talks guard fundamentals - you listen. He seems modest enough to know his weaknesses and hire guys that can do the other work. If he takes the Cal job, he likely stays. Other coaches it is a stepping stone to places that pay more like Martin. Kidd doesn't need the money. For some reason, we don't account for coaches actually getting smarter and developing in their own right. Kidd had done that which is why the Lakers also are interested. He was a smart player and now is a smart coach. One thing he does is spend a lot of time in practice on fundamentals, which bodes well for college.

I don't dislike Turner. Turner is somewhat unproven (one post-season NCAA victory), he probably has to have a long distance relationship with his family as his wife has a successful career, which is not good for retention. purposes. He served under some really good coaches as an assistant. I don't know if he is a D1 coach or a D! recruiter. He is very good with coaching bigs. He is not the exciting hire that Kidd would be. He is a southern guy, not a Bay Area guy like Kidd, but he did just fine at Furd. Just think the wow factor, Kidd knowing Cal and the Bay Area, plus Kidd's experience both as a player and coach at the highest level, makes him a more desirable fit from a Cal, donor, recruiting, excitement, and basketball standpoint. Turner certainly doesn't have the baggage Kidd brings from when he was a player. But I'm looking at Kidd and Turner as they are now.

---

Good post. I really do think Kidd could be great. Of the Monty assistants, I like DeCuire over Turner.

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

If you expect a ten year coach I fear you will be disappointed

---

I'll take eight, but ten isn't impossible. We did have one in Braun.

---

If we'd done it right, he wouldn't have been a ten year coach.

If the ten year coach is a tremendous success, then yeah that'd be great. It all depends on what those 10 years result in.

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Can I ask whether you (or other donors or even the AD) are at all concerned with kidd's alleged off court indiscretions. I'm just curious whether this is going to play any role in the decision.

I'm also mildly surprised you're a Kidd guy. What are some reasons you prefer him over a guy like turner?

---

Donors want wins is my guess and access to the coach. My guess is donors changed the original decision on the basis of pulling /providing support, and JK blinked. So yes, donors want Kidd.

I'm not sure what impact his off the court indiscretions will have. He has made the rounds at Berkeley for various events recently and has been well received. On the domestic abuse side, this Chancellor's support would help. If you are asking me, he is very different that the guy that was a player (nothing like being on the management side to get a different perspective).

As for coaching, in his last gig, the Bucks turned from one of the worst to one of the best defenses in the Association. Cal needs huge help in this area. He has been very good at developing guards and wings, and hired the right guy to help on bigs. I think recruiting would get stronger. You are a five star guard and he comes in the door and talks guard fundamental - you listen. He seems modest enough to know his weaknesses and hire guys that can do the other work. If he takes the Cal job, he likes stays. Other coaches it is a stepping stone to places that pay more like Martin. Kidd doesn't need the money. For some reason, we don't account for coaches actually getting smarter and developing in their own right. Kidd had done that which is why the Lakers also are interest. he was a smart player and now is a smart coach. One thing he does is spend a lot of time in practice on fundamentals, which bodes well for college.

I don't dislike Turner. Turner is somewhat unproven (one post-season NCAA victory), he probably has to have a long distance relationship with his family as his wife has a successful career, which is not good for retention. purposes. He served under some really good coaches as an assistant. I don't know if he is a D1 coach or a D! recruiter. He is very good with coaching bigs. He is not the exciting hire that Kidd would be. He is a southern guy, not a Bay Area guy like Kidd, but he did just fine at Furd. Just think the wow factor, Kidd knowing Cal and the Bay Area, plus Kidd's experience both as a player and coach at the highest level, makes him a more disable fit from a Cal, donor, recruiting, excitement, and basketball standpoint. Turner certainly doesn't have the baggage Kidd brings from when he was a player. But I'm looking at Kidd and Turner as they are now.

---

I just don't see Kidd, if hired, staying very long. He would always have an eye out for the next NBA job. We need a ten-year coach and stability.

---

If you expect a ten year coach I fear you will be disappointed

---

I'll take eight, but ten isn't impossible. We did have one in Braun.

---

Unless Cal is their dream job (they are from the Bay Area or are an alum) "Ten year coaches" are guys that have enough success early to get extensions and loyalty from the alums and then gradually decline in results to mediocrity or worse so they no longer get offers for more prestigious/better paying positions and then eventually force us to fire them, usually long after they should have been fired.

Other than his initial success, I hope we aspire to more than "the next Braun." Watching Braun squander talent and achieve mediocrity or worse was more frustrating than these last few years have been, and that is saying something.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

calumnus said:

---

Other than his initial success, I hope we aspire to more than "the next Braun." Watching Braun squander talent and achieve mediocrity or worse was more frustrating than these last few years have been, and that is saying something.

---

I was no Braun fan from 2003 on, but at least I wanted to watch the games. Nothing and I mean nothing has been worse than having Wyking as coach.

calumnus said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Can I ask whether you (or other donors or even the AD) are at all concerned with kidd's alleged off court indiscretions. I'm just curious whether this is going to play any role in the decision.

