KoreAmBear said:

---

But hey they took a picture of a black hole yesterday, so anything's possible.

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I thought it was not possible. But hey they took a picture of a black hole yesterday, so anything's possible.

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I thought it was not possible. But hey they took a picture of a black hole yesterday, so anything's possible.

---

calumnus said:

---

I could see how someone might think Wyking would be a good fit and worth taking a chance on.

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I thought it was not possible. But hey they took a picture of a black hole yesterday, so anything's possible.

---

It is like he is aiming for that distinction and I'd say maybe he's reached it.

I could see how someone might think Wyking would be a good fit and worth taking a chance on. The issue was that should have had come with an incentive-based contract very favorable to Cal both in salary and buyout in case it did not work out. At least we had money FROM Martin's buyout.

Fox as a known entity was just not a great choice and the process of getting there was rushed and completely flawed. To make it worse, we actually paid $millions to Wyking to do so.

We really need the football team to have an effective offense this Fall to help pay for all this.

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I thought it was not possible. But hey they took a picture of a black hole yesterday, so anything's possible.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Knowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

HKnowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

HKnowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

You nailed it, Oak. The hiring of Knowlton has a strong whiff of total disaster. At the time he was brought on board, Cal desperately needed a dynamic, revenue sports-focused leader. Instead, they got a guy who is the antithesis of dynamic. They found someone who hides his inability to make decisive decisions behind a curtain of being "thoughtful". Yes, there is a time and place for thoughtfulness. However, when the situation calls for action, you need to be ready. The hoops coaching hiring process appears to have been a last minute, "geez, I guess I need to do something" rushed decision rather than a well-prepared, well-planned execution of a deliberate plan.

The #1 job of an AD is finding coaching talent to lead the program's revenue sports. Knowlton is off to a horrible start in that area. Everything flows from the success of the football and men's hoops programs.

Is Knowlton worse than Williams? Yes, because Williams was never intended to be a long term AD. Whereas, Knowlton was hired with the intent of being a long term solution. Unfortunately, I think Cal has hired another Bob Bockrath - a guy who inflicted/will inflict damage to the program well beyond his years in the position.

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

HKnowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

You nailed it, Oak. The hiring of Knowlton has a strong whiff of total disaster. At the time he was brought on board, Cal desperately needed a dynamic, revenue sports-focused leader. Instead, they got a guy who is the antithesis of dynamic. They found someone who hides his inability to make decisive decisions behind a curtain of being "thoughtful". Yes, there is a time and place for thoughtfulness. However, when the situation calls for action, you need to be ready. The hoops coaching hiring process appears to have been a last minute, "geez, I guess I need to do something" rushed decision rather than a well-prepared, well-planned execution of a deliberate plan.

The #1 job of an AD is finding coaching talent to lead the program's revenue sports. Knowlton is off to a horrible start in that area. Everything flows from the success of the football and men's hoops programs.

Is Knowlton worse than Williams? Yes, because Williams was never intended to be a long term AD. Whereas, Knowlton was hired with the intent of being a long term solution. Unfortunately, I think Cal has hired another Bob Bockrath - a guy who inflicted/will inflict damage to the program well beyond his years in the position.

---

I know people will disagree with me about this, but I firmly believe he should have had a role in revamping the offensive assistant situation, but sounds like he did nothing. I know Wilcox calls the shots on his assistants, but guess what Knowlton is his boss. Getting Baldwin to consult more with the QBs is the answer? When the direct cause of at least 3 losses last year was Baldwin's own personnel and play calling decisions? I was hoping Knowlton was going to be a kick ass AD that got things done esp. for our revenue sports. As each day passes, I see that it's not the case.

---

Big C said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

HKnowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

You nailed it, Oak. The hiring of Knowlton has a strong whiff of total disaster. At the time he was brought on board, Cal desperately needed a dynamic, revenue sports-focused leader. Instead, they got a guy who is the antithesis of dynamic. They found someone who hides his inability to make decisive decisions behind a curtain of being "thoughtful". Yes, there is a time and place for thoughtfulness. However, when the situation calls for action, you need to be ready. The hoops coaching hiring process appears to have been a last minute, "geez, I guess I need to do something" rushed decision rather than a well-prepared, well-planned execution of a deliberate plan.

The #1 job of an AD is finding coaching talent to lead the program's revenue sports. Knowlton is off to a horrible start in that area. Everything flows from the success of the football and men's hoops programs.

Is Knowlton worse than Williams? Yes, because Williams was never intended to be a long term AD. Whereas, Knowlton was hired with the intent of being a long term solution. Unfortunately, I think Cal has hired another Bob Bockrath - a guy who inflicted/will inflict damage to the program well beyond his years in the position.

