It will be real interesting how things look at the end of next season.

OaktownBear said:

---

So, as per usual, the people that criticized the hire were told they just didn't know. There was more going on. Have faith in the process. Knowlton's been planning for months. How dare we not assume there was more to it. There is information we didn't know. How dare we question Knowlton when we didn't know what he knew.

Bottom line, you lied or you were lied to. One or the other. As I suspected there was no more to it. He got names from a search firm. He interviewed 4. The process took 3 days. There is nothing more to it. Source: Jim Knowlton

If anything, Knowlton did one thing no other Cal AD has never done. Tell the truth about it. Now we have confirmed proof that the "you aren't in the room. you just don't know" argument is full of bleep.

I'm not going to call anyone out by name, but those of you that put that forth know who you are. If you had any self respect or decency, you'd explain. We can disagree about the wisdom of a coaching decision. Lying to bolster your opinion about it is complete BS.

---

Agreed.

And it was 3 days when he also had a major sexual harassment claim to deal with.

I hope it all turns out well for Cal.

Well, two things Knowlton knew that most of us didn't:

1. Financial constraints, how the big donors were lined up, etc. Easy to say "make a change", but what if there wasn't the $$$?

2. How the players (and their families) felt about a future under Wyking Jones. Actually, it sounds like this was something he SHOULD'VE known, but didn't until very late.

That said, the info from the Wilner article leaves me absolutely outraged. In the space of only two years, we go from a botched process without the use of a search firm at all, to a botched process relying way too much on a search firm. We are "multiple": We can botch it any which way!

My two "favorite" parts from the article:

"The search began with a list of 40 candidates, Knowlton explained, which was cut to a handful by CSA." How full-service of them to make our "short list" for us! Did that cost extra, or was it part of the package?

"He (Knowlton) spent just three days in search mode thanks to the heavy vetting process performed by CSA. 'I just went on the road and just interviewed,' he said." So basically, the only thing that Knowlton did was go talk to four candidates supplied to him by a search committee? And he makes his decision based on his interviews with those four?!? (BTW, the job interview is a notoriously poor predictor of future success. All it shows is who makes the best first impression at a given moment.)

Just unbelievable, but maybe it shouldn't be.

calumnus said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

So, as per usual, the people that criticized the hire were told they just didn't know. There was more going on. Have faith in the process. Knowlton's been planning for months. How dare we not assume there was more to it. There is information we didn't know. How dare we question Knowlton when we didn't know what he knew.

Bottom line, you lied or you were lied to. One or the other. As I suspected there was no more to it. He got names from a search firm. He interviewed 4. The process took 3 days. There is nothing more to it. Source: Jim Knowlton

If anything, Knowlton did one thing no other Cal AD has never done. Tell the truth about it. Now we have confirmed proof that the "you aren't in the room. you just don't know" argument is full of bleep.

I'm not going to call anyone out by name, but those of you that put that forth know who you are. If you had any self respect or decency, you'd explain. We can disagree about the wisdom of a coaching decision. Lying to bolster your opinion about it is complete BS.

---

Agreed.

And it was 3 days when he also had a major sexual harassment claim to deal with.

I hope it all turns out well for Cal.

---

Now that we know how Knowlton operates, surely his way of "dealing with" the sexual harassment claim is to hire a crisis-management consulting firm. But WHICH consulting firm to call? Ask the search firm!

Gawd - Knowlton is just clueless. What a disaster.

Big C said:

---

Well, two things Knowlton knew that most of us didn't:

1. Financial constraints, how the big donors were lined up, etc. Easy to say "make a change", but what if there wasn't the $$$?

---

Financial "constraints" are self-imposed. Cal could pay a competitive salary if they chose to. They choose not to.

Yogi Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, two things Knowlton knew that most of us didn't:

1. Financial constraints, how the big donors were lined up, etc. Easy to say "make a change", but what if there wasn't the $$$?

---

Financial "constraints" are self-imposed. Cal could pay a competitive salary if they chose to. They choose not to.

---

For less than whatever we are paying Fox, we could have brought in a young up and coming coach.

Big C said:

---

"He (Knowlton) spent just three days in search mode thanks to the heavy vetting process performed by CSA. 'I just went on the road and just interviewed,' he said." So basically, the only thing that Knowlton did was go talk to four candidates supplied to him by a search committee? And he makes his decision based on his interviews with those four?!? (BTW, the job interview is a notoriously poor predictor of future success. All it shows is who makes the best first impression at a given moment.)

Just unbelievable, but maybe it shouldn't be.

---

Big C,

Here is the website for CSA

https://collegiatesportsassociates.com/

There have to be steps missing. Either they weren't done or were skipped in the
reporting;

JD gets the 4 candidates

JD and/or members of his staff take a day or two double-checking CSA's work
This could be simply looking up the records over time of the coaches
+ checking the fan forums of the schools each of them coached at.
(this may some like a waste of time...but sometimes even BI, for example, gets close to the truth)

I posted elsewhere about what the Georgia fans had to say about Fox coming to CAL...
Onr poster had been lurking on BI, which was interesting in itself
comments about FoX: basically OK, not exciting, good luck with that, and a great tangential thread praising
Joe Roth

MAIN TAKEAWAY.............I can't believe JD took the recommendations of CSA as golden.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

So, as per usual, the people that criticized the hire were told they just didn't know. There was more going on. Have faith in the process. Knowlton's been planning for months. How dare we not assume there was more to it. There is information we didn't know. How dare we question Knowlton when we didn't know what he knew.

Bottom line, you lied or you were lied to. One or the other. As I suspected there was no more to it. He got names from a search firm. He interviewed 4. The process took 3 days. There is nothing more to it. Source: Jim Knowlton

If anything, Knowlton did one thing no other Cal AD has never done. Tell the truth about it. Now we have confirmed proof that the "you aren't in the room. you just don't know" argument is full of bleep.

I'm not going to call anyone out by name, but those of you that put that forth know who you are. If you had any self respect or decency, you'd explain. We can disagree about the wisdom of a coaching decision. Lying to bolster your opinion about it is complete BS.

---

I'm guessing this is directed at me. If it is NOT me, then go ahead and name names and don't be a chicken ***** I don't appreciate being accused of lying - but it is clear that the most important issue is 'calling people out'. But, here's my explanation:

1. It seems that anyone that questions any of your points needs to be called out if they don't agree or if you can't defend your argument with anything other than "but the thing is I'm unhappy".