I'm also mildly surprised you're a Kidd guy. What are some reasons you prefer him over a guy like turner?

---

Donors want wins is my guess and access to the coach. My guess is donors changed the original decision on the basis of pulling /providing support, and JK blinked. So yes, donors want Kidd.

I'm not sure what impact his off the court indiscretions will have. He has made the rounds at Berkeley for various events recently and has been well received. On the domestic abuse side, this Chancellor's support would help. If you are asking me, he is very different that the guy that was a player (nothing like being on the management side to get a different perspective).

As for coaching, in his last gig, the Bucks turned from one of the worst to one of the best defenses in the Association. Cal needs huge help in this area. He has been very good at developing guards and wings, and hired the right guy to help on bigs. I think recruiting would get stronger. You are a five star guard and he comes in the door and talks guard fundamental - you listen. He seems modest enough to know his weaknesses and hire guys that can do the other work. If he takes the Cal job, he likes stays. Other coaches it is a stepping stone to places that pay more like Martin. Kidd doesn't need the money. For some reason, we don't account for coaches actually getting smarter and developing in their own right. Kidd had done that which is why the Lakers also are interest. he was a smart player and now is a smart coach. One thing he does is spend a lot of time in practice on fundamentals, which bodes well for college.

I don't dislike Turner. Turner is somewhat unproven (one post-season NCAA victory), he probably has to have a long distance relationship with his family as his wife has a successful career, which is not good for retention. purposes. He served under some really good coaches as an assistant. I don't know if he is a D1 coach or a D! recruiter. He is very good with coaching bigs. He is not the exciting hire that Kidd would be. He is a southern guy, not a Bay Area guy like Kidd, but he did just fine at Furd. Just think the wow factor, Kidd knowing Cal and the Bay Area, plus Kidd's experience both as a player and coach at the highest level, makes him a more disable fit from a Cal, donor, recruiting, excitement, and basketball standpoint. Turner certainly doesn't have the baggage Kidd brings from when he was a player. But I'm looking at Kidd and Turner as they are now.

---

I just don't see Kidd, if hired, staying very long. He would always have an eye out for the next NBA job. We need a ten-year coach and stability.

---

If you expect a ten year coach I fear you will be disappointed

---

I'll take eight, but ten isn't impossible. We did have one in Braun.

---

Unless Cal is their dream job (they are from the Bay Area or are an alum) "Ten year coaches" are guys that have enough success early to get extensions and loyalty from the alums and then gradually decline in results to mediocrity or worse so they no longer get offers for more prestigious/better paying positions and then eventually force us to fire them, usually long after they should have been fired.

Other than his initial success, I hope we aspire to more than "the next Braun." Watching Braun squander talent and achieve mediocrity or worse was more frustrating than these last few years have been, and that is saying something.

---

I wasn't saying we'd want a Braun-quality coach again, but that ten-year coaches are not unheard of, even in the Bay Area/Northern CA - Montgomery, Randy Bennet, Bob Thomason, Jim Les of UC Davis in eighth year.

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Other than his initial success, I hope we aspire to more than "the next Braun." Watching Braun squander talent and achieve mediocrity or worse was more frustrating than these last few years have been, and that is saying something.

---

I was no Braun fan from 2003 on, but at least I wanted to watch the games. Nothing and I mean nothing has been worse than having Wyking as coach.

---

In terms of the experience watching home games, this is true. In terms of being watchable, 1978-79 comes close to being as bad as the last two years, but at least we went 4-14 in conference and got to see Doug True out there busting his butt with a pretty hopeless team, so that put it above the two Wyking years. The 3-15 in conference 79-80 team was a lot more watchable than the last two years.

But if it isn't purely about the experience of watching the games, I'll take Wyking over Bozeman. If Wyking only had the on court disasters, it wouldn't even be a close call. The Theo and Winston and McCullough fiascos make it a closer call, and man, that's saying something if anything is close to being as bad as having Bozeman as coach.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Can I ask whether you (or other donors or even the AD) are at all concerned with kidd's alleged off court indiscretions. I'm just curious whether this is going to play any role in the decision.

I'm also mildly surprised you're a Kidd guy. What are some reasons you prefer him over a guy like turner?

---

Donors want wins is my guess and access to the coach. My guess is donors changed the original decision on the basis of pulling /providing support, and JK blinked. And yes, donors want Kidd.

I'm not sure what impact his off the court indiscretions will have. He has made the rounds at Berkeley for various events recently and has been well received. On the domestic abuse side, this Chancellor's support would help. If you are asking me, he is very different than the guy that was a player (nothing like being on the management side to get a different perspective).

