There have been a lot of comments on the BI about what kind of experience our next coach should have. Let's take a look at our history of selecting head basketball coaches:

Pete Newell Newell had won a National Championship at USF in 1949, but then went to Michigan State and did not do very well, going 45-42 over 4 years, finishing 7th, 5th, 3rd, and 8th in the Big 10. Cal took a chance hiring Pete, and believe me, there were a number of alums, students, and fans who were not happy with Cal hiring Pete Newell. He turned out to be the most successful coach in Cal history. Record 119-44.

Rene Herrerias - Rene had been a successful high school coach and a really key assistant for Newell in Cal's runs in '59 and '60. It was considered a no-brainer, especially with Newell's recommendation. Rene recruited some very talented players, but had problems relating to them, controlling them, and it affected his coaching. A big disappointment. Record 92-100.

Jim Padgett Padgett won the state JC title at San Jose CC, and was an assistant at Cal under Herrerias. He was an outstanding recruiter, but could not coach talented players. He was perhaps the least successful coach ever at Cal, considering the talent he had. Record 52-53

Dick Edwards - Edwards was a winner at UOP. He had several 20 game win seasons and went 168-72 in 9 years. He was considered a very good coach. He also was a disappointment at Cal. Record 73-85

Dick Kuchen Dick was an assistant in a good national program at Notre Dame and Digger Phelps for several years. In 1978, Kuchen was an assistant when Notre Dame went to the Final Four. There was a lot of hype when Kuchen was hired, but he turned out to be a disappointment at Cal. Record 80-112.

Lou Campanelli Lou went 238-118 at James Madison. Cal took a chance on Lou, but Cal wanted to bring some tough defense to the program. Lou had the recommendation of Rollie Massimino. There was considerable excitement when Cal began to play defense and beat UCLA for the first time in many years. He brought the defense, but little else, and was fired for personnel issues. Record 123-108.

Todd Bozeman Todd was a high school coach, and an assistant at George mason, Tulane, and at Cal for 3 years. A great recruiter with questionable ethics, who put our program on probation and left in disgrace. Record 35-63.

Ben Braun Ben had been head coach at Siena Heights and at Eastern Michigan for a total of 20 years. Cal took a chance with him, but what they wanted was to clean up the program and the image. It is to Braun's credit that he did that. Not a great coach, but he surprised with a good start, and ended up the best Cal coach since Newell to that point. Record 219-152.

Mike Montgomery Mike had been an assistant at Boise State for 4 years, and head coach at Montana for 8 years, where he managed to tie for the conference title once, and had one NIT appearance. So Stanford took a big risk hiring him, and it paid off, as he went 18 years with a good deal of success, several PCC titles and Final Four. He had failed with the Warriors of the NBA, but still most felt he would be a good fit for Cal. He had some success with a PCC title, but couldn't recruit well enough or overcome the myriad injuries the team had, and we were left a little disappointed in the end. Record 130-73.

So we have tried almost everything in our previous searches: A good head coach from a slightly lower level program (Edwards), good head coaches from lower level schools (Braun and Campanelli), successful major head coaches coming off some very down years (Newell and Montgomery), an assistant coach who was a starter on a national championship team and recommended by Newell (Herrerias), former Cal assistants who were great recruiters (Padgett and Bozeman), an assistant coach from a Final Four team (Kuchen).

From our experience, selecting a Cal assistant as our new head coach has not been the best choice so far, nor has naming assistants from top programs, or naming head coaches from minor schools or programs. It has been coaches who had been successful at the major level, who maybe were no longer high on everyone's radar, such as Newell and Montgomery, where we had success. We might want to begin looking at a coach with a similar record for a suitable replacement. Of course, there is always the chance you can find a diamond in the rough, like Shaka Smart, or Mike Montgomery, the head coach at Montana when Stanford hired him, with not a lot on the resume to recommend him.

Enjoyed your historical perspective. Agree that even an excellent recruiter can't expect the same results at Cal. Did TC take the lead in our current freshman recruits? If he did then his credentials should receive extra credit.:gobears:

The ranks of top-performing college basketball coaches are replete with guys who were hired as top assistant, many at their their respective schools -- from Tom Izzo to Jim Boeheim to Mark Few to (now) Kevin Ollie. Cal's relatively weak hoops history -- two Sweet 16s in the TV era -- provides few discernible patterns based on which to model this hire. In terms of the actual candidates on the board, Decuire looks like a clear choice to me if the alternatives are Russ Turner, Joe Pasternak or Ben Howland. :bear:

Thanks for that perspective.