2. I don't feel I was lied to. I was presented a rational explanation and evidence to support it. I took it at that. If you think I'm trying to play the "I know something you don't know" card, then you don't know me well or confuse me with others.

3. I enjoy the discourse. Don't feel the need for lying, calling people out, personal attacks. I find boards like this fascinating from a social perspective. Lots of voices, but folks like Yogi and OTB and a few others seem to only see 'Cal Fans'. And feel the need to describe them as foolish, because they don't agree with them. Again, I find this hilarious.


OTB - re read your first paragraph. You can and should do much better than hurling 5 or 6 accusations at an nebulous group. Be specific and direct. Don't hide behind your feelings.

OK, I stepped up. I'd like OTB to step up and explain why he feels can compartmentalize, but won't allow everyone else the same.


Next

---

1. I wasn't aiming it at you. You presented information that I now believe was just wrong. I believe you presented what you were told and believed it honestly. You also did not present it in an accusatory way. I'm accusing those who did the usual trying to shut down criticism with the "there's more to the story" argument. I'll take the tone of your post with the understanding that you believed I was accusing you. I am fine with people disagreeing with me as I said to you. I am not fine with them lying or making crap up to do it. Everything I've said has been opinion based on facts. I can defend my arguments just fine. In this case I don't need to. Jim Knowlton did it for me.

2. Either you were lied to or Wilner was lied to. Can't both be true.

3. When a man is standing over a dead body with a smoking gun, I'm perfectly comfortable hurling the accusation of murder.

I don't know what compartmentalizing has to do with this unless you are talking about compartmentalizing truth from falsehood. I agree that some people have proven very capable of that.

edit: I DO think that as you presented information that is inconsistent with Knowlton's account, you should consider the inconsistencies and comment accordingly when you are not feeling so accused. I understand being upset at being accused. Something is amiss. Frankly. I will boil it down to what I think. Cal lies. Always has. I've caught them so many times. There info is worthless. I just wish some of you who are exposed to it would see how often their information is uninformed, massive spin, or flat out untruths to get through the next issue.

SmellinRoses said:

---

Gawd - Knowlton is just clueless. What a disaster.

---

Not clueless. Maybe worse. He appears to be a professional AD. Cal sports won't go anywhere with him. It also means we won't become a raging dumpster fire. Maybe that's the goal.

When asked directly if I had inside information, I responded that I did not.

There were many posts with unconfirmed reports, comments and speculations about the AD and the "process". Some were positive, others were not, but most posters seemed very anxious.

I suggest that when someone says something, don't ask yourself if it is true. Ask what it might be true of. Take whatever has been said and try not to tear it down. Instead try to make sense of it. This can be challenging.

On the other hand, the reaction might be a catharsis.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

So, as per usual, the people that criticized the hire were told they just didn't know. There was more going on. Have faith in the process. Knowlton's been planning for months. How dare we not assume there was more to it. There is information we didn't know. How dare we question Knowlton when we didn't know what he knew.

Bottom line, you lied or you were lied to. One or the other. As I suspected there was no more to it. He got names from a search firm. He interviewed 4. The process took 3 days. There is nothing more to it. Source: Jim Knowlton

If anything, Knowlton did one thing no other Cal AD has never done. Tell the truth about it. Now we have confirmed proof that the "you aren't in the room. you just don't know" argument is full of bleep.

I'm not going to call anyone out by name, but those of you that put that forth know who you are. If you had any self respect or decency, you'd explain. We can disagree about the wisdom of a coaching decision. Lying to bolster your opinion about it is complete BS.

---

I'm guessing this is directed at me. If it is NOT me, then go ahead and name names and don't be a chicken ***** I don't appreciate being accused of lying - but it is clear that the most important issue is 'calling people out'. But, here's my explanation:

1. It seems that anyone that questions any of your points needs to be called out if they don't agree or if you can't defend your argument with anything other than "but the thing is I'm unhappy".

2. I don't feel I was lied to. I was presented a rational explanation and evidence to support it. I took it at that. If you think I'm trying to play the "I know something you don't know" card, then you don't know me well or confuse me with others.

3. I enjoy the discourse. Don't feel the need for lying, calling people out, personal attacks. I find boards like this fascinating from a social perspective. Lots of voices, but folks like Yogi and OTB and a few others seem to only see 'Cal Fans'. And feel the need to describe them as foolish, because they don't agree with them. Again, I find this hilarious.


OTB - re read your first paragraph. You can and should do much better than hurling 5 or 6 accusations at an nebulous group. Be specific and direct. Don't hide behind your feelings.

OK, I stepped up. I'd like OTB to step up and explain why he feels can compartmentalize, but won't allow everyone else the same.


Next

---

1. I wasn't aiming it at you. You presented information that I now believe was just wrong. I believe you presented what you were told and believed it honestly. You also did not present it in an accusatory way. I'm accusing those who did the usual trying to shut down criticism with the "there's more to the story" argument. I'll take the tone of your post with the understanding that you believed I was accusing you. I am fine with people disagreeing with me as I said to you. I am not fine with them lying or making crap up to do it. Everything I've said has been opinion based on facts. I can defend my arguments just fine. In this case I don't need to. Jim Knowlton did it for me.

2. Either you were lied to or Wilner was lied to. Can't both be true.

3. When a man is standing over a dead body with a smoking gun, I'm perfectly comfortable hurling the accusation of murder.

I don't know what compartmentalizing has to do with this unless you are talking about compartmentalizing truth from falsehood. I agree that some people have proven very capable of that.

edit: I DO think that as you presented information that is inconsistent with Knowlton's account, you should consider the inconsistencies and comment accordingly when you are not feeling so accused. I understand being upset at being accused. Something is amiss. Frankly. I will boil it down to what I think. Cal lies. Always has. I've caught them so many times. There info is worthless. I just wish some of you who are exposed to it would see how often their information is uninformed, massive spin, or flat out untruths to get through the next issue.

---

Oh. Nevermind.


Seriously. Use the reply button. It makes it easier to follow. Scatter shot at 'Cal Fans' is too basic. Accusations without names or specifics is witch hunting.

OaktownBear said:

---

edit: I DO think that as you presented information that is inconsistent with Knowlton's account, you should consider the inconsistencies and comment accordingly when you are not feeling so accused. I understand being upset at being accused. Something is amiss. Frankly. I will boil it down to what I think. Cal lies. Always has. I've caught them so many times. There info is worthless. I just wish some of you who are exposed to it would see how often their information is uninformed, massive spin, or flat out untruths to get through the next issue.