As for coaching, in his last gig, the Bucks turned from one of the worst to one of the best defenses in the Association. Cal needs huge help in this area. He has been very good at developing guards and wings, and hired the right guy to help on bigs. I think recruiting would get stronger. You are a five star guard and he comes in the door and talks guard fundamentals - you listen. He seems modest enough to know his weaknesses and hire guys that can do the other work. If he takes the Cal job, he likely stays. Other coaches it is a stepping stone to places that pay more like Martin. Kidd doesn't need the money. For some reason, we don't account for coaches actually getting smarter and developing in their own right. Kidd had done that which is why the Lakers also are interested. He was a smart player and now is a smart coach. One thing he does is spend a lot of time in practice on fundamentals, which bodes well for college.

I don't dislike Turner. Turner is somewhat unproven (one post-season NCAA victory), he probably has to have a long distance relationship with his family as his wife has a successful career, which is not good for retention. purposes. He served under some really good coaches as an assistant. I don't know if he is a D1 coach or a D! recruiter. He is very good with coaching bigs. He is not the exciting hire that Kidd would be. He is a southern guy, not a Bay Area guy like Kidd, but he did just fine at Furd. Just think the wow factor, Kidd knowing Cal and the Bay Area, plus Kidd's experience both as a player and coach at the highest level, makes him a more desirable fit from a Cal, donor, recruiting, excitement, and basketball standpoint. Turner certainly doesn't have the baggage Kidd brings from when he was a player. But I'm looking at Kidd and Turner as they are now.

---

Good post. I really do think Kidd could be great. Of the Monty assistants, I like DeCuire over Turner.

---

I think Kidd would be great for Cal, but I am not sure what to think about him as a coach. The jump the Bucks have taken year over year seems like a negative. Def was good until folks caught up to it and then it was one of the worst. That said, maybe his work on developing players is part of the Bucks year over year jump?

I believe he would raise program visibility and would be a great story. I'd like to think he would be a great recruiter but it isn't clear to me that similar stories at Georgetown and St. Johns (with players that were similar in stature both at NCAA and NBA level) have generated recruiting results. I know Penny was mentioned as a positive example, but I think he was coaching AAU and/or high school in the area and therefore was really plugged into Memphis talent pipeline in a way that is unique and likely beneficial in hitting the ground running on recruiting front.

Regardless Kidd would be a huge improvement over where we have been so worth the risk imo.

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Well, Cal gave Dick Kuchen nine years. Or there was Nibs Price, head basketball coach at Cal for 30 years. Also coached the Cal football team at the same time. 1926-1930, with a Rose Bowl appearance.

Can I ask whether you (or other donors or even the AD) are at all concerned with kidd's alleged off court indiscretions. I'm just curious whether this is going to play any role in the decision.

I'm also mildly surprised you're a Kidd guy. What are some reasons you prefer him over a guy like turner?

---

Donors want wins is my guess and access to the coach. My guess is donors changed the original decision on the basis of pulling /providing support, and JK blinked. So yes, donors want Kidd.

I'm not sure what impact his off the court indiscretions will have. He has made the rounds at Berkeley for various events recently and has been well received. On the domestic abuse side, this Chancellor's support would help. If you are asking me, he is very different that the guy that was a player (nothing like being on the management side to get a different perspective).

As for coaching, in his last gig, the Bucks turned from one of the worst to one of the best defenses in the Association. Cal needs huge help in this area. He has been very good at developing guards and wings, and hired the right guy to help on bigs. I think recruiting would get stronger. You are a five star guard and he comes in the door and talks guard fundamental - you listen. He seems modest enough to know his weaknesses and hire guys that can do the other work. If he takes the Cal job, he likes stays. Other coaches it is a stepping stone to places that pay more like Martin. Kidd doesn't need the money. For some reason, we don't account for coaches actually getting smarter and developing in their own right. Kidd had done that which is why the Lakers also are interest. he was a smart player and now is a smart coach. One thing he does is spend a lot of time in practice on fundamentals, which bodes well for college.

I don't dislike Turner. Turner is somewhat unproven (one post-season NCAA victory), he probably has to have a long distance relationship with his family as his wife has a successful career, which is not good for retention. purposes. He served under some really good coaches as an assistant. I don't know if he is a D1 coach or a D! recruiter. He is very good with coaching bigs. He is not the exciting hire that Kidd would be. He is a southern guy, not a Bay Area guy like Kidd, but he did just fine at Furd. Just think the wow factor, Kidd knowing Cal and the Bay Area, plus Kidd's experience both as a player and coach at the highest level, makes him a more disable fit from a Cal, donor, recruiting, excitement, and basketball standpoint. Turner certainly doesn't have the baggage Kidd brings from when he was a player. But I'm looking at Kidd and Turner as they are now.

---

I just don't see Kidd, if hired, staying very long. He would always have an eye out for the next NBA job. We need a ten-year coach and stability.

---

If you expect a ten year coach I fear you will be disappointed

---

I'll take eight, but ten isn't impossible. We did have one in Braun.