Your history is interesting and illuminating (I assume your insistence on referring to the Pac-10 and Pac-12 as the PCC is just curmudgeonly). However, given the sample sizes, I don't think we can conclude anything useful about the current search. Connecticut went with an assistant and is in the NC game. Arizona took a mid-major head coach and won the P12. Ben Howland had been successful at a major program (Pitt) and wound up being fired at UCLA. In the end, it's the individual, not the specifics of his background.

SFCityBear;842301200 said:

---

There have been a lot of comments on the BI about what kind of experience our next coach should have. Let's take a look at our history of selecting head basketball coaches:

Pete Newell Newell had won a National Championship at USF in 1949, but then went to Michigan State and did not do very well, going 45-42 over 4 years, finishing 7th, 5th, 3rd, and 8th in the Big 10. Cal took a chance hiring Pete, and believe me, there were a number of alums, students, and fans who were not happy with Cal hiring Pete Newell. He turned out to be the most successful coach in Cal history. Record 119-44.

Rene Herrerias - Rene had been a successful high school coach and a really key assistant for Newell in Cal's runs in '59 and '60. It was considered a no-brainer, especially with Newell's recommendation. Rene recruited some very talented players, but had problems relating to them, controlling them, and it affected his coaching. A big disappointment. Record 92-100.

Jim Padgett Padgett won the state JC title at San Jose CC, and was an assistant at Cal under Herrerias. He was an outstanding recruiter, but could not coach talented players. He was perhaps the least successful coach ever at Cal, considering the talent he had. Record 52-53

Dick Edwards - Edwards was a winner at UOP. He had several 20 game win seasons and went 168-72 in 9 years. He was considered a very good coach. He also was a disappointment at Cal. Record 73-85

Dick Kuchen Dick was an assistant in a good national program at Notre Dame and Digger Phelps for several years. In 1978, Kuchen was an assistant when Notre Dame went to the Final Four. There was a lot of hype when Kuchen was hired, but he turned out to be a disappointment at Cal. Record 80-112.

Lou Campanelli Lou went 238-118 at James Madison. Cal took a chance on Lou, but Cal wanted to bring some tough defense to the program. Lou had the recommendation of Rollie Massimino. There was considerable excitement when Cal began to play defense and beat UCLA for the first time in many years. He brought the defense, but little else, and was fired for personnel issues. Record 123-108.

Todd Bozeman Todd was a high school coach, and an assistant at George mason, Tulane, and at Cal for 3 years. A great recruiter with questionable ethics, who put our program on probation and left in disgrace. Record 35-63.

Ben Braun Ben had been head coach at Siena Heights and at Eastern Michigan for a total of 20 years. Cal took a chance with him, but what they wanted was to clean up the program and the image. It is to Braun's credit that he did that. Not a great coach, but he surprised with a good start, and ended up the best Cal coach since Newell to that point. Record 219-152.

Mike Montgomery Mike had been an assistant at Boise State for 4 years, and head coach at Montana for 8 years, where he managed to tie for the conference title once, and had one NIT appearance. So Stanford took a big risk hiring him, and it paid off, as he went 18 years with a good deal of success, several PCC titles and Final Four. He had failed with the Warriors of the NBA, but still most felt he would be a good fit for Cal. He had some success with a PCC title, but couldn't recruit well enough or overcome the myriad injuries the team had, and we were left a little disappointed in the end. Record 130-73.

So we have tried almost everything in our previous searches: A good head coach from a slightly lower level program (Edwards), good head coaches from lower level schools (Braun and Campanelli), successful major head coaches coming off some very down years (Newell and Montgomery), an assistant coach who was a starter on a national championship team and recommended by Newell (Herrerias), former Cal assistants who were great recruiters (Padgett and Bozeman), an assistant coach from a Final Four team (Kuchen).

