HKBear97! said:

---

6956bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JimSox said:

---

calumnus said:

---

baytobreakers said:

---

Email the chancellor to keep him

---

Madsen is already on contract until 2030. That is enough. It is just a random article speculating. Let's not repeat the mistake repeatedly made with Wilcox.

---

With all due respect, I don't think Madsen is the same as Wilcox. And I don't think we're talking about an extension, but solving other problems to keep him. Chief among them, the $$$$ he needs for NIL to compete in the ACC.

---

1. Three years in Wilcox had his best year and most on this board praised the raise and extension and thought firing Baldwin and hiring Musgrave was going to be the cure for his terrible offense. I certainly hope Madsen turns out to be better than Wilcox, and I think he is, but we really don't know yet.
2. Yes, support Madsen with NIL, but at the expense of NIL for football? What is the intent of an email to Lyons? What do you want Lyons to do? The university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football. Alums need to support additional NIL for basketball.
3. I just think there is a chance we overreact to a speculative article about a coach leaving. That is our history.

---

Money is fungible. Either more money can be allocated to BB or the Football money can be shifted SLIGHLTY to provide for competitive balance

The buy out is not that much. And in what universe do you believe that Jay and Jenny will not use it for other purposes? Not in the one that I dwell in.

Remember - when you type " he university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football" you are accepting (I don't) that somehow going 9-3 a couple of years in a row somehow moves the needle with the SEC and B1G commissioners/key schools. I don't But what WILL, IHMO, is the failure to ONCE AGAIN (see Counzo) to support a winning BB coach. That is the problem. Madsen may not be AMAZING but he is winning and winning more each season. He will get other offers.

I reserve the right to amend this if Goldman drops 20 million on the program for the kicker.|

PS. Yes, in restrospect of Martin's run at Mizzu he wasn't great. But Cal does not have a crystal ball (oh I wish we did given Wilcox play calling). At the time the narrative was "typical".

---

Madsen's buyout is $9.28 million and is symmetrical, at least according to AI.

---

I think that is the buyout if Cal terminates him. The HC usually has a much smaller buyout for leaving on their terms.

---

That would suck. Of course, it was a Knowlton contract, so likely extremely favorable to the coach.

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JimSox said:

---

calumnus said:

---

baytobreakers said:

---

Email the chancellor to keep him

---

Madsen is already on contract until 2030. That is enough. It is just a random article speculating. Let's not repeat the mistake repeatedly made with Wilcox.

---

With all due respect, I don't think Madsen is the same as Wilcox. And I don't think we're talking about an extension, but solving other problems to keep him. Chief among them, the $$$$ he needs for NIL to compete in the ACC.

---

1. Three years in Wilcox had his best year and most on this board praised the raise and extension and thought firing Baldwin and hiring Musgrave was going to be the cure for his terrible offense. I certainly hope Madsen turns out to be better than Wilcox, and I think he is, but we really don't know yet.
2. Yes, support Madsen with NIL, but at the expense of NIL for football? What is the intent of an email to Lyons? What do you want Lyons to do? The university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football. Alums need to support additional NIL for basketball.
3. I just think there is a chance we overreact to a speculative article about a coach leaving. That is our history.

---

Money is fungible. Either more money can be allocated to BB or the Football money can be shifted SLIGHLTY to provide for competitive balance

The buy out is not that much. And in what universe do you believe that Jay and Jenny will not use it for other purposes? Not in the one that I dwell in.

Remember - when you type " he university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football" you are accepting (I don't) that somehow going 9-3 a couple of years in a row somehow moves the needle with the SEC and B1G commissioners/key schools. I don't But what WILL, IHMO, is the failure to ONCE AGAIN (see Counzo) to support a winning BB coach. That is the problem. Madsen may not be AMAZING but he is winning and winning more each season. He will get other offers.

I reserve the right to amend this if Goldman drops 20 million on the program for the kicker.|

PS. Yes, in restrospect of Martin's run at Mizzu he wasn't great. But Cal does not have a crystal ball (oh I wish we did given Wilcox play calling). At the time the narrative was "typical".

---

Madsen's buyout is $9.28 million and is symmetrical, at least according to AI.

---

Premium has the actual number.

---

How is an actual fact that can be determined by reviewing a public document premium information?

---

Check the accuracy/completness of the document. Source in premium is well sourced.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JimSox said:

---

calumnus said:

---

baytobreakers said:

---

Email the chancellor to keep him

---

Madsen is already on contract until 2030. That is enough. It is just a random article speculating. Let's not repeat the mistake repeatedly made with Wilcox.

