Update, 2:45 p.m. Tuesday: Well, the first returns are in. The Golden State Warriors' decision to fire head coach Mark Jackson is wildly unpopular with fans, or at least among those active in social media.
An SFGate poll — totally unscientific but full of popular sentiment — asks, "Do you think Mark Jackson should have been fired?" Results so far: Yes, 20 percent; No, 80 percent. And yeah, Twitter is nearly unanimous on the question: What a stupid move by the Warriors' front office.
Why did management get rid of Jackson after a highly successful three-year tenure? Here's what the pundits say:
Rusty Simmons, San Francisco Chronicle: Golden State fires Mark Jackson
Jackson, who had one season left on his contract, turned around the franchise’s losing ways, but he also turned off many in management during the process.
For every player who has publicly backed Jackson, there is someone among the Warriors’ brass who has beefed with the coach during his three seasons with Golden State. ...
... There were two shady situations within the coaching staff this season, one leading to the demotion of assistant Brian Scalabrine and the other leading to the firing of assistant Darren Erman. The Warriors’ management is high on both of the assistants and wanted Jackson to hire an experienced X’s-and-O’s guy going forward.
Jackson refused, much like he did when most anyone made suggestions that were against his way of thinking. The coach wouldn’t move fulltime to the Bay Area, instead basing his family out of Southern California – where he and his wife lead a non-denominational church. ...
Monte Poole, CSN Bay Area: Five factors in decision to fire Mark Jackson
Among the reason's Poole cites: Jackson's coaching methods came under scrutiny by many, including [Warriors owner Joe] Lacob, who considers himself a student of the game. Fans sitting near the CEO at Warriors games have overheard him expressing his disapproval of some of Jackson's strategies. Was this a case of an owner getting too involved? Or was it an owner who is convinced another coach could coax more from the current roster?
Ray Ratto, CSN Bay Area: Lacob's warning to future Warriors coach: It's personal
Joe Lacob wins, as we all knew he would. The only surprise is that he was in this much of a hurry to, in the apocryphal words of King Henry II toward Thomas Becket, “rid himself of this turbulent priest.”
That is the only religious reference we will make to Tuesday’s summary dismissal of head coach Mark Jackson, even though it may have been an ancillary reason why Jackson was fired. A matter of “focus,” we will be told.
And we follow it with the only words of praise we will have for the idea of Jackson being canned, namely:
At least Lacob didn’t make the mistake of lingering over a decision he’d made awhile ago. He stopped liking Jackson, and he didn’t wait around to sample the electorate, he wanted him gone, and he was -- swiftly, and with blood.
But Jackson’s firing is very much Lacob at his most Steinbrennarian -- putting himself and his perception of the Warriors in their present state before all other considerations. It is personality-driven, because it cannot be performance-driven unless you believe the Warriors should have won 58 games instead of 51, and should have beaten the Los Angeles Clippers without their starting center.
Nobody else believes that, and if Lacob does, or he feels Jackson does more harm to the franchise by staying, he has given in to his own hubris. And owners with hubris almost always find themselves hoisted on their own petard.
Marcus Thompson II, Bay Area News Group: Jackson, Lacob personality clash was too much for Warriors
It's done. Mark Jackson has been fired.
The Warriors know they are going to take a public relations hit. They knew the nuance of their decision would be lost on most people, especially those outside of their fan base. They knew the face of their franchise would be unhappy. They knew they may have to take a step back to move forward. But they fired Mark Jackson anyway.
That's how convinced they were they had to move on. Time will tell if it is a mistake or not. Certainly, they had better nail the next coach or this will go down as the day Joe Lacob will never live down. But, as gleaned from multiple sources, this was a move they felt that they had to make. Reconciliation wasn't possible. And the decision largely came down to off-the-court issues.
Jackson's take on the whole affair?