From our experience, selecting a Cal assistant as our new head coach has not been the best choice so far, nor has naming assistants from top programs, or naming head coaches from minor schools or programs. It has been coaches who had been successful at the major level, who maybe were no longer high on everyone's radar, such as Newell and Montgomery, where we had success. We might want to begin looking at a coach with a similar record for a suitable replacement. Of course, there is always the chance you can find a diamond in the rough, like Shaka Smart, or Mike Montgomery, the head coach at Montana when Stanford hired him, with not a lot on the resume to recommend him.

---

An obvious interpretation is that it is just rare to be a good head coach in the 'major leagues'. Hiring someone with a record of success in that role increases the chances you find someone good for your program. Of course there are program-specific issues that will also affect the outcome. I have to say that I have been dreading the loss of Montgomery, even if he is not perfect. The likelihood that we find someone as good is low. I've felt that those on this board hoping for him to leave or be replaced are clueless, and I still think so.

Interesting. So the three former Cal assistants that would take over the program(Herrerias, Padgett, Bozeman) all ended up with losing records. Four out of the five coaches that came with significant head coaching experience (Newell, Campanelli, Braun, Montgomery) all ended their career with winning records. I like the odds of going with someone with head coaching experience.

Not sure pointing to Kevin Ollie as a counter example is quite the same. He played in the NBA prior to only two seasons as an assistant. While in the NBA, it appears he was looked upon as a leader on the clubs he was a part of.

Of course, Bozeman actually had a winning record, but wins were forfeited because of violations.

Again, such a small sample provides no insight. Also, Campanelli, Braun, and Montgomery all coach in an era where it is virtually impossible for a decent team to have a losing record because of all the turkeys that are scheduled in the OOC.

http://summerbasketballcamp.com/Dick_Edwards/Dick_Edwards_2013.pdf

Bearprof;842301229 said:

---

An obvious interpretation is that it is just rare to be a good head coach in the 'major leagues'. Hiring someone with a record of success in that role increases the chances you find someone good for your program. Of course there are program-specific issues that will also affect the outcome. I have to say that I have been dreading the loss of Montgomery, even if he is not perfect. The likelihood that we find someone as good is low. I've felt that those on this board hoping for him to leave or be replaced are clueless, and I still think so.

---

Thanks for your brief, accurate summary.

Since no one half as good as Mike has coached Cal in the 48 years, since Newell, preceding Mike, what is the likelihood that we hire someone who is nearly as good as Mike now?

I am more than worried.

Go Bears!

MontyBear;842301221 said:

---

The ranks of top-performing college basketball coaches are replete with guys who were hired as top assistant, many at their their respective schools -- from Tom Izzo to Jim Boeheim to Mark Few to (now) Kevin Ollie. Cal's relatively weak hoops history -- two Sweet 16s in the TV era -- provides few discernible patterns based on which to model this hire. In terms of the actual candidates on the board, Decuire looks like a clear choice to me if the alternatives are Russ Turner, Joe Pasternak or Ben Howland. :bear:

---

Let's go through them:

Izzo was in the same position as DeCuire under Jed Heathcote but unlike Montgomery at Cal, Heathcote won a national championship

Boeheim took over for Danforth after Syracuse made the Final Four.

Few took over for Monson following an Elite Eight run

Ollie took over after helping UConn win the National Championship.

Notice a commonality that is not the same here at Cal with DeCuire?!

More importantly, the ranks of elite college coaches are not replete with guys who were elevated after being an assistant without head coaching experience. It's exactly the opposite. Those four are the EXCEPTIONS.

Look, I'm not against DeCuire becoming our head coach but I do believe he needs to be Option B if we strike out with lower risk, more proven candidates.

CalHoopFan;842301256 said:

---

Let's go through them:

Izzo was in the same position as DeCuire under Jed Heathcote but unlike Montgomery at Cal, Heathcote won a national championship

Boeheim took over for Danforth after Syracuse made the Final Four.

Few took over for Monson following an Elite Eight run

Ollie took over after helping UConn win the National Championship.

Notice a commonality that is not the same here at Cal with DeCuire?!

More importantly, the ranks of elite college coaches are not replete with guys who were elevated after being an assistant without head coaching experience. It's exactly the opposite. Those four are the EXCEPTIONS.