---

Well, Cal gave Dick Kuchen 9 years. Or there was Nibs Price, head Cal BB coach for 30 years. He also coached the Cal football team at the same time for 5 of those years, with one Rose Bowl appearance.

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

This all sounds very plausible, but I think the lesson learned is to not report Jones is staying without confirmation. I can understand thinking the Chronicle did it's homework, but that's just something that can't be assumed anymore.

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

This all sounds very plausible, but I think the lesson learned is to not report Jones is staying without confirmation. I can understand thinking the Chronicle did it's homework, but that's just something that can't be assumed anymore.

---

Agreed.

And the problem is, so many people who were hearing the reasons for retaining Jones were then jumping to the conclusion that Knowlton wanted to retain Jones. Unless and until he a) had a final decision, and b) had the resources and backing from upstairs to implement the final decision, it is a good idea to avoid creating harm to the program by doing anything but pointing out reasons to keep him.

Until it was reported that a decision had been made to retain, I always thought that any positives coming out of Knowlton's mouth about Jones were necessary in case Jones WAS retained. Without the resources and backing from upstairs, Jones wasn't going anywhere, but if anybody finds out that the AD would like Jones out but doesn't have the resources and backing to do it, DISASTER.

What I don't know is what exactly assistants were told, what Jones was told. If they were told, "There is no final decision, but we're moving forward as though you'll be here next year," that's what I would expect, and it is on the people hearing if they think a decision was made. If they were told, "We've decided to keep Jones, and whoever he wants on his staff is coming back," then that is bad. I've seen nothing to convince me that the latter happened.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

What I don't get about that timeline, is that Knowlton should have had ALL his homework done regarding players' (and their families) reactions before giving any sort of signal either way.

I still think there's a chance he's operating on another level and sent up the "Jones is staying" rumor as a trial balloon, to gauge real reactions from not only players, but also program supporters (including major donors). Of course, when have we ever had an AD that operates "on another level"?

(BearGreg, sorry, I am ALMOST ready to move on. Can you indulge our curiosity just a bit longer?)

SFCityBear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I just don't see Kidd, if hired, staying very long. He would always have an eye out for the next NBA job. We need a ten-year coach and stability.

---

If you expect a ten year coach I fear you will be disappointed

---

I'll take eight, but ten isn't impossible. We did have one in Braun.

---

Well, Cal gave Dick Kuchen 9 years. Or there was Nibs Price, head Cal BB coach for 30 years. He also coached the Cal football team at the same time for 5 of those years, with one Rose Bowl appearance.

---

Actually, Cal only gave Dick Kuchen 7 years. If you want to combine Kuchen and Edwards into one coach named Dick, then he got 13 years, but I don't think it is really accurate to call Dick a 13 year coach.

Cal8285 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

This all sounds very plausible, but I think the lesson learned is to not report Jones is staying without confirmation. I can understand thinking the Chronicle did it's homework, but that's just something that can't be assumed anymore.

---

Agreed.

And the problem is, so many people who were hearing the reasons for retaining Jones were then jumping to the conclusion that Knowlton wanted to retain Jones. Unless and until he a) had a final decision, and b) had the resources and backing from upstairs to implement the final decision, it is a good idea to avoid creating harm to the program by doing anything but pointing out reasons to keep him.

Until it was reported that a decision had been made to retain, I always thought that any positives coming out of Knowlton's mouth about Jones were necessary in case Jones WAS retained. Without the resources and backing from upstairs, Jones wasn't going anywhere, but if anybody finds out that the AD would like Jones out but doesn't have the resources and backing to do it, DISASTER.

What I don't know is what exactly assistants were told, what Jones was told. If they were told, "There is no final decision, but we're moving forward as though you'll be here next year," that's what I would expect, and it is on the people hearing if they think a decision was made. If they were told, "We've decided to keep Jones, and whoever he wants on his staff is coming back," then that is bad. I've seen nothing to convince me that the latter happened.

---

+1 top to bottom.

Cal8285 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I just don't see Kidd, if hired, staying very long. He would always have an eye out for the next NBA job. We need a ten-year coach and stability.

---

If you expect a ten year coach I fear you will be disappointed

---

I'll take eight, but ten isn't impossible. We did have one in Braun.

---

Well, Cal gave Dick Kuchen 9 years. Or there was Nibs Price, head Cal BB coach for 30 years. He also coached the Cal football team at the same time for 5 of those years, with one Rose Bowl appearance.

---

Actually, Cal only gave Dick Kuchen 7 years. If you want to combine Kuchen and Edwards into one coach named Dick, then he got 13 years, but I don't think it is really accurate to call Dick a 13 year coach.

---

You'r right, and thanks. My mistake. Maybe it just seemed like 9 years. In any case, modern BI fans would not have stood for it, 7 or 9. The next guy many only get a year. Who knows. We are a tough lot.

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

What I don't get about that timeline, is that Knowlton should have had ALL his homework done regarding players' (and their families) reactions before giving any sort of signal either way.