---

Spot on.

CAL4LIFE said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

edit: I DO think that as you presented information that is inconsistent with Knowlton's account, you should consider the inconsistencies and comment accordingly when you are not feeling so accused. I understand being upset at being accused. Something is amiss. Frankly. I will boil it down to what I think. Cal lies. Always has. I've caught them so many times. There info is worthless. I just wish some of you who are exposed to it would see how often their information is uninformed, massive spin, or flat out untruths to get through the next issue.

---

Spot on.

---

I'd be happy to comment on them. Please quote the inconsistencies (not being defensive - just not certain which ones you are referring to - I don't give BI the same audit trail as I do my business).

So we pay ADs north of 700k and this is the best process they can come up with

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

So, as per usual, the people that criticized the hire were told they just didn't know. There was more going on. Have faith in the process. Knowlton's been planning for months. How dare we not assume there was more to it. There is information we didn't know. How dare we question Knowlton when we didn't know what he knew.

Bottom line, you lied or you were lied to. One or the other. As I suspected there was no more to it. He got names from a search firm. He interviewed 4. The process took 3 days. There is nothing more to it. Source: Jim Knowlton

If anything, Knowlton did one thing no other Cal AD has never done. Tell the truth about it. Now we have confirmed proof that the "you aren't in the room. you just don't know" argument is full of bleep.

I'm not going to call anyone out by name, but those of you that put that forth know who you are. If you had any self respect or decency, you'd explain. We can disagree about the wisdom of a coaching decision. Lying to bolster your opinion about it is complete BS.

---

I'm guessing this is directed at me. If it is NOT me, then go ahead and name names and don't be a chicken ***** I don't appreciate being accused of lying - but it is clear that the most important issue is 'calling people out'. But, here's my explanation:

1. It seems that anyone that questions any of your points needs to be called out if they don't agree or if you can't defend your argument with anything other than "but the thing is I'm unhappy".

2. I don't feel I was lied to. I was presented a rational explanation and evidence to support it. I took it at that. If you think I'm trying to play the "I know something you don't know" card, then you don't know me well or confuse me with others.

3. I enjoy the discourse. Don't feel the need for lying, calling people out, personal attacks. I find boards like this fascinating from a social perspective. Lots of voices, but folks like Yogi and OTB and a few others seem to only see 'Cal Fans'. And feel the need to describe them as foolish, because they don't agree with them. Again, I find this hilarious.


OTB - re read your first paragraph. You can and should do much better than hurling 5 or 6 accusations at an nebulous group. Be specific and direct. Don't hide behind your feelings.

OK, I stepped up. I'd like OTB to step up and explain why he feels can compartmentalize, but won't allow everyone else the same.


Next

---

1. I wasn't aiming it at you. You presented information that I now believe was just wrong. I believe you presented what you were told and believed it honestly. You also did not present it in an accusatory way. I'm accusing those who did the usual trying to shut down criticism with the "there's more to the story" argument. I'll take the tone of your post with the understanding that you believed I was accusing you. I am fine with people disagreeing with me as I said to you. I am not fine with them lying or making crap up to do it. Everything I've said has been opinion based on facts. I can defend my arguments just fine. In this case I don't need to. Jim Knowlton did it for me.

2. Either you were lied to or Wilner was lied to. Can't both be true.

3. When a man is standing over a dead body with a smoking gun, I'm perfectly comfortable hurling the accusation of murder.

I don't know what compartmentalizing has to do with this unless you are talking about compartmentalizing truth from falsehood. I agree that some people have proven very capable of that.

edit: I DO think that as you presented information that is inconsistent with Knowlton's account, you should consider the inconsistencies and comment accordingly when you are not feeling so accused. I understand being upset at being accused. Something is amiss. Frankly. I will boil it down to what I think. Cal lies. Always has. I've caught them so many times. There info is worthless. I just wish some of you who are exposed to it would see how often their information is uninformed, massive spin, or flat out untruths to get through the next issue.

---

Oh. Nevermind.


Seriously. Use the reply button. It makes it easier to follow. Scatter shot at 'Cal Fans' is too basic. Accusations without names or specifics is witch hunting.

---

Beached:

You are right. I take responsibility that I took a shotgun approach that may lead to collateral damage. In this case, I think it was the right approach, but I'm sorry to catch someone like you in it. This is my reasoning.

On some things, I spend some time on research. Cal coaching hires, as they are rare and crucially important, I try to learn as much as I can on my own. When I did this with Sonny Dykes, 1. I had a big smh response; and 2. I found that Cal's representation of his record was outrageously misleading. Did they lie about any individual facts? No. Did they cherry pick facts to a ridiculous extent to create a story that had no resemblance to reality? 100%. Way beyond spin. I don't rely on Cal anymore.

When rumors came out that Fox was the guy, what I knew about Fox was that he had coached at Nevada and he was rumored to be on our list when we hire Montgomery. I remembered that he seemed like a good candidate at the time and I would have been happy with him if we hadn't hired Monty. I had no opinion at that moment. I researched it. I found a lot of information. (It doesn't take long) That is why, for instance, when Ptown asked what NBA players Fox had coached, I knew the answer. In short, I had no opinion on Fox, I put effort into finding out as much as I could, and I tried to develop an informed opinion. One may not agree with my opinion, but it is an informed one to the extent that a member of the public can find information. I also present the information I find to try and inform the debate. Again, one can draw different conclusions, but facts are facts. I welcome FACTS being added to the debate by others. (as you did) I learn from that.

There are all kinds of posters here. There are some who are informed and simply disagree. There are some that just want to be happy and don't want to be informed if it will get in the way of being happy. And I'm FINE with that. But some in both those camps try to use the "there is inside information you don't know" argument as a magic bullet. Sometimes they claim to have access to the inside information, but sorry, can't tell ya. Sometimes they make no such claim. They just make a vague claim that there is more to the process than you know. Jim Knowlton has more information than you. Some go as far as "If you knew what Jim knows, you would agree with Jim". The problem is, you can't argue with that. "I'm not going to address the very real fact that he has a losing record in conference because there are made up facts, or possible facts, or unverifiable facts that nullify that fact. And we won't tell you what they are. If you were informed, you'd know. But you are an uninformed, knee-jerk boob. I could prove that, but nah." That is disingenuous (and in fairness, to Knowlton, don't think he is participating in that so I think the moniker on the thread was wrongly applied to him vs. others). That is not the way to have a discussion. That is an attempt to win a gunfight when you don't have bullets.
I contrast that with what you did. You provided a few specific facts that you believed to be true. You provided at least some description of their source. You didn't treat them as nullifying public facts but as adding to public facts. You didn't treat those who had brought forward facts as uninformed. We could then have a discussion. I could respond to you on the basis of what you wrote. It wasn't "you know nothing. Jim knows everything. Done."