Look, I'm not against DeCuire becoming our head coach but I do believe he needs to be Option B if we strike out with lower risk, more proven candidates.

---

Again, am with you on this.

Go Bears!

CalHoopFan;842301256 said:

---

Let's go through them:

Izzo was in the same position as DeCuire under Jed Heathcote but unlike Montgomery at Cal, Heathcote won a national championship

Boeheim took over for Danforth after Syracuse made the Final Four.

Few took over for Monson following an Elite Eight run

Ollie took over after helping UConn win the National Championship.

Notice a commonality that is not the same here at Cal with DeCuire?!

More importantly, the ranks of elite college coaches are not replete with guys who were elevated after being an assistant without head coaching experience. It's exactly the opposite. Those four are the EXCEPTIONS.

Look, I'm not against DeCuire becoming our head coach but I do believe he needs to be Option B if we strike out with lower risk, more proven candidates.

---

There are obviously dozens of examples of assistants that are hired every year, some from within their own programs. Among the top jobs last year, New Mexico went the same route with Neal , and Butler hired an assistant from without. The list goes on and on and on. Again, I'd throw the question back at you. In very concrete, realistic terms Sandy and the admin will be choosing between a thin HC like Turner, damaged goods like Howland, or Decuire. Love to eat my words, but Marshall and Smart and Capel aint coming. The lists being put out by other websites are pure PR. Given these choices, I'd take my chances on Travis, who actually does bring some HC success to the table, and can hit the ground running in terms of support and live recruiting relationships. How about you?

I bleed blue and gold, but we are not and have never been a Top 25 program, not even in the Kidd era when our best NCAA seed was 5. Wilner is right: for a variety of reasons, many deeply cultural to the uni, Cal is a tough place to succeed. It's why we've had so little success in the revenue sports in the TV era.

CalHoopFan;842301256 said:

---

Let's go through them:

Izzo was in the same position as DeCuire under Jed Heathcote but unlike Montgomery at Cal, Heathcote won a national championship

Boeheim took over for Danforth after Syracuse made the Final Four.

Few took over for Monson following an Elite Eight run

Ollie took over after helping UConn win the National Championship.

Notice a commonality that is not the same here at Cal with DeCuire?!

More importantly, the ranks of elite college coaches are not replete with guys who were elevated after being an assistant without head coaching experience. It's exactly the opposite. Those four are the EXCEPTIONS.

Look, I'm not against DeCuire becoming our head coach but I do believe he needs to be Option B if we strike out with lower risk, more proven candidates.

---

I agree with this, but I don't believe Cal actually has an option A.

MontyBear;842301315 said:

---

There are obviously dozens of examples of assistants that are hired every year, some from within their own programs. Among the top jobs last year, New Mexico went the same route with Neal , and Butler hired an assistant from without. The list goes on and on and on. Again, I'd throw the question back at you. In very concrete, realistic terms Sandy and the admin will be choosing between a thin HC like Turner, damaged goods like Howland, or Decuire. Love to eat my words, but Marshall and Smart and Capel aint coming. The lists being put out by other websites are pure PR. Given these choices, I'd take my chances on Travis, who actually does bring some HC success to the table, and can hit the ground running in terms of support and live recruiting relationships. How about you?

I bleed blue and gold, but we are not and have never been a Top 25 program, not even in the Kidd era when our best NCAA seed was 5. Wilner is right: for a variety of reasons, many deeply cultural to the uni, Cal is a tough place to succeed. It's why we've had so little success in the revenue sports in the TV era.

---

A truly great one. You may be right that the obvious ones aren't coming. Cal is not a top 25 program currently and the academic profile makes things more difficult if all a coach wants is to win. But that doesn't mean we can't find a great one. It will require great evaluation skills and some luck.

Perhaps DeCuire is that coach, though IMO he's a risky hire relative to the 8-12 other young, smart, well respected coaches who have already punched their ticket as a head coach. You can see my specific suggestions (which is certainly far from exhaustive) in another thread.

I have a view that Cal can easily be a top 25 program. I think our proximity to great recruits, our NBA legacy, our beautiful urban campus and our recent success in a great conference all lay the foundation for that to happen. What we need is a coach who shares that vision and has the recruiting and teaching tools to fulfill it.