I still think there's a chance he's operating on another level and sent up the "Jones is staying" rumor as a trial balloon, to gauge real reactions from not only players, but also program supporters (including major donors). Of course, when have we ever had an AD that operates "on another level"?

(BearGreg, sorry, I am ALMOST ready to move on. Can you indulge our curiosity just a bit longer?)

---

1) Not sure the value of reading the deep state tea leaves.
2) We know we are done the night of the 11th if I recall correnctly. So it was 13 days from then to yesterday.
2.5) Probably a week too long but it also could have been that it took that long to get the Chancellor to approve - she DOES have other things on her plate ;-)
3) The football thing could have gotten in the way. I would not have done a press conference that day or the next to announce this as ALL the questions would have been about things that needed to be tightly focused for risk management.
4) and I do wonder about whether a LOT of the rumors were the result of how JK says he makes decisions - hearing the other person out, arguing the other side, and then seeing how the dialogue goes. I am not sure that rumor mongers like it but it is a solid way of trying to get more information to make a decision. Since I would guess 90% of input was "Fire him" 90% of the time he is taking the "Retain position" in the dialogue. People may have read WAY too much into that.....including Jones when he called the Comical.

5) And yes. Before you run something that says "Jones is retained" you should probably dial up the AD whose call that is. I am frankly floored reporters would do that but I am increasingly skeptical about oversight in the media and following basic journalistic principals (two sources, confirming with decision maker on background/off record if required, etc. etc. etc. )

EricBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Quote:

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

---

"Furious" is too strong, but moving past it.

---

Good show Eric. We all need to move past this. Hopefully the AD will learn something from this, and handle it better if and when there is a next time in any of our sports.

socaltownie said:

---

1) Not sure the value of reading the deep state tea leaves.
2) We know we are done the night of the 11th if I recall correnctly. So it was 13 days from then to yesterday.
2.5) Probably a week too long but it also could have been that it took that long to get the Chancellor to approve - she DOES have other things on her plate ;-)
3) The football thing could have gotten in the way. I would not have done a press conference that day or the next to announce this as ALL the questions would have been about things that needed to be tightly focused for risk management.
4) and I do wonder about whether a LOT of the rumors were the result of how JK says he makes decisions - hearing the other person out, arguing the other side, and then seeing how the dialogue goes. I am not sure that rumor mongers like it but it is a solid way of trying to get more information to make a decision. Since I would guess 90% of input was "Fire him" 90% of the time he is taking the "Retain position" in the dialogue. People may have read WAY too much into that.....including Jones when he called the Comical.

5) And yes. Before you run something that says "Jones is retained" you should probably dial up the AD whose call that is. I am frankly floored reporters would do that but I am increasingly skeptical about oversight in the media and following basic journalistic principals (two sources, confirming with decision maker on background/off record if required, etc. etc. etc. )

---

I tend to see it similarly, SCT. Knowlton has made it clear from the beginning that he was interested in a thorough evaluation before deciding (and was skewered on this site by those who felt he should have decided mid-season and just pulled the trigger in the locker room in Vegas). As far as I know, no one who ran with the "Jones is staying" narrative spoke with Knowlton, or if they did, they didn't get a "yes, he's staying." At most, the info apparently came from asst. coaches who had a need to hear things a particular way (and perhaps to create some momentum toward retention).

As for your #5, in the 24 second news cycle of the internet, what is crucial is to be the first to post the latest rumor regardless of its veracity. If it's wrong, who cares, as long as it gets eyeballs.

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

What I don't get about that timeline, is that Knowlton should have had ALL his homework done regarding players' (and their families) reactions before giving any sort of signal either way.

I still think there's a chance he's operating on another level and sent up the "Jones is staying" rumor as a trial balloon, to gauge real reactions from not only players, but also program supporters (including major donors). Of course, when have we ever had an AD that operates "on another level"?

(BearGreg, sorry, I am ALMOST ready to move on. Can you indulge our curiosity just a bit longer?)

---

1) Not sure the value of reading the deep state tea leaves.
2) We know we are done the night of the 11th if I recall correnctly. So it was 13 days from then to yesterday.
2.5) Probably a week too long but it also could have been that it took that long to get the Chancellor to approve - she DOES have other things on her plate ;-)
3) The football thing could have gotten in the way. I would not have done a press conference that day or the next to announce this as ALL the questions would have been about things that needed to be tightly focused for risk management.
4) and I do wonder about whether a LOT of the rumors were the result of how JK says he makes decisions - hearing the other person out, arguing the other side, and then seeing how the dialogue goes. I am not sure that rumor mongers like it but it is a solid way of trying to get more information to make a decision. Since I would guess 90% of input was "Fire him" 90% of the time he is taking the "Retain position" in the dialogue. People may have read WAY too much into that.....including Jones when he called the Comical.