I have responded to those people as much as is reasonable when they have posted. But they are extremely numerous. The difference here is we have a rare instance where we actually did get some significant information directly from the source. And that information ran counter to what they were saying and what they always say. (I was so tempted to post the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall.) Frankly, I've been going back and forth on whether to appreciate Knowlton's candor or think *** that he was stupid enough to say this stuff publicly. I've settled on both.

This happens with every coaching hire. It has to stop. People are pulling things out of their ass and I think they need to be called on it.

BeachedBear said:

---

CAL4LIFE said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

edit: I DO think that as you presented information that is inconsistent with Knowlton's account, you should consider the inconsistencies and comment accordingly when you are not feeling so accused. I understand being upset at being accused. Something is amiss. Frankly. I will boil it down to what I think. Cal lies. Always has. I've caught them so many times. There info is worthless. I just wish some of you who are exposed to it would see how often their information is uninformed, massive spin, or flat out untruths to get through the next issue.

---

Spot on.

---

I'd be happy to comment on them. Please quote the inconsistencies (not being defensive - just not certain which ones you are referring to - I don't give BI the same audit trail as I do my business).

---

Beached:

In fairness, I have a feeling that Cal4 was referring to the "Cal lies" portion of my post. But I'd like to explore this portion of your response to me:

Quote:

---

Your post also seems to suggest a lack or process. As days pass, we are learning more about it, but it was kept discrete. For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS. He only announced it after the season. Which is the correct methodology, IMHO. Announcing that we was looking for Jones replacement in January would not have been helpful. You may desire and argue for complete instant transparency, but I would disagree.

---

This is my issue with Cal and why I feel sorry for people who hear "information" and think they know something. Look. I'm a lawyer. I know we can look at the language of the article and say "well it never said he did nothing" and we can look at this language and say "he never said he was working hard on it". But the bottom line is that language is inconsistent with the article. I know statements like that. I've written statements like that. Translation. I called the search firm in February and opened an account. Did nothing until end of season. So, February, and March. That is 2 months. I've been working for months. I worked for 5 minutes in those months, but I'm not lying.

The statement was intended to give you the impression Cal has been actively working on this for a long time. The article is clear he didn't REALLY work through the decision until after the season was over and the large part of the coaching search took 3 days.

Cal should not be treating its alums and fans like adversaries in a lawsuit. They should be straight forward. They aren't. They never will be. (In fairness, I've had experience with school districts and local government agencies, some of which I think are excellent, who do the same thing. You know they screwed up when they start bringing in language like that).

During Braun's tenure, I had more access to info. I thought it was fun for 5 minutes. Until I heard that Braun was an underappreciated saint. Then I heard he was a two faced selfish ******* that mistreated his players. Everyone has a political agenda and an ass to cover.

I've said this ever since. The inside information is crap for those reasons. The information they release to the public is crap for those reasons. I've caught them lying and spinning beyond reasonableness so many times. I don't trust them anymore. My view at this point after all these years is:
1. They mostly suck at their jobs
2. The main thing they don't suck at is covering up that they suck just enough to save their tails
3. They have no intention of competing. Most alums don't care. But the alums that do care donate. They need to pretend they care just enough to keep the suckers on the line. If they were honest they would say they need the money but they have no intention of competing for 1 championship, let alone consistently being in the top half. They intend to compete just enough to look like they tried and failed rather than to look like they never tried. As long as they "try" the suckers who prioritize sports will keep donating. The second they are honest, the donations dry up.
So consider what they told you that had you posting the above. Ask yourself, werethey honest with you? Not literally truthful. HONEST.

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

CAL4LIFE said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

edit: I DO think that as you presented information that is inconsistent with Knowlton's account, you should consider the inconsistencies and comment accordingly when you are not feeling so accused. I understand being upset at being accused. Something is amiss. Frankly. I will boil it down to what I think. Cal lies. Always has. I've caught them so many times. There info is worthless. I just wish some of you who are exposed to it would see how often their information is uninformed, massive spin, or flat out untruths to get through the next issue.

---

Spot on.

---

I'd be happy to comment on them. Please quote the inconsistencies (not being defensive - just not certain which ones you are referring to - I don't give BI the same audit trail as I do my business).

---

Beached:

In fairness, I have a feeling that Cal4 was referring to the "Cal lies" portion of my post. But I'd like to explore this portion of your response to me:

Quote:

---

Your post also seems to suggest a lack or process. As days pass, we are learning more about it, but it was kept discrete. For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS. He only announced it after the season. Which is the correct methodology, IMHO. Announcing that we was looking for Jones replacement in January would not have been helpful. You may desire and argue for complete instant transparency, but I would disagree.

---

This is my issue with Cal and why I feel sorry for people who hear "information" and think they know something. Look. I'm a lawyer. I know we can look at the language of the article and say "well it never said he did nothing" and we can look at this language and say "he never said he was working hard on it". But the bottom line is that language is inconsistent with the article. I know statements like that. I've written statements like that. Translation. I called the search firm in February and opened an account. Did nothing until end of season. So, February, and March. That is 2 months. I've been working for months. I worked for 5 minutes in those months, but I'm not lying.

The statement was intended to give you the impression Cal has been actively working on this for a long time. The article is clear he didn't REALLY work through the decision until after the season was over and the large part of the coaching search took 3 days.

Cal should not be treating its alums and fans like adversaries in a lawsuit. They should be straight forward. They aren't. They never will be. (In fairness, I've had experience with school districts and local government agencies, some of which I think are excellent, who do the same thing. You know they screwed up when they start bringing in language like that).

During Braun's tenure, I had more access to info. I thought it was fun for 5 minutes. Until I heard that Braun was an underappreciated saint. Then I heard he was a two faced selfish ******* that mistreated his players. Everyone has a political agenda and an ass to cover.