I'm not interested in being "okay" or seeing a half full Haas Pavilion more often than not. I'm tired of being a bubble team. I want to watch great basketball with future NBA talent like we've seen in the past. From KJ to Kidd to Powe to Anderson and now Guitterez, Cal can attract the very best.

CalHoopFan;842301319 said:

---

From KJ to Kidd to Powe to Anderson and now Guitterez, Cal can attract the very best.

---

Calhoopfan, I love your takes. But I have to say, you just named five players spanning thirty years, and only two of those were consensus HS AAs. UCLA will probably put THREE players in the first round this year, and if you listen to their fans, they had to settle for table scraps with Alford, whose coaching acumen is going to be put severely to the test with the departure of Howland's last class.

CalHoopFan;842301256 said:

---

Let's go through them:

Izzo was in the same position as DeCuire under Jed Heathcote but unlike Montgomery at Cal, Heathcote won a national championship

Boeheim took over for Danforth after Syracuse made the Final Four.

Few took over for Monson following an Elite Eight run

Ollie took over after helping UConn win the National Championship.

Notice a commonality that is not the same here at Cal with DeCuire?!

More importantly, the ranks of elite college coaches are not replete with guys who were elevated after being an assistant without head coaching experience. It's exactly the opposite. Those four are the EXCEPTIONS.

Look, I'm not against DeCuire becoming our head coach but I do believe he needs to be Option B if we strike out with lower risk, more proven candidates.

---

You focus on where the program was, but I'd focus on who they coached under. Montgomery is a coach who has gone to the Final Four and is a great teacher. I think that should count for something.

SFCityBear;842301200 said:

---

There have been a lot of comments on the BI about what kind of experience our next coach should have. Let's take a look at our history of selecting head basketball coaches:

Pete Newell Newell had won a National Championship at USF in 1949, but then went to Michigan State and did not do very well, going 45-42 over 4 years, finishing 7th, 5th, 3rd, and 8th in the Big 10. Cal took a chance hiring Pete, and believe me, there were a number of alums, students, and fans who were not happy with Cal hiring Pete Newell. He turned out to be the most successful coach in Cal history. Record 119-44.

Rene Herrerias - Rene had been a successful high school coach and a really key assistant for Newell in Cal's runs in '59 and '60. It was considered a no-brainer, especially with Newell's recommendation. Rene recruited some very talented players, but had problems relating to them, controlling them, and it affected his coaching. A big disappointment. Record 92-100.

Jim Padgett Padgett won the state JC title at San Jose CC, and was an assistant at Cal under Herrerias. He was an outstanding recruiter, but could not coach talented players. He was perhaps the least successful coach ever at Cal, considering the talent he had. Record 52-53

Dick Edwards - Edwards was a winner at UOP. He had several 20 game win seasons and went 168-72 in 9 years. He was considered a very good coach. He also was a disappointment at Cal. Record 73-85

Dick Kuchen Dick was an assistant in a good national program at Notre Dame and Digger Phelps for several years. In 1978, Kuchen was an assistant when Notre Dame went to the Final Four. There was a lot of hype when Kuchen was hired, but he turned out to be a disappointment at Cal. Record 80-112.

Lou Campanelli Lou went 238-118 at James Madison. Cal took a chance on Lou, but Cal wanted to bring some tough defense to the program. Lou had the recommendation of Rollie Massimino. There was considerable excitement when Cal began to play defense and beat UCLA for the first time in many years. He brought the defense, but little else, and was fired for personnel issues. Record 123-108.

Todd Bozeman Todd was a high school coach, and an assistant at George mason, Tulane, and at Cal for 3 years. A great recruiter with questionable ethics, who put our program on probation and left in disgrace. Record 35-63.

Ben Braun Ben had been head coach at Siena Heights and at Eastern Michigan for a total of 20 years. Cal took a chance with him, but what they wanted was to clean up the program and the image. It is to Braun's credit that he did that. Not a great coach, but he surprised with a good start, and ended up the best Cal coach since Newell to that point. Record 219-152.