5) And yes. Before you run something that says "Jones is retained" you should probably dial up the AD whose call that is. I am frankly floored reporters would do that but I am increasingly skeptical about oversight in the media and following basic journalistic principals (two sources, confirming with decision maker on background/off record if required, etc. etc. etc. )

---

4thGenCal said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

What I don't get about that timeline, is that Knowlton should have had ALL his homework done regarding players' (and their families) reactions before giving any sort of signal either way.

I still think there's a chance he's operating on another level and sent up the "Jones is staying" rumor as a trial balloon, to gauge real reactions from not only players, but also program supporters (including major donors). Of course, when have we ever had an AD that operates "on another level"?

(BearGreg, sorry, I am ALMOST ready to move on. Can you indulge our curiosity just a bit longer?)

---

1) Not sure the value of reading the deep state tea leaves.
2) We know we are done the night of the 11th if I recall correnctly. So it was 13 days from then to yesterday.
2.5) Probably a week too long but it also could have been that it took that long to get the Chancellor to approve - she DOES have other things on her plate ;-)
3) The football thing could have gotten in the way. I would not have done a press conference that day or the next to announce this as ALL the questions would have been about things that needed to be tightly focused for risk management.
4) and I do wonder about whether a LOT of the rumors were the result of how JK says he makes decisions - hearing the other person out, arguing the other side, and then seeing how the dialogue goes. I am not sure that rumor mongers like it but it is a solid way of trying to get more information to make a decision. Since I would guess 90% of input was "Fire him" 90% of the time he is taking the "Retain position" in the dialogue. People may have read WAY too much into that.....including Jones when he called the Comical.

5) And yes. Before you run something that says "Jones is retained" you should probably dial up the AD whose call that is. I am frankly floored reporters would do that but I am increasingly skeptical about oversight in the media and following basic journalistic principals (two sources, confirming with decision maker on background/off record if required, etc. etc. etc. )

---

---

Agreed on time to move forward, but important to make it clear that JK did tell WJ at the conclusion of their 2nd part review/staff assessment this past Thursday that "I am supporting another season with you." WJ then responded with I need a public statement from you as to your support, to stop other coaches from poaching my players. JK said he would and then within 2 days, he reversed his decision between him and WJ. WJ was then notified in person yesterday. Sad how the hiring came about, sad that WJ never had a full deck and sad how the end was handled. Let's get a great coach and one who has recruiting prowess and is a proven turn around coach. Go Bears!

4thGenCal said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

What I don't get about that timeline, is that Knowlton should have had ALL his homework done regarding players' (and their families) reactions before giving any sort of signal either way.

I still think there's a chance he's operating on another level and sent up the "Jones is staying" rumor as a trial balloon, to gauge real reactions from not only players, but also program supporters (including major donors). Of course, when have we ever had an AD that operates "on another level"?

(BearGreg, sorry, I am ALMOST ready to move on. Can you indulge our curiosity just a bit longer?)

---

1) Not sure the value of reading the deep state tea leaves.
2) We know we are done the night of the 11th if I recall correnctly. So it was 13 days from then to yesterday.
2.5) Probably a week too long but it also could have been that it took that long to get the Chancellor to approve - she DOES have other things on her plate ;-)
3) The football thing could have gotten in the way. I would not have done a press conference that day or the next to announce this as ALL the questions would have been about things that needed to be tightly focused for risk management.
4) and I do wonder about whether a LOT of the rumors were the result of how JK says he makes decisions - hearing the other person out, arguing the other side, and then seeing how the dialogue goes. I am not sure that rumor mongers like it but it is a solid way of trying to get more information to make a decision. Since I would guess 90% of input was "Fire him" 90% of the time he is taking the "Retain position" in the dialogue. People may have read WAY too much into that.....including Jones when he called the Comical.

5) And yes. Before you run something that says "Jones is retained" you should probably dial up the AD whose call that is. I am frankly floored reporters would do that but I am increasingly skeptical about oversight in the media and following basic journalistic principals (two sources, confirming with decision maker on background/off record if required, etc. etc. etc. )

---

---

Agreed on time to move forward, but important to make it clear that JK did tell WJ at the conclusion of their 2nd part review/staff assessment this past Thursday that "I am supporting another season with you." WJ then responded with I need a public statement from you as to your support, to stop other coaches from poaching my players. JK said he would and then within 2 days, he reversed his decision between him and WJ. WJ was then notified in person yesterday. Sad how the hiring came about, sad that WJ never had a full deck and sad how the end was handled. Let's get a great coach and one who has recruiting prowess and is a proven turn around coach. Go Bears!

---

Problem is that do you have that quote from JK directly? From Jones? Or from a friend of a friend. I went all journalist on shock for putting something in quotes. If you have it DIRECTLY from someone it is OK. Otherwise no one (journalist, poster, etc.) should because of what it means - a direct verbatim quote.

Quote:

---

"If you expect a ten year coach I fear you will be disappointed."