I've said this ever since. The inside information is crap for those reasons. The information they release to the public is crap for those reasons. I've caught them lying and spinning beyond reasonableness so many times. I don't trust them anymore. My view at this point after all these years is:
1. They mostly suck at their jobs
2. The main thing they don't suck at is covering up that they suck just enough to save their tails
3. They have no intention of competing. Most alums don't care. But the alums that do care donate. They need to pretend they care just enough to keep the suckers on the line. If they were honest they would say they need the money but they have no intention of competing for 1 championship, let alone consistently being in the top half. They intend to compete just enough to look like they tried and failed rather than to look like they never tried. As long as they "try" the suckers who prioritize sports will keep donating. The second they are honest, the donations dry up.
So consider what they told you that had you posting the above. Ask yourself, werethey honest with you? Not literally truthful. HONEST.

---

Good stuff. I'll make three points about it and let it go. I think we'd enjoy spinning this further at a watering hole, but at this point probably not helping others. Here we go.

1. Last fall (slightly before BBall season), Jim K stopped at our tailgate to shmooze - as many do. In and amongst the glad handing bs, I asked what type of leash he was going to have on the basketball program. He told me he was supportive of the staff, would be providing all the support they needed and would be paying close attention as he recognized what a dismal season we had (in 2017/2018) and that Cal can't have lots of seasons like that.

For me, that is evidence that he did not start and complete the analysis and decision process at the end of the season. Whether he was working with a search firm - who knows - I didn't ask - it was still probably October or November and we were hopeful Jones wouldn't repeat (but many of us were dubious).

2. After word got out that Wyking was staying and then walked back peeved a number of Insiders and Bloggers who seemed like they were 'played'. Personally, I think they were, they were miffed and all of them worked their channels to push an agenda that doesn't reveal them for fools. I won't delve into my personal conspiracy theories, but either JK was a bumbling buffoon or he was savvier than the media portrayed him. I'd give it 60/40 in favor of media fools. BTW - most of our BI staff fell for it as well. Anyway, after the Fox hire was announced, one of them stated that a search firm had been used for months. As a source, he has been much more reliable than Wilner, Simmons, Goodman or any other poster on BI. (I may have violated a Premium NDA and could disappear soon).

For me, this is an example of MORE information about the process coming to light after pseudo judgments have been made. Was he lying? I doubt it. Did someone lie to him? maybe, but I doubt it. Back to your language and honesty argument - I still believe a search firm was involved for months. I bet JK spent somewhere between 5 minutes and full time with that firm on the search. Was it effective and well handled - well NO.

3. Discretion. Any top personnel decision requires discretion. Not only during, but after the fact. I've struggled with what to write here, because I have many examples. My expectation is that an AD is not going to admit to us that he had been working on this behind the scenes with a search firm for months. Why? because he has a couple dozen other coaches that may take that as a threat. We may be caught up in semantics around words like lying and discretion and transparency.

For me, that helps rationalize what I'm seeing. I would LOVE to know the whole truth, but I won't. JK is somewhere between a super-sly poker player and bumbling buffoon. I don't think he's a bumbling buffoon, so I fell into the trap in defending that position. Since I'm NOT a lawyer - I probably did it in a way to make most believe that I think he is a super sly player. And I don't feel that way at all. If 1 is sly and 10 is bumbling - I'm feeling like he's a 6. For me, that's a much better than Williams - 10 and Barbour - 8 (who I always felt was lying to me).

As for chancellors, I think they're worse than Athletic Directors. Having said that, I think Christ is a lesser of evils (but I admit that those who know her better, tell me to watch out).

Just win, baby, and all will be forgotten. Pack the Haas for the first game. Hopefully we will be playing someone we can beat. Now the question is will the tickets go up up 20% like football.

For some reason 20% seems to be what everything gets raised. No incremental increases. Bought a meal at Lunardis deli. Used to be 9.95. Now 11.95. Chinese restaurant I go to all of sudden raised prices 20%. Seems strange to hammer people that much all in one swoop. Welcome to the Bay Area.

BeachedBear said:

---

Good stuff. I'll make three points about it and let it go. I think we'd enjoy spinning this further at a watering hole, but at this point probably not helping others. Here we go.

1. Last fall (slightly before BBall season), Jim K stopped at our tailgate to shmooze - as many do. In and amongst the glad handing bs, I asked what type of leash he was going to have on the basketball program. He told me he was supportive of the staff, would be providing all the support they needed and would be paying close attention as he recognized what a dismal season we had (in 2017/2018) and that Cal can't have lots of seasons like that.

For me, that is evidence that he did not start and complete the analysis and decision process at the end of the season. Whether he was working with a search firm - who knows - I didn't ask - it was still probably October or November and we were hopeful Jones wouldn't repeat (but many of us were dubious).

2. After word got out that Wyking was staying and then walked back peeved a number of Insiders and Bloggers who seemed like they were 'played'. Personally, I think they were, they were miffed and all of them worked their channels to push an agenda that doesn't reveal them for fools. I won't delve into my personal conspiracy theories, but either JK was a bumbling buffoon or he was savvier than the media portrayed him. I'd give it 60/40 in favor of media fools. BTW - most of our BI staff fell for it as well. Anyway, after the Fox hire was announced, one of them stated that a search firm had been used for months. As a source, he has been much more reliable than Wilner, Simmons, Goodman or any other poster on BI. (I may have violated a Premium NDA and could disappear soon).

For me, this is an example of MORE information about the process coming to light after pseudo judgments have been made. Was he lying? I doubt it. Did someone lie to him? maybe, but I doubt it. Back to your language and honesty argument - I still believe a search firm was involved for months. I bet JK spent somewhere between 5 minutes and full time with that firm on the search. Was it effective and well handled - well NO.

3. Discretion. Any top personnel decision requires discretion. Not only during, but after the fact. I've struggled with what to write here, because I have many examples. My expectation is that an AD is not going to admit to us that he had been working on this behind the scenes with a search firm for months. Why? because he has a couple dozen other coaches that may take that as a threat. We may be caught up in semantics around words like lying and discretion and transparency.

For me, that helps rationalize what I'm seeing. I would LOVE to know the whole truth, but I won't. JK is somewhere between a super-sly poker player and bumbling buffoon. I don't think he's a bumbling buffoon, so I fell into the trap in defending that position. Since I'm NOT a lawyer - I probably did it in a way to make most believe that I think he is a super sly player. And I don't feel that way at all. If 1 is sly and 10 is bumbling - I'm feeling like he's a 6. For me, that's a much better than Williams - 10 and Barbour - 8 (who I always felt was lying to me).