Mike Montgomery Mike had been an assistant at Boise State for 4 years, and head coach at Montana for 8 years, where he managed to tie for the conference title once, and had one NIT appearance. So Stanford took a big risk hiring him, and it paid off, as he went 18 years with a good deal of success, several PCC titles and Final Four. He had failed with the Warriors of the NBA, but still most felt he would be a good fit for Cal. He had some success with a PCC title, but couldn't recruit well enough or overcome the myriad injuries the team had, and we were left a little disappointed in the end. Record 130-73.

So we have tried almost everything in our previous searches: A good head coach from a slightly lower level program (Edwards), good head coaches from lower level schools (Braun and Campanelli), successful major head coaches coming off some very down years (Newell and Montgomery), an assistant coach who was a starter on a national championship team and recommended by Newell (Herrerias), former Cal assistants who were great recruiters (Padgett and Bozeman), an assistant coach from a Final Four team (Kuchen).

From our experience, selecting a Cal assistant as our new head coach has not been the best choice so far, nor has naming assistants from top programs, or naming head coaches from minor schools or programs. It has been coaches who had been successful at the major level, who maybe were no longer high on everyone's radar, such as Newell and Montgomery, where we had success. We might want to begin looking at a coach with a similar record for a suitable replacement. Of course, there is always the chance you can find a diamond in the rough, like Shaka Smart, or Mike Montgomery, the head coach at Montana when Stanford hired him, with not a lot on the resume to recommend him.

---

Historically technically accurate, but Bozeman was more successful on the court than the official won/loss record. You also say Stanford took a risk in hiring Montgomery, but I don't agree with that at all. Their program was nowhere and getting a head coach from a smaller school was no big risk at all. In any event, I don't think this history means a thing in terms of predicting success from any particular type of hire. It's too small a sample size, and there are many examples outside of Cal of various types of hires working. The key is to identify the right individual to fit this job at this university at this time, not to locate a type and hire it.

UrsaMajor;842301226 said:

---

Your history is interesting and illuminating (I assume your insistence on referring to the Pac-10 and Pac-12 as the PCC is just curmudgeonly). However, given the sample sizes, I don't think we can conclude anything useful about the current search. Connecticut went with an assistant and is in the NC game. Arizona took a mid-major head coach and won the P12. Ben Howland had been successful at a major program (Pitt) and wound up being fired at UCLA. In the end, it's the individual, not the specifics of his background.

---

I am curmudgeonly, no doubt, but that wasn't the reason I called the conference "the PCC". There have been several conferences, the PCC (and Southern and Northern Divisions), plus the AAWU, the PAC8, the PAC10, and now the PAC12, and I wanted to simplify things with one name to indicate all of them together. Maybe I should have picked PAC, but that would leave out PCC and AAWU.

south bender;842301254 said:

---

Since no one half as good as Mike has coached Cal in the 48 years, since Newell, preceding Mike, what is the likelihood that we hire someone who is nearly as good as Mike now?

Go Bears!

---

Slim to nonexistent. Especially with Sandy Barbour doing the hiring. I'm also very worried.

bluesaxe;842301326 said:

---

Historically technically accurate, but Bozeman was more successful on the court than the official won/loss record. You also say Stanford took a risk in hiring Montgomery, but I don't agree with that at all. Their program was nowhere and getting a head coach from a smaller school was no big risk at all. In any event, I don't think this history means a thing in terms of predicting success from any particular type of hire. It's too small a sample size, and there are many examples outside of Cal of various types of hires working. The key is to identify the right individual to fit this job at this university at this time, not to locate a type and hire it.

---

What was Bozeman's record without the forfeits? By my math (and wikipedia) he was 63-35.

Not that I would ever want anyone like him to coach Cal again - I am just trying recover my memory. Its not like Gardner won us many games anyway.

bluesaxe;842301326 said:

---

Historically technically accurate, but Bozeman was more successful on the court than the official won/loss record. You also say Stanford took a risk in hiring Montgomery, but I don't agree with that at all. Their program was nowhere and getting a head coach from a smaller school was no big risk at all. In any event, I don't think this history means a thing in terms of predicting success from any particular type of hire. It's too small a sample size, and there are many examples outside of Cal of various types of hires working. The key is to identify the right individual to fit this job at this university at this time, not to locate a type and hire it.