---

I know people will disagree with me about this, but I firmly believe he should have had a role in revamping the offensive assistant situation, but sounds like he did nothing. I know Wilcox calls the shots on his assistants, but guess what Knowlton is his boss. Getting Baldwin to consult more with the QBs is the answer? When the direct cause of at least 3 losses last year was Baldwin's own personnel and play calling decisions? I was hoping Knowlton was going to be a kick ass AD that got things done esp. for our revenue sports. As each day passes, I see that it's not the case.

---

While I'm obviously not happy with Baldwin so far, Knowlton's hands-off approach to this dilemma may prove to be one of the best things he "does" here. Can you imagine who his search firm might have found us to be Offensive Coordinator?

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Knowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Knowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

I want to add on to something you and I discussed and you articulated better than I. Knowlton was hired on April 9th. He knew he had a steaming pile with the basketball team - one of the two revenue generating programs at the school. As new AD (or CEO) you have a choice on day 1:

A - recognize you must have a plan in place in the (very likely) case that the never head-coach, never-tested basketball coach who he inherited didn't magically turn it around the coming year. So that immediately after the final game of that following season, when the head coach finished 3-15 to complete the most putrid, awful two year run in school history, you would fire him. You could do that because on March 14th you would have already spent the last 10 months on your plan, coming up with the list of your ideal candidates, you would have quietly put out feelers and engaged people to help you in the search, you would have a communications plan in place, and then on March 16th you would announce the hiring of the new head coach, showing the college sports world that Cal is serious about doing things the right way.

B - Smile. Hope that things got better. Do literally almost nothing so that when your hand is forced you have to scramble to make a terrible decision.

Guess which option was the choice of the CAL AD?

---

calumnus said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Knowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

I want to add on to something you and I discussed and you articulated better than I. Knowlton was hired on April 9th. He knew he had a steaming pile with the basketball team - one of the two revenue generating programs at the school. As new AD (or CEO) you have a choice on day 1:

A - recognize you must have a plan in place in the (very likely) case that the never head-coach, never-tested basketball coach who he inherited didn't magically turn it around the coming year. So that immediately after the final game of that following season, when the head coach finished 3-15 to complete the most putrid, awful two year run in school history, you would fire him. You could do that because on March 14th you would have already spent the last 10 months on your plan, coming up with the list of your ideal candidates, you would have quietly put out feelers and engaged people to help you in the search, you would have a communications plan in place, and then on March 16th you would announce the hiring of the new head coach, showing the college sports world that Cal is serious about doing things the right way.

B - Smile. Hope that things got better. Do literally almost nothing so that when your hand is forced you have to scramble to make a terrible decision.

Guess which option was the choice of the CAL AD?

---

Exactly. And because he didn't do A, he rushed and just picked one of 4 "candidates" the search firm came up with on hasty notice after learning that 3-15 is not an acceptable performance.

---

71Bear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Knowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

You nailed it, Oak. The hiring of Knowlton has a strong whiff of total disaster. At the time he was brought on board, Cal desperately needed a dynamic, revenue sports-focused leader. Instead, they got a guy who is the antithesis of dynamic. They found someone who hides his inability to make decisive decisions behind a curtain of being "thoughtful". Yes, there is a time and place for thoughtfulness. However, when the situation calls for action, you need to be ready. The hoops coaching hiring process appears to have been a last minute, "geez, I guess I need to do something" rushed decision rather than a well-prepared, well-planned execution of a deliberate plan.

The #1 job of an AD is finding coaching talent to lead the program's revenue sports. Knowlton is off to a horrible start in that area. Everything flows from the success of the football and men's hoops programs.

Is Knowlton worse than Williams? Yes, because Williams was never intended to be a long term AD. Whereas, Knowlton was hired with the intent of being a long term solution. Unfortunately, I think Cal has hired another Bob Bockrath - a guy who inflicted/will inflict damage to the program well beyond his years in the position.

---

I know people will disagree with me about this, but I firmly believe he should have had a role in revamping the offensive assistant situation, but sounds like he did nothing. I know Wilcox calls the shots on his assistants, but guess what Knowlton is his boss. Getting Baldwin to consult more with the QBs is the answer? When the direct cause of at least 3 losses last year was Baldwin's own personnel and play calling decisions? I was hoping Knowlton was going to be a kick ass AD that got things done esp. for our revenue sports. As each day passes, I see that it's not the case.

---

Gotta disagree. The AD should never get involved with retention decisions re: assistants. That is the job of the head coach. Besides, I think Baldwin is the right guy for the job. I'm glad that no OC change was made. I think Cal will see substantial improvement on O this fall.

---

71Bear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Knowlton has been on the job less than a year. Judging him based on one coaching hire who has yet to coach a game is beyond ludicrous. I'm not saying he will turn out to be a good hire, just that leaping to conclusions and basing one's evaluation on a single move is a bit premature. Mike Williams was a disaster in every way. The deficit ballooned; major donors were alienated; and WJ was hired.