As for chancellors, I think they're worse than Athletic Directors. Having said that, I think Christ is a lesser of evils (but I admit that those who know her better, tell me to watch out).

---

BB:

Well reasoned and articulated. I think the bottom line is that we don't know what happened and likely never will--that's true for those of us with "access," and those without. I'm struck that when Wilner wrote that JK did everything over 3 days and that this came from JK, most posters took it as truth and as evidence that the process was flawed. OTOH, when he wrote that JK said that he had never decided to keep WJ nor had he told him or the staff so, that was taken as prevarication. I have no way of knowing which comments deserve more credibility.

We can agree that the outcome was disappointing; that doesn't necessarily mean that the process was haphazard or slapdash. It might, but there might be other reasons that we won't be privy to.

Not sure what you mean about Chancellors. The last 3 (Berdahl, Birgeneau, Dirks) ranged from bad to disastrous, but why you would characterize Christ as "evil" is a bit perplexing. In most of her actions, she has been a breath of fresh air--she has lowered the operation deficit from $150 million to essentially zero, she has helped the athletic department by transferring much of the stadium debt to the campus, she has begun a number of major initiatives around housing, student support, research support, etc. Even begun a project to deal with People's Park. Now if your criterion for the performance of a chancellor begins and ends with the performance of the top sports teams, I can understand disappointment, but otherwise...

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

CAL4LIFE said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

edit: I DO think that as you presented information that is inconsistent with Knowlton's account, you should consider the inconsistencies and comment accordingly when you are not feeling so accused. I understand being upset at being accused. Something is amiss. Frankly. I will boil it down to what I think. Cal lies. Always has. I've caught them so many times. There info is worthless. I just wish some of you who are exposed to it would see how often their information is uninformed, massive spin, or flat out untruths to get through the next issue.

---

Spot on.

---

I'd be happy to comment on them. Please quote the inconsistencies (not being defensive - just not certain which ones you are referring to - I don't give BI the same audit trail as I do my business).

---

Beached:

In fairness, I have a feeling that Cal4 was referring to the "Cal lies" portion of my post. But I'd like to explore this portion of your response to me:

Quote:

---

Your post also seems to suggest a lack or process. As days pass, we are learning more about it, but it was kept discrete. For example the presumption that Knowlton did nothing until the end of the season had been outed. He was working with his own list and the search firm for MONTHS. He only announced it after the season. Which is the correct methodology, IMHO. Announcing that we was looking for Jones replacement in January would not have been helpful. You may desire and argue for complete instant transparency, but I would disagree.

---

This is my issue with Cal and why I feel sorry for people who hear "information" and think they know something. Look. I'm a lawyer. I know we can look at the language of the article and say "well it never said he did nothing" and we can look at this language and say "he never said he was working hard on it". But the bottom line is that language is inconsistent with the article. I know statements like that. I've written statements like that. Translation. I called the search firm in February and opened an account. Did nothing until end of season. So, February, and March. That is 2 months. I've been working for months. I worked for 5 minutes in those months, but I'm not lying.

The statement was intended to give you the impression Cal has been actively working on this for a long time. The article is clear he didn't REALLY work through the decision until after the season was over and the large part of the coaching search took 3 days.

Cal should not be treating its alums and fans like adversaries in a lawsuit. They should be straight forward. They aren't. They never will be. (In fairness, I've had experience with school districts and local government agencies, some of which I think are excellent, who do the same thing. You know they screwed up when they start bringing in language like that).

During Braun's tenure, I had more access to info. I thought it was fun for 5 minutes. Until I heard that Braun was an underappreciated saint. Then I heard he was a two faced selfish ******* that mistreated his players. Everyone has a political agenda and an ass to cover.

I've said this ever since. The inside information is crap for those reasons. The information they release to the public is crap for those reasons. I've caught them lying and spinning beyond reasonableness so many times. I don't trust them anymore. My view at this point after all these years is:
1. They mostly suck at their jobs
2. The main thing they don't suck at is covering up that they suck just enough to save their tails
3. They have no intention of competing. Most alums don't care. But the alums that do care donate. They need to pretend they care just enough to keep the suckers on the line. If they were honest they would say they need the money but they have no intention of competing for 1 championship, let alone consistently being in the top half. They intend to compete just enough to look like they tried and failed rather than to look like they never tried. As long as they "try" the suckers who prioritize sports will keep donating. The second they are honest, the donations dry up.
So consider what they told you that had you posting the above. Ask yourself, werethey honest with you? Not literally truthful. HONEST.

---

OK. I Lied. I have one more comment on this, that came to me as I was walking my two rescue mutts (note I was NOT on my to or from yoga. Nor did I feel compelled to marginalize the fairer gender, wear fuschia, bad shoes or creepily stalk Cal recruits).

It seems like you are viewing this institutionally, whereas I may be viewing it more individually. If so, I agree with your three points, institutionally - and would add that I've worked with many corporate management groups and educational institutions and not for profits that also fit this description - and many who don't. Cal, as an institution, is not in good company. Individually, MY LIMITED INTERACTIONS with JK and Christ have been night and day different than all prior ones (although I did not despise Maggard as much as some do). As a result, I don't experience the same broad brush.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Not sure what you mean about Chancellors. The last 3 (Berdahl, Birgeneau, Dirks) ranged from bad to disastrous, but why you would characterize Christ as "evil" is a bit perplexing. In most of her actions, she has been a breath of fresh air--she has lowered the operation deficit from $150 million to essentially zero, she has helped the athletic department by transferring much of the stadium debt to the campus, she has begun a number of major initiatives around housing, student support, research support, etc. Even begun a project to deal with People's Park. Now if your criterion for the performance of a chancellor begins and ends with the performance of the top sports teams, I can understand disappointment, but otherwise...

---

The lesser of evils comment was made in jest. My brief interactions with Christ have been positive and I feel the items you mention really do set her apart from the others. At the risk of being a gossip, I've heard from people who work with her on non sports related items to beware of your first impressions. Wow - that sounds worse than it is. I shouldn't have let my attempt at humor take me down such a dark path.

BeachedBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Not sure what you mean about Chancellors. The last 3 (Berdahl, Birgeneau, Dirks) ranged from bad to disastrous, but why you would characterize Christ as "evil" is a bit perplexing. In most of her actions, she has been a breath of fresh air--she has lowered the operation deficit from $150 million to essentially zero, she has helped the athletic department by transferring much of the stadium debt to the campus, she has begun a number of major initiatives around housing, student support, research support, etc. Even begun a project to deal with People's Park. Now if your criterion for the performance of a chancellor begins and ends with the performance of the top sports teams, I can understand disappointment, but otherwise...