---

With all due respect, I don't think Madsen is the same as Wilcox. And I don't think we're talking about an extension, but solving other problems to keep him. Chief among them, the $$$$ he needs for NIL to compete in the ACC.

---

1. Three years in Wilcox had his best year and most on this board praised the raise and extension and thought firing Baldwin and hiring Musgrave was going to be the cure for his terrible offense. I certainly hope Madsen turns out to be better than Wilcox, and I think he is, but we really don't know yet.
2. Yes, support Madsen with NIL, but at the expense of NIL for football? What is the intent of an email to Lyons? What do you want Lyons to do? The university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football. Alums need to support additional NIL for basketball.
3. I just think there is a chance we overreact to a speculative article about a coach leaving. That is our history.

---

Money is fungible. Either more money can be allocated to BB or the Football money can be shifted SLIGHLTY to provide for competitive balance

The buy out is not that much. And in what universe do you believe that Jay and Jenny will not use it for other purposes? Not in the one that I dwell in.

Remember - when you type " he university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football" you are accepting (I don't) that somehow going 9-3 a couple of years in a row somehow moves the needle with the SEC and B1G commissioners/key schools. I don't But what WILL, IHMO, is the failure to ONCE AGAIN (see Counzo) to support a winning BB coach. That is the problem. Madsen may not be AMAZING but he is winning and winning more each season. He will get other offers.

I reserve the right to amend this if Goldman drops 20 million on the program for the kicker.|

PS. Yes, in restrospect of Martin's run at Mizzu he wasn't great. But Cal does not have a crystal ball (oh I wish we did given Wilcox play calling). At the time the narrative was "typical".

---

Madsen's buyout is $9.28 million and is symmetrical, at least according to AI.

---

Premium has the actual number.

---

How is an actual fact that can be determined by reviewing a public document premium information?

---

Check the accuracy/completness of the document. Source in premium is well sourced.

---

I'm not saying the $9m number is correct. I don't know what is correct. I'm saying the number is in the contract which is a public document. Anyone can look it up. If the source is citing a different number than the contract, the source is wrong. If the source is citing what is in the contract, it is publicly available info and should not be considered premium.

And no, the amount that we have to pay if we fire him is irrelevant unless they happened to agree it is the same, which I don't think is usual.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JimSox said:

---

calumnus said:

---

baytobreakers said:

---

Email the chancellor to keep him

---

Madsen is already on contract until 2030. That is enough. It is just a random article speculating. Let's not repeat the mistake repeatedly made with Wilcox.

---

With all due respect, I don't think Madsen is the same as Wilcox. And I don't think we're talking about an extension, but solving other problems to keep him. Chief among them, the $$$$ he needs for NIL to compete in the ACC.

---

1. Three years in Wilcox had his best year and most on this board praised the raise and extension and thought firing Baldwin and hiring Musgrave was going to be the cure for his terrible offense. I certainly hope Madsen turns out to be better than Wilcox, and I think he is, but we really don't know yet.
2. Yes, support Madsen with NIL, but at the expense of NIL for football? What is the intent of an email to Lyons? What do you want Lyons to do? The university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football. Alums need to support additional NIL for basketball.
3. I just think there is a chance we overreact to a speculative article about a coach leaving. That is our history.

---

Money is fungible. Either more money can be allocated to BB or the Football money can be shifted SLIGHLTY to provide for competitive balance

The buy out is not that much. And in what universe do you believe that Jay and Jenny will not use it for other purposes? Not in the one that I dwell in.

Remember - when you type " he university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football" you are accepting (I don't) that somehow going 9-3 a couple of years in a row somehow moves the needle with the SEC and B1G commissioners/key schools. I don't But what WILL, IHMO, is the failure to ONCE AGAIN (see Counzo) to support a winning BB coach. That is the problem. Madsen may not be AMAZING but he is winning and winning more each season. He will get other offers.

I reserve the right to amend this if Goldman drops 20 million on the program for the kicker.|

PS. Yes, in restrospect of Martin's run at Mizzu he wasn't great. But Cal does not have a crystal ball (oh I wish we did given Wilcox play calling). At the time the narrative was "typical".

---

Madsen's buyout is $9.28 million and is symmetrical, at least according to AI.

---

Premium has the actual number.

---

How is an actual fact that can be determined by reviewing a public document premium information?

---

Check the accuracy/completness of the document. Source in premium is well sourced.

---

I'm not saying the $9m number is correct. I don't know what is correct. I'm saying the number is in the contract which is a public document. Anyone can look it up. If the source is citing a different number than the contract, the source is wrong. If the source is citing what is in the contract, it is publicly available info and should not be considered premium.