---

"I'll take eight, but ten isn't impossible. We did have one in Braun."
__

Recently dismissed Coach Phil Martelli did 24 years at Saint Josephs U . . . and the Hawk is still flying.

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

What I don't get about that timeline, is that Knowlton should have had ALL his homework done regarding players' (and their families) reactions before giving any sort of signal either way.

I still think there's a chance he's operating on another level and sent up the "Jones is staying" rumor as a trial balloon, to gauge real reactions from not only players, but also program supporters (including major donors). Of course, when have we ever had an AD that operates "on another level"?

(BearGreg, sorry, I am ALMOST ready to move on. Can you indulge our curiosity just a bit longer?)

---

1) Not sure the value of reading the deep state tea leaves.
2) We know we are done the night of the 11th if I recall correnctly. So it was 13 days from then to yesterday.
2.5) Probably a week too long but it also could have been that it took that long to get the Chancellor to approve - she DOES have other things on her plate ;-)
3) The football thing could have gotten in the way. I would not have done a press conference that day or the next to announce this as ALL the questions would have been about things that needed to be tightly focused for risk management.
4) and I do wonder about whether a LOT of the rumors were the result of how JK says he makes decisions - hearing the other person out, arguing the other side, and then seeing how the dialogue goes. I am not sure that rumor mongers like it but it is a solid way of trying to get more information to make a decision. Since I would guess 90% of input was "Fire him" 90% of the time he is taking the "Retain position" in the dialogue. People may have read WAY too much into that.....including Jones when he called the Comical.

5) And yes. Before you run something that says "Jones is retained" you should probably dial up the AD whose call that is. I am frankly floored reporters would do that but I am increasingly skeptical about oversight in the media and following basic journalistic principals (two sources, confirming with decision maker on background/off record if required, etc. etc. etc. )

---

1) sheer palace intrigue

2 & 3. Knowlton stepped into the job knowing that this was going to be on his plate. He should've been taking the temperature of the players'/parents' optimism about the Jones Program for months and months. In his position, being brand new here, it'd be easy to do w/o seeming like he was interfering or looking over Jones' shoulder: "I'm new here and I'm just out talking to the student-athletes and listening to how they feel about things at Cal." Okay, maybe he WAS doing this, but, in the current narrative, it looks like he changed course based on last-minute info from players/parents, which looks bad. Heck, maybe that's the narrative he wants to put out, instead of "a big donor just now ponied up".

Yogi Bear said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

Also McNeil had told WJ he was transferring 10 days ago - due to his desire to be near his Mother who is having health issues.

---

In the Cal basketball drinking game, that's two shots.

---

So f'ing true!

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

What I don't get about that timeline, is that Knowlton should have had ALL his homework done regarding players' (and their families) reactions before giving any sort of signal either way.

I still think there's a chance he's operating on another level and sent up the "Jones is staying" rumor as a trial balloon, to gauge real reactions from not only players, but also program supporters (including major donors). Of course, when have we ever had an AD that operates "on another level"?

(BearGreg, sorry, I am ALMOST ready to move on. Can you indulge our curiosity just a bit longer?)

---

1) Not sure the value of reading the deep state tea leaves.
2) We know we are done the night of the 11th if I recall correnctly. So it was 13 days from then to yesterday.
2.5) Probably a week too long but it also could have been that it took that long to get the Chancellor to approve - she DOES have other things on her plate ;-)
3) The football thing could have gotten in the way. I would not have done a press conference that day or the next to announce this as ALL the questions would have been about things that needed to be tightly focused for risk management.
4) and I do wonder about whether a LOT of the rumors were the result of how JK says he makes decisions - hearing the other person out, arguing the other side, and then seeing how the dialogue goes. I am not sure that rumor mongers like it but it is a solid way of trying to get more information to make a decision. Since I would guess 90% of input was "Fire him" 90% of the time he is taking the "Retain position" in the dialogue. People may have read WAY too much into that.....including Jones when he called the Comical.

5) And yes. Before you run something that says "Jones is retained" you should probably dial up the AD whose call that is. I am frankly floored reporters would do that but I am increasingly skeptical about oversight in the media and following basic journalistic principals (two sources, confirming with decision maker on background/off record if required, etc. etc. etc. )

---

1) sheer palace intrigue

2 & 3. Knowlton stepped into the job knowing that this was going to be on his plate. He should've been taking the temperature of the players'/parents' optimism about the Jones Program for months and months. In his position, being brand new here, it'd be easy to do w/o seeming like he was interfering or looking over Jones' shoulder: "I'm new here and I'm just out talking to the student-athletes and listening to how they feel about things at Cal." Okay, maybe he WAS doing this, but, in the current narrative, it looks like he changed course based on last-minute info from players/parents, which looks bad. Heck, maybe that's the narrative he wants to put out, instead of "a big donor just now ponied up".

---

Except - you know - the whole "meeting with the players" is from "unnnammed sources". I am going to stop believing ANYTHING about these sorts of details.