---

I think you’ve made the point I was trying to make. I started the thread because I was reading posts in support of many coaches with all sorts of diverse backgrounds, and posts dismissing coaches of other diverse backgrounds. It seems to me that you can only go so far in using a coach’s background to define what kind of a coach he would make in the special circumstances that are present at Cal. It all depends initially on how the people who hire him feel he will fit in at Cal. Then it will depend on how he relates to the administration, his players and his assistants, and finally on how he relates to the players he eventually recruits. Cal has proven to be a difficult place to recruit players to play, and a tough conference to win in, when most of the schools in it may not have academic and ethical standards equal to your own. I was trying to say there are many paths to becoming a good prospective head coach, ad no one path is necessarily better than any other at every school.

I don’t agree that the sample size is small, in the sense that it is all we have. It is Cal’s only sample. It is our record of how we have done in the past. The only times we have been successful in hiring basketball coaches is when we hired men who were teachers first, not recruiters, but successful head coaches, and men who were coming off some down years. That does not mean we can not be successful doing it differently this time. But since we are not Kentucky, we had best pay attention to coaches who look like they can do more with less, the teachers of the game.

I actually see our coaching hire today as very similar to when Montgomery was hired at Stanford. Stanford has a great tradition in basketball, and one of their best players ever, Howie Dallmar from their 1942 NCAA Champs, came back to Stanford and coached there for 21 years. Stanford won their last Conference title under Dallmar in 1963. In 1969, Dalmar and Stanford began a long 8-year drought, going 66-126, until Dallmar retired and was replaced by Dick DiBiaso, a former Notre Dame assistant coach. Under DiBiaso, the drought continued for 7 more years, with a record of 68-120, and Stanford’s highest finish in the conference was 7th place. Stanford then hired Tom Davis, who had been at Boston College for 5 years, and during that time had one conference title, an Elite finish, and a Sweet 16 finish. He turned Stanford around, so to speak, and started the program in the right direction. No easy task, and Davis did not do as well at Stanford as he did before or after, but he did turn things around. In 1984, his team won 19 games, the most wins in over 20 years. Stanford was 58-59 in his reign. He left for Iowa, where his record in 13 years was 269-140, with 9 NCAA appearances, including an Elite 8 and two Sweet 16’s, and two NITs. He left a Stanford roster which included stars Todd Lichti, Howard Wright, and Greg Butler, a nucleus around which Mike Montgomery would build his first Stanford team. So I don’t think Stanford had de-emphasized or given up on basketball to the point where hiring a small college coach would not have been somewhat risky. Stanford was on the rise, not to the point where Cal is today, but the program was no longer in the tank playing meaningless games with little hope of winning many. There were good young players on the roster to start with just there are like at Cal today. Montgomery has moved our program to a point where we compete for the PAC title. Now we need to go the rest of the way.

Stanford then hired Tom Davis, who had been at Boston College for 5 years, and during that time had one conference title, an Elite finish, and a Sweet 16 finish. He turned Stanford around, so to speak, and started the program in the right direction. No easy task, and Davis did not do as well at Stanford as he did before or after, but he did turn things around. In 1984, his team won 19 games, the most wins in over 20 years. Stanford was 58-59 in his reign. He left for Iowa, where his record in 13 years was 269-140, with 9 NCAA appearances, including an Elite 8 and two Sweet 16's, and two NITs. He left a Stanford roster which included stars Todd Lichti, Howard Wright, and Greg Butler, a nucleus around which Mike Montgomery would build his first Stanford team.

We have had discussions in these threads about whether Cal is considered a graveyard for basketball coaches. As I recall, Davis basically bashed Stanford on the way out the door, saying he was leaving because the school's admission policies didn't allow him to get the talent he thought he needed to get the team to the next level. In effect, Stanford had to get a lesser name at that point, because Davis had ensured that no established coach would take over. There was similar feeling in Trent Johnson's departure for LSU.

Although it's not explicit, I believe Cal is in about the same position, because its facilities are weaker than our peers, and because there's plenty of evidence that the campus administration, the faculty and the student body are all that supportive of football and basketball. I just don't think Smart, Few, et. al. look at Cal and see the ability to get the program to the next level (regular Sweet 16 and higher runs in the tournament.) That leaves us looking at lesser names, which is why Travis probably will be hired.