And no, the amount that we have to pay if we fire him is irrelevant unless they happened to agree it is the same, which I don't think is usual.

---

9 million is if WE fire him. The number if he walks is different and should be in the contract. I am telling you, the source is as best as we have on this site.

---

I'm not doubting the source. I'm simply saying the contract is public information and the buyout is in the contract. I acknowledged that people reading our buyout and assuming it is the same as Madsen's buyout are probably looking at the wrong part of the contract. I'm just saying that a "source" taking publicly available information and sharing it on a premium board does not make public information premium. I honestly don't care what the number is or I would track it down myself.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JimSox said:

---

calumnus said:

---

baytobreakers said:

---

Email the chancellor to keep him

---

Madsen is already on contract until 2030. That is enough. It is just a random article speculating. Let's not repeat the mistake repeatedly made with Wilcox.

---

With all due respect, I don't think Madsen is the same as Wilcox. And I don't think we're talking about an extension, but solving other problems to keep him. Chief among them, the $$$$ he needs for NIL to compete in the ACC.

---

1. Three years in Wilcox had his best year and most on this board praised the raise and extension and thought firing Baldwin and hiring Musgrave was going to be the cure for his terrible offense. I certainly hope Madsen turns out to be better than Wilcox, and I think he is, but we really don't know yet.
2. Yes, support Madsen with NIL, but at the expense of NIL for football? What is the intent of an email to Lyons? What do you want Lyons to do? The university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football. Alums need to support additional NIL for basketball.
3. I just think there is a chance we overreact to a speculative article about a coach leaving. That is our history.

---

Money is fungible. Either more money can be allocated to BB or the Football money can be shifted SLIGHLTY to provide for competitive balance

The buy out is not that much. And in what universe do you believe that Jay and Jenny will not use it for other purposes? Not in the one that I dwell in.

Remember - when you type " he university already has an allocation of its funding of NIL between the programs with an emphasis on football" you are accepting (I don't) that somehow going 9-3 a couple of years in a row somehow moves the needle with the SEC and B1G commissioners/key schools. I don't But what WILL, IHMO, is the failure to ONCE AGAIN (see Counzo) to support a winning BB coach. That is the problem. Madsen may not be AMAZING but he is winning and winning more each season. He will get other offers.

I reserve the right to amend this if Goldman drops 20 million on the program for the kicker.|

PS. Yes, in restrospect of Martin's run at Mizzu he wasn't great. But Cal does not have a crystal ball (oh I wish we did given Wilcox play calling). At the time the narrative was "typical".

---

Madsen's buyout is $9.28 million and is symmetrical, at least according to AI.

---

Premium has the actual number.

---

How is an actual fact that can be determined by reviewing a public document premium information?

---

Check the accuracy/completness of the document. Source in premium is well sourced.

---

I'm not saying the $9m number is correct. I don't know what is correct. I'm saying the number is in the contract which is a public document. Anyone can look it up. If the source is citing a different number than the contract, the source is wrong. If the source is citing what is in the contract, it is publicly available info and should not be considered premium.

And no, the amount that we have to pay if we fire him is irrelevant unless they happened to agree it is the same, which I don't think is usual.

---

9 million is if WE fire him. The number if he walks is different and should be in the contract. I am telling you, the source is as best as we have on this site.

---

I'm not doubting the source. I'm simply saying the contract is public information and the buyout is in the contract. I acknowledged that people reading our buyout and assuming it is the same as Madsen's buyout are probably looking at the wrong part of the contract. I'm just saying that a "source" taking publicly available information and sharing it on a premium board does not make public information premium. I honestly don't care what the number is or I would track it down myself.

---

socaltownie said:

---

Now that someone posted it here I can confirm that the alum on this board that seems the closest of anyone to the inner workings of the department said 2 million. There is no pot of gold that cushions the blow from Madsen leaving and we are precisely back to square one.

Pasternack - here we come :-/ UCSB got any talent?

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Feels like he could be gone.

---

Calfan92 said:

---

No tears.

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

No tears.

---

Honestly I feel same.

---

HKBear97! said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

No tears.

---

Honestly I feel same.

---

Based on attendance, its not even about shedding tears, it seems hardly anyone will notice he's gone.

Speaking of attendance, looks like Cal averaged about 3,900 fans per game this season versus 8,600 for ASU, which was actually down for them. Aside from facilities, support, NIL, cost of living, taxes, etc., I'm sure playing in front of more people is another draw.

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

---

This is the same argument repeatedly made with respect to Justin Wilcox. "We have to extend him because if we don't, Cal will hire someone even worse."

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

Got two words for you.