Reminds me of the new VP we got who on his first day told us that his first 30 days would be spent absorbing knowledge from us, the [underlings] That was followed with a 30 day period of reflection and "planning." I think the 30 days after that were supposed to be nothing but ass kicking, but I can't be sure. I was invested in the ceiling tiles by that point.

This was the last time I ever saw him face to face so I'm assuming everything went well.

CAL4LIFE said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

Also McNeil had told WJ he was transferring 10 days ago - due to his desire to be near his Mother who is having health issues.

---

In the Cal basketball drinking game, that's two shots.

---

So f'ing true!

---

Kennedy Winston. Or was it Winston Kennedy.

Winston ~ Kennedy. 'Bama.
And not neat.

THIS JUST IN!!!!!Please call re-write. The Comical is not the only "news source" which has been peddling false and defamatory in formation for the last 2.5 years. Please see the NYT, wash Post, ABC, NBC, CBS. CNN, MSNBC< Academia, Hollywood and the late-night comics. There are two kinds of mistakes: Honest and otherwise. We can always forgive the former. We can never forgive the latter. Once trust and reputation have been shattered, it takes a long time, if ever, to re-acquire the trust in our institutions which are the heart and soul of any democracy. As of today, there are an awful lot of eggs on a lot of faces. I'm willing to forgive these folks. . But, my forgiveness is conditioned only if the perpetrators of this train wreck agree to apologize and are willing to accept contrition and penance. No apology----no forgiveness........You think Cal BB is a train wreck????Please see Wash DC and New York. Let the healing begin.

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There was never any evidence that he was intending to keep WJ except for Jeff Goodman and the Comical. Consider the sources.

---

Have to disagree, but that is something we can discuss privately. Eric for example indicated Jones was being retained.

I hope what changed is Kidd.

BTW, I support JK's decision, but would have understood and accepted the reasons for another year (the prominent (one being the lack of a desirable replacement at the right price).

---

Sounds like nobody actually confirmed with JK.

#MoreFakeNews.

---

go to the private board. JK let a lot of folks know Jones was coming back very recently. Getting ugly.

---

That's where I came from. All of it is hearsay as far as I can tell. Did JK tell you over dinner he was keeping Jones?

---

Right now Eric seems to be furious at the way this was handled and what the assistants were told. But I think Greg said it best. JK wanted to keep Jones, and keep telling everyone reasons for retaining Jones, so we all thought he was retaining Jones. Instead, he obviously got so much push back or something changed that when he was fully done with his process, he determined Jones must go. I hope this doesn't get deleted since there is such rampant speculation otherwise.

---

What I don't get about that timeline, is that Knowlton should have had ALL his homework done regarding players' (and their families) reactions before giving any sort of signal either way.

I still think there's a chance he's operating on another level and sent up the "Jones is staying" rumor as a trial balloon, to gauge real reactions from not only players, but also program supporters (including major donors). Of course, when have we ever had an AD that operates "on another level"?

(BearGreg, sorry, I am ALMOST ready to move on. Can you indulge our curiosity just a bit longer?)

---

1) Not sure the value of reading the deep state tea leaves.
2) We know we are done the night of the 11th if I recall correnctly. So it was 13 days from then to yesterday.
2.5) Probably a week too long but it also could have been that it took that long to get the Chancellor to approve - she DOES have other things on her plate ;-)
3) The football thing could have gotten in the way. I would not have done a press conference that day or the next to announce this as ALL the questions would have been about things that needed to be tightly focused for risk management.
4) and I do wonder about whether a LOT of the rumors were the result of how JK says he makes decisions - hearing the other person out, arguing the other side, and then seeing how the dialogue goes. I am not sure that rumor mongers like it but it is a solid way of trying to get more information to make a decision. Since I would guess 90% of input was "Fire him" 90% of the time he is taking the "Retain position" in the dialogue. People may have read WAY too much into that.....including Jones when he called the Comical.

5) And yes. Before you run something that says "Jones is retained" you should probably dial up the AD whose call that is. I am frankly floored reporters would do that but I am increasingly skeptical about oversight in the media and following basic journalistic principals (two sources, confirming with decision maker on background/off record if required, etc. etc. etc. )

---

1) sheer palace intrigue

2 & 3. Knowlton stepped into the job knowing that this was going to be on his plate. He should've been taking the temperature of the players'/parents' optimism about the Jones Program for months and months. In his position, being brand new here, it'd be easy to do w/o seeming like he was interfering or looking over Jones' shoulder: "I'm new here and I'm just out talking to the student-athletes and listening to how they feel about things at Cal." Okay, maybe he WAS doing this, but, in the current narrative, it looks like he changed course based on last-minute info from players/parents, which looks bad. Heck, maybe that's the narrative he wants to put out, instead of "a big donor just now ponied up".

---

Totally agree with this take.

the process was messy, but it is time to move on and get a new coach who can bring the program back to respectability. What JK said to who and when no longer matters from a fan perspective.