Let me try this as a hypothetical:
Supposing that Fox turns out to be a B-/C+ hire, 4th to 6th in the P12, Bubble team most years (not an unreasonable expectation, IMO). Meanwhile Knowlton successfully
1. Gets 4 major infrastructure projects off the ground (sand volleyball courts, softball stadium, athletic study center, and basketball practice facility)
2. Reduces the deficit to zero (and freeing up more $ for coaching salaries)
3. Bolsters fundraising (Brian Mann would appear to be a good start) significantly
Would everyone say that the Fox hire trumps everything and Knowlton is a failure? Or would he appear to be a solid AD who made a meh 1st major hire?

I'm not defending the Fox hire, nor am I saying JK is going to be successful; what I am saying is that let's judge him on the body of work, most of which hasn't been done yet.

---

1. He was hired on April 9th. He has been on the job a year. No major accomplishments. Department just keeps running the same crappy way it always has.
2. Mike Williams was a disaster. I'm not really interested in deciding which guy is the biggest disaster.
3. Knowlton is an effing disaster.
4. As for your hypothetical. Job one of the Athletic director at Cal is to hire a football coach. Job two is to hire a basketball coach. Revenue and donations from those programs fund everything else. Case in point. Everything I've heard is that Gladstone was a disaster at administering the department. He did one thing exceedingly well. Put together the process that lead to hiring Tedford. IMO, that makes him the most successful Cal AD in my lifetime. He may have been terrible at managing the finances, but we do not get any of the massive infrastructure upgrades if he doesn't get one decision right. And the thing is that he set a standard that all those that came after could have followed. He understood how important that hire was and he rallied the Cal community to make sure it was the best hire it could possibly be. Since then, outside of Monty falling into our laps, we've had nothing but crappy processes from crappy, lazy, slack ass administrators who no jack squat about coaching or hiring a coach who put a level of effort into the process that makes one think it is an annoying diversion fro their day job of pushing paper from one side of their desk to the other. Your 3 successful items in your hypothetical are highly dependent on football and basketball success. The failure to take the job of hiring coaches seriously is a disqualifier. The bottom line on your Fox performance in your hypothetical is the reason why it is awful is it is the highest we even hoped to attain in our wildest dreams.

As for you successful points in your hypothetical

1. It is clear they are building the first three come hell or high water. I don't see this as a massive success. Cal should not be investing in things that won't do any good when they don't follow up with any support. It is chucking money down a rathole. I don't give a damn whether we have sand volleyball courts. It isn't a trade off for years of mediocrity in basketball because you refused to do your effing job and try to do better.

2. The bulk of the deficit disappearing is an accounting change taking the bulk of the debt service out of the athletic department's books. That was done by Christ and it means nothing to the university as a whole.

3. You mean bolstered as in it improves from an AD who wouldn't even talk to alums? Doesn't make him awesome.

IMO your hypothetical moves the needle zero. Cal needs change in that department. There is nothing innovative here. Therefore, I call your hypothetical a dismal failure.

---

You nailed it, Oak. The hiring of Knowlton has a strong whiff of total disaster. At the time he was brought on board, Cal desperately needed a dynamic, revenue sports-focused leader. Instead, they got a guy who is the antithesis of dynamic. They found someone who hides his inability to make decisive decisions behind a curtain of being "thoughtful". Yes, there is a time and place for thoughtfulness. However, when the situation calls for action, you need to be ready. The hoops coaching hiring process appears to have been a last minute, "geez, I guess I need to do something" rushed decision rather than a well-prepared, well-planned execution of a deliberate plan.

The #1 job of an AD is finding coaching talent to lead the program's revenue sports. Knowlton is off to a horrible start in that area. Everything flows from the success of the football and men's hoops programs.

Is Knowlton worse than Williams? Yes, because Williams was never intended to be a long term AD. Whereas, Knowlton was hired with the intent of being a long term solution. Unfortunately, I think Cal has hired another Bob Bockrath - a guy who inflicted/will inflict damage to the program well beyond his years in the position.

---

I know people will disagree with me about this, but I firmly believe he should have had a role in revamping the offensive assistant situation, but sounds like he did nothing. I know Wilcox calls the shots on his assistants, but guess what Knowlton is his boss. Getting Baldwin to consult more with the QBs is the answer? When the direct cause of at least 3 losses last year was Baldwin's own personnel and play calling decisions? I was hoping Knowlton was going to be a kick ass AD that got things done esp. for our revenue sports. As each day passes, I see that it's not the case.

---

Gotta disagree. The AD should never get involved with retention decisions re: assistants. That is the job of the head coach. Besides, I think Baldwin is the right guy for the job. I'm glad that no OC change was made. I think Cal will see substantial improvement on O this fall.

---