---

The lesser of evils comment was made in jest. My brief interactions with Christ have been positive and I feel the items you mention really do set her apart from the others. At the risk of being a gossip, I've heard from people who work with her on non sports related items to beware of your first impressions. Wow - that sounds worse than it is. I shouldn't have let my attempt at humor take me down such a dark path.

---

I think that one thing that sets CC apart from her predecessors is that she never wanted this job, has no intention of using it as a springboard for another, and thus has less need to be "liked." (Dirks so wanted to be liked he never said no to anyone on anything) As a result, some who work with her may not feel as warm and fuzzy as previous individuals.

BeachedBear said:

---

3. Discretion. Any top personnel decision requires discretion. Not only during, but after the fact. I've struggled with what to write here, because I have many examples. My expectation is that an AD is not going to admit to us that he had been working on this behind the scenes with a search firm for months. Why? because he has a couple dozen other coaches that may take that as a threat. We may be caught up in semantics around words like lying and discretion and transparency.

---

To me, this point explains much of the disinformation and/or equivocal statements. For appearance reasons, during the season JK is not going to take any actions to tip his hand or be perceived as undercutting Wyking (unless he was going to fire him mid-season like Alford). The season was dreadful. Does anyone think that JK didn't know that and that he wasn't at all times, considering his options, particularly given the general unhappiness from donors and other alumni?

After the season, my take based on what was reported (and a bit of speculation) is that JK told WJ to "keep moving forward" or words to that effect. Until a decision was made, what else would you say to an employee? No employer ever tells an employee "I'm still thinking of firing you, but please carry on and perform as if that's not the case."

WJ (or his agent/people) may have taken that to mean he was coming back - someone was obviously leaking that. JK was (at least in his own mind) still undecided and not committed. And I'm guessing you don't go to big donors with a request for money (as opposed to seeking their opinions) unless and until a formal decision is made. The minute the request for $$ is made, word leaks (probably by donors who want WJ fired).

Post season, no doubt JK would be evaluating who he could hire if WJ was to be fired. Part of the decision to fire is evaluating realistic potential replacements. Again, discretion would be imperative, both because WJ might be brought back and potential coaches probably don't want their name out there (Decuire). It defies logic to think that JK didn't have a list of potential replacement coaches and a process in mind for weeks, if not months. Is he going to tell Wilner that? Probably not because it is a bad look for Cal/JK to be actively looking before firing WJ.

Was JK influenced by player defections/mutiny? Probably. And while that's a bad look - which is why JK would never admit that if true - I would argue that should be a consideration. It is really no different than what happened with Campanelli and I thought it was the right decision then.

I'm ambivalent about Fox - have serous doubts based on what I've read here and his performance at Georgia. I think it fair to question the choice of coach (or even if WJ should have been given a year). But the lack of full transparency and clear reporting about the process is not only expected, but exactly the same thing that happens at most other places when coaches/employees are hired.

UrsaMajor said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Good stuff. I'll make three points about it and let it go. I think we'd enjoy spinning this further at a watering hole, but at this point probably not helping others. Here we go.

1. Last fall (slightly before BBall season), Jim K stopped at our tailgate to shmooze - as many do. In and amongst the glad handing bs, I asked what type of leash he was going to have on the basketball program. He told me he was supportive of the staff, would be providing all the support they needed and would be paying close attention as he recognized what a dismal season we had (in 2017/2018) and that Cal can't have lots of seasons like that.

For me, that is evidence that he did not start and complete the analysis and decision process at the end of the season. Whether he was working with a search firm - who knows - I didn't ask - it was still probably October or November and we were hopeful Jones wouldn't repeat (but many of us were dubious).

2. After word got out that Wyking was staying and then walked back peeved a number of Insiders and Bloggers who seemed like they were 'played'. Personally, I think they were, they were miffed and all of them worked their channels to push an agenda that doesn't reveal them for fools. I won't delve into my personal conspiracy theories, but either JK was a bumbling buffoon or he was savvier than the media portrayed him. I'd give it 60/40 in favor of media fools. BTW - most of our BI staff fell for it as well. Anyway, after the Fox hire was announced, one of them stated that a search firm had been used for months. As a source, he has been much more reliable than Wilner, Simmons, Goodman or any other poster on BI. (I may have violated a Premium NDA and could disappear soon).

For me, this is an example of MORE information about the process coming to light after pseudo judgments have been made. Was he lying? I doubt it. Did someone lie to him? maybe, but I doubt it. Back to your language and honesty argument - I still believe a search firm was involved for months. I bet JK spent somewhere between 5 minutes and full time with that firm on the search. Was it effective and well handled - well NO.

3. Discretion. Any top personnel decision requires discretion. Not only during, but after the fact. I've struggled with what to write here, because I have many examples. My expectation is that an AD is not going to admit to us that he had been working on this behind the scenes with a search firm for months. Why? because he has a couple dozen other coaches that may take that as a threat. We may be caught up in semantics around words like lying and discretion and transparency.

For me, that helps rationalize what I'm seeing. I would LOVE to know the whole truth, but I won't. JK is somewhere between a super-sly poker player and bumbling buffoon. I don't think he's a bumbling buffoon, so I fell into the trap in defending that position. Since I'm NOT a lawyer - I probably did it in a way to make most believe that I think he is a super sly player. And I don't feel that way at all. If 1 is sly and 10 is bumbling - I'm feeling like he's a 6. For me, that's a much better than Williams - 10 and Barbour - 8 (who I always felt was lying to me).

As for chancellors, I think they're worse than Athletic Directors. Having said that, I think Christ is a lesser of evils (but I admit that those who know her better, tell me to watch out).

---

BB:

Well reasoned and articulated. I think the bottom line is that we don't know what happened and likely never will--that's true for those of us with "access," and those without. I'm struck that when Wilner wrote that JK did everything over 3 days and that this came from JK, most posters took it as truth and as evidence that the process was flawed. OTOH, when he wrote that JK said that he had never decided to keep WJ nor had he told him or the staff so, that was taken as prevarication. I have no way of knowing which comments deserve more credibility.

We can agree that the outcome was disappointing; that doesn't necessarily mean that the process was haphazard or slapdash. It might, but there might be other reasons that we won't be privy to.