HERB
SENDEK

Cause that is the sort of coach you will get. I want you ALL to be happy with that outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Sendek

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

Got two words for you.


HERB
SENDEK

Cause that is the sort of coach you will get. I want you ALL to be happy with that outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Sendek

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

Got two words for you.


HERB
SENDEK

Cause that is the sort of coach you will get. I want you ALL to be happy with that outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Sendek

---

I love you SoCal, but in one thread you acknowledge that we weren't that good and don't deserve to make the tournament and here you are portraying this as a disaster and, with no reason to believe that is the case, that we are getting Herb Sendek.

1. I don't believe the wonder twins are going to control this decision or the search.

2. We've gotten the results we've paid for. No more. No less. Madsen simply has not had results that make me concerned that I'm losing something great. It would be a big mistake to get in a bidding war for a coach who hasn't proven much in 3 years.

3. I don't think he is hard to replace.

4. We've had virtually no continuity under Madsen for 3 years and it is questionable we would have any next season.

Not looking to chase him off. Just saying no extraordinary measures.

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

---

This is the same argument repeatedly made with respect to Justin Wilcox. "We have to extend him because if we don't, Cal will hire someone even worse."

---

Except that is a BAD argument given data. We actually didn't do too bad for football hires. A stinker (holmoe) but then the other guys (White, Tedford, Sonny, Synder) were not bad.

But BB has show that we are AWFUL at it. Exhibit 1 and 2 are fox and jones. Monty doesn't count because of VERY unique circumstances. Before Camp a succession of really awful hires that fit the "cal" mode....as if being a coach at Yale prepared you for P5 hoops.

---

Monty does count, he just doesn't fit your argument.

Cal's history of hiring basketball coaches is not as bad as you suggest. Cal hired Braun, Monty, and Martin consecutively, and between them Cal made the NCAA tournament 11 times in 20 years. That's a better track record than Cal football had in the Dykes/Wilcox span of seasons or the Gilbertson/Mariucci/Holmoe span.

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

Got two words for you.


HERB
SENDEK

Cause that is the sort of coach you will get. I want you ALL to be happy with that outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Sendek

---

I love you SoCal, but in one thread you acknowledge that we weren't that good and don't deserve to make the tournament and here you are portraying this as a disaster and, with no reason to believe that is the case, that we are getting Herb Sendek.

1. I don't believe the wonder twins are going to control this decision or the search.

2. We've gotten the results we've paid for. No more. No less. Madsen simply has not had results that make me concerned that I'm losing something great. It would be a big mistake to get in a bidding war for a coach who hasn't proven much in 3 years.

3. I don't think he is hard to replace.

4. We've had virtually no continuity under Madsen for 3 years and it is questionable we would have any next season.

Not looking to chase him off. Just saying no extraordinary measures.

---

1. If not the wonder twins whom? I mean lyons had RR to help understand whether Wilcox needed to go and whether Tosh was the fit. But Lyons only has, on staff, the wonder twins.

2. I think in the modern era continuity is really hard but it SEEMS we are set to have it. RP, Ames, and Pippen are a solid core to build from. Then the bench guys returning. Possibly Dort if the $$$ is there. That all goes away.

3. Name another P4 coach with 20 wins that has NBA experience we could afford that isn't Fox like damaged goods. (see Herb).

---

stu said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

1. If not the wonder twins whom? I mean lyons had RR to help understand whether Wilcox needed to go and whether Tosh was the fit. But Lyons only has, on staff, the wonder twins.

---

I'm sure Charmin and Meghin know way more than Jay and Jenny.

Either way I think this thread is premature, kinda like our NCAA Tournament speculation.

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

---

This is the same argument repeatedly made with respect to Justin Wilcox. "We have to extend him because if we don't, Cal will hire someone even worse."

---

6956bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I have to say the people saying "It is OK. He isn't that good" are smoking some really good ***** Pass it on.

Because while he may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread you apparently believe that Jay and Jenny are going to be good stewards of a search.

---

This is the same argument repeatedly made with respect to Justin Wilcox. "We have to extend him because if we don't, Cal will hire someone even worse."

---

The football hire was made by the combo of Lyons and Rivera with a very strong dose of the key donors. Rivera is a very knowledgeable football person. And the guy they hired is a Cal alum. And we are beginning to see the fruits of that decision.

I am torn on who will actually run the basketball search should that be necessary. But I do think this situation is different from football. So Lyons would likely have to lean on someone not currently on the payroll for basketball expertise.

The donors will need to be on board with whoever they hire if they do in fact have to hire. I think there were some key donors that wanted Cal to hire others over Madsen. And that may be a at least part of why the donor NIL $ are not at the hoped to be level.

---