Not sure what you mean about Chancellors. The last 3 (Berdahl, Birgeneau, Dirks) ranged from bad to disastrous, but why you would characterize Christ as "evil" is a bit perplexing. In most of her actions, she has been a breath of fresh air--she has lowered the operation deficit from $150 million to essentially zero, she has helped the athletic department by transferring much of the stadium debt to the campus, she has begun a number of major initiatives around housing, student support, research support, etc. Even begun a project to deal with People's Park. Now if your criterion for the performance of a chancellor begins and ends with the performance of the top sports teams, I can understand disappointment, but otherwise...

---

Ursa- I'm just going to address your comment about taking the three days comments as truth but the change of mind (or lack thereof) as prevarication. That is not me.

1. On the first, I'd say it is an admission against interest. I would also say that it is one thing to play the media. It is another thing to flat out lie. I doubt he would flat out lie. If so, he shouldn't be in this job.

2. I don't believe he is lying in the second. However, I do know enough to know the media sources were reasonable in their interpretation. I don't know if he clumsily played the medi and went too far. Or maybe he accidentally implied more than he intended. Even how he described it in the Wilner article, it sounds like he was walking right up to the line with Jones. He could have just told Jones he was still evaluating.

On both issues he didn't need to say anything to the media. He chose to. Cal fans need to be able to hold him responsible for what he says he did. If he did a thorough vetting for months and he wants to mislead on that point (not saying he is - I don't think he is) that is his fault. But he doesn't get the benefit of both positions. Well, he said X, but it could really be Y so let's assume the good in both and none of the bad. He said X, I'm holding him to X. As for what other coaches think, we'll, if they go 0-15, I damn well hope they think he is considering replacing them. Every sane person inside and outside that department would think a coach in Jones' position is in jeopardy

I know it wasn't you, OTB, in these threads it sometimes becomes hard to disentangle who said what. FWIW, I don't think JK was outright lying either time, nor do I think he was being totally open either. That's the nature of coach-speak or AD-speak or whatever. Could he have been more transparent? sure. But, trying to parse every nuance like 1960's Kremlinologists is a waste of effort. (again, not saying you are doing that)

BearGoggles said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

3. Discretion. Any top personnel decision requires discretion. Not only during, but after the fact. I've struggled with what to write here, because I have many examples. My expectation is that an AD is not going to admit to us that he had been working on this behind the scenes with a search firm for months. Why? because he has a couple dozen other coaches that may take that as a threat. We may be caught up in semantics around words like lying and discretion and transparency.

---

To me, this point explains much of the disinformation and/or equivocal statements. For appearance reasons, during the season JK is not going to take any actions to tip his hand or be perceived as undercutting Wyking (unless he was going to fire him mid-season like Alford). The season was dreadful. Does anyone think that JK didn't know that and that he wasn't at all times, considering his options, particularly given the general unhappiness from donors and other alumni?

After the season, my take based on what was reported (and a bit of speculation) is that JK told WJ to "keep moving forward" or words to that effect. Until a decision was made, what else would you say to an employee? No employer ever tells an employee "I'm still thinking of firing you, but please carry on and perform as if that's not the case."

WJ (or his agent/people) may have taken that to mean he was coming back - someone was obviously leaking that. JK was (at least in his own mind) still undecided and not committed. And I'm guessing you don't go to big donors with a request for money (as opposed to seeking their opinions) unless and until a formal decision is made. The minute the request for $$ is made, word leaks (probably by donors who want WJ fired).

Post season, no doubt JK would be evaluating who he could hire if WJ was to be fired. Part of the decision to fire is evaluating realistic potential replacements. Again, discretion would be imperative, both because WJ might be brought back and potential coaches probably don't want their name out there (Decuire). It defies logic to think that JK didn't have a list of potential replacement coaches and a process in mind for weeks, if not months. Is he going to tell Wilner that? Probably not because it is a bad look for Cal/JK to be actively looking before firing WJ.

Was JK influenced by player defections/mutiny? Probably. And while that's a bad look - which is why JK would never admit that if true - I would argue that should be a consideration. It is really no different than what happened with Campanelli and I thought it was the right decision then.

I'm ambivalent about Fox - have serous doubts based on what I've read here and his performance at Georgia. I think it fair to question the choice of coach (or even if WJ should have been given a year). But the lack of full transparency and clear reporting about the process is not only expected, but exactly the same thing that happens at most other places when coaches/employees are hired.

---

.

BearG- this is my issue with all that. Every school has the same discretion/transparency issues. Why is it Cal that is the one that ends up with messaging issues?

Uthaithani said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, two things Knowlton knew that most of us didn't:

1. Financial constraints, how the big donors were lined up, etc. Easy to say "make a change", but what if there wasn't the $$$?

---

Financial "constraints" are self-imposed. Cal could pay a competitive salary if they chose to. They choose not to.

---

For less than whatever we are paying Fox, we could have brought in a young up and coming coach.

---

Or a young, crappy coach who guides the team to the worst 2-year record in Cal history.

Obviously Cal did what Cal always does - solve the most recent problem instead of building a future vision.

Tedford leaves academics a mess? Bring in someone who does nothing but improve academics. Dykes can't field a defense? Bring in a coach who ONLY coaches defense. We hired a former HC who bailed? Hire a completely unproven assistant. Young assistant fails miserably? Hire an older former HC.

And Cal does this in EVERYTHING. All they do is react to yesterday's problem. No vision. Then they wonder why schools like Furd, SC, and UCLA are beating Cal in academics AND athletics.

For a university of smart students, Cal has the stupidest leadership you'll find anywhere.

---

Ha not a bad take.

Gee, just do the smart thing.

Why is that so hard.

This whole issue is patently ridiculous.. Who Cal hires as a BB coach is hardly one of the burning issues of the day. Cal will be Cal regardless of who is hired. I graduated in 1960. During those last 2 years we went to two Final Fours and had one National championship. Hello!! That was almost SIXTY YEARS AGO! Since then we haven't even come close. This is not Duke, KY or Kansas. This is Cal. In the major sports we are barely mediocre. We should be thankful anyone even wants to coach here. The last good coach (and team) we had was Pete Newell. He is not coming back. If we stopped playing either FB or BB the sun would still come up tomorrow.

Geez there is a lot to un pack on this thread

Were you asleep in 2010 or do we need to win the national championship to be a good Team?