Will those of you on this board complain that we sunk a bunch of $ into paying for a Search Firm when the candidate was right under our noses, or will you consider that this is a good expenditure to assure us all that we turned over every rock in an effort to locate the best fit?

I'm OK with it provided that Sandy is not just using the Search Firm to cover her a#$. If we were constrained by the amount that we could pay, and were fairly sure that TD was the guy, it would have impressed me to have Sandy stand up and own her decision right off the bat.

RollOn;842301985 said:

---

Will those of you on this board complain that we sunk a bunch of $ into paying for a Search Firm when the candidate was right under our noses, or will you consider that this is a good expenditure to assure us all that we turned over every rock in an effort to locate the best fit?

I'm OK with it provided that Sandy is not just using the Search Firm to cover her a#$. If we were constrained by the amount that we could pay, and were fairly sure that TD was the guy, it would have impressed me to have Sandy stand up and own her decision right off the bat.

---

Of course you pay it. You have to have a third party in these situations sound out candidates. I also would be SHOCKED if they paid $250,000 for a week's work. Probably a 1/5 of that plus expenses (MAYBE).

Good luck finding out

it's called due diligance.

You need a search firm to tell you to hire someone internal with no coaching experience? Sorry, this stupidity is not the result of a search firm. It begins and ends with those retaining the search firm

GB54;842301998 said:

---

You need a search firm to tell you to hire someone internal with no coaching experience? Sorry, this stupidity is not the result of a search firm. It begins and ends with those retaining the search firm

---

No, you need a third party to contact potential candidates to find out if there's interest while allowing them to say they haven't spoken to Cal about the job, even if the search firm and their agent are discussing details. So sure, if you never had any intention of taking a shot at a hot young head coach somewhere and were going to hire internally all along no matter who else was interested, you wouldn't need one. Otherwise it's hard to do without that kind of intermediary these days. Plus they have a lot of information about salaries and the like that might not be readily available.

GB54;842301998 said:

---

You need a search firm to tell you to hire someone internal with no coaching experience? Sorry, this stupidity is not the result of a search firm. It begins and ends with those retaining the search firm

---

It's also like an investment manager going through pie charts and graphs, telling you what portion of the portfolio should go to what. You know you could have just bought the Vanguard balanced life fund targeted for 20 years without paying the outrageous fees of an IM, but if you are a fiduciary for a benefit plan or company, you have to answer to your participants to tell them you did your DD. Without that, they can accuse you individually for any kind of failing (including e.g. saying that you had a conflict of interest in selecting Vanguard because you own a substantial amount of shares in your personal account, etc.).

bluesaxe;842302000 said:

---

No, you need a third party to contact potential candidates to find out if there's interest while allowing them to say they haven't spoken to Cal about the job, even if the search firm and their agent are discussing details. So sure, if you never had any intention of taking a shot at a hot young head coach somewhere and were going to hire internally all along no matter who else was interested, you wouldn't need one. Otherwise it's hard to do without that kind of intermediary these days. Plus they have a lot of information about salaries and the like that might not be readily available.

---

Exactly. You need to find out if there is a better candidate out there than your internal candidate and thrid parties are the only way to do that effectively. If we end up hiring Travis, we will[U] more[/U] than make up the expense by not having to buy out an existing contract.

I once hired a search firm for a VP of Sales job and then ended up hiring someone I had known 25 years ago (at Cal !). I felt bad about the fee for about 5 minutes. After interviewing the half dozen qualified search candidates, it was obviously to me and my team that my acquaintance was the right hire.

KoreAmBear;842302003 said:

---

It's also like an investment manager going through pie charts and graphs, telling you what portion of the portfolio should go to what. You know you could have just bought the Vanguard balanced life fund targeted for 20 years without paying the outrageous fees of an IM, but if you are a fiduciary for a benefit plan or company, you have to answer to your participants to tell them you did your DD. Without that, they can accuse you individually for any kind of failing (including e.g. saying that you had a conflict of interest in selecting Vanguard because you own a substantial amount of shares in your personal account, etc.).

---

Yes and no. If the investment manager doesn't know the product line, the players or about investing it's a less effective process. There is a difference between covering your ass and being strategic.

RJABear;842302013 said:

---

I once hired a search firm for a VP of Sales job and then ended up hiring someone I had known 25 years ago (at Cal !). I felt bad about the fee for about 5 minutes. After interviewing the half dozen qualified search candidates, it was obviously to me and my team that my acquaintance was the right hire.

---

Exactly, but at least by going through the process you verify for yourself and, more importantly, your team could see that the person got the job because they were the best candidate, not because they were your acquaintance.

Plus TD's starting salary is likely to be lower than a "name" hire and no relocation costs. He is clearly the bargain candidate.

If he's named coach, I'd be extrememly disappointed that we hired a guy who most recently was the assistant on an under-acheiving and inconsistent team..

If TD is the new coach, it will be a joyless hire that won't fill any seats and will maintain the current trajectory of mediocrity. (Hope I'm wrong.)

Exactly what element of the current program are we so desperate to maintain - the lousy recruiting, the sluggish start to all the games including home games, or a mediocre season when in our peak year (Solomon, Cobbs, Kravish) six Pac teams went to the tourney and Cal was not one of them? Where is the excellence we want to maintain where apparently the best available assistant to promote to the big bucks just happens to be in our backyard?

How about some excitement - a fresh start. I guess TD benefits from being hired after Dykes where anything looks like a genius hire.

bigcocoon007;842302072 said:

---

if he's named head coach, i'd be extremely disappointed that we hired a guy who was the associate head coach on an inconsistent (sometimes over-achieving, sometimes under-achieving) team.

---

fify

bigcocoon007;842302072 said:

---

If he's named coach, I'd be extrememly disappointed that we hired a guy who most recently was the assistant on an under-acheiving and inconsistent team..

---

How are they underachieving? The press picked em 5th. That sounds right. We also had our starting PG out almost the entire practice period before the real games and lots our starting 3 for big chunks of the season. 2 frosh played major minutes and another 2 were in the rotation till the end. Our starting Center was, well....a bit of a head case and was that way his entire time at Cal (love your Richard - but knocking self out on Door frame? Really?)

The unknown is can TD recruit without the baggage of Monty or was Monty pulling extra weight for TD? Who knows. I saw roll the dice now that Few, Smart, and Greg Marshall have all supposedly said no.

If Sandy had hired Travis a week ago without any search, everyone on this board (including the OP, no doubt) would be screaming bloody murder that she didn't even do any kind of search. Now that we have conducted a search and IF she decides on Travis, there is screaming about her having hired a firm. I know she is hated on this Board, but lets not trash EVERYTHING that is done just out of habit. FWIW, if you are going to conduct a search, you NEED a firm to do the initial "feeling out." Currently employed coaches won't respond to direct contacts. Perhaps we really did want Few or Smart, or Marshall and they weren't willing to come (gee, never thought of that). Now the decision may be that Travis is the best choice. Why is that so strange?

SmellinRoses;842302073 said:

---

If TD is the new coach, it will be a joyless hire that won't fill any seats and will maintain the current trajectory of mediocrity. (Hope I'm wrong.)

Exactly what element of the current program are we so desperate to maintain - the lousy recruiting, the sluggish start to all the games including home games, or a mediocre season when in our peak year (Solomon, Cobbs, Kravish) six Pacs teams went to the tourney and Cal was not one of them? Where is the excellence we want to maintain where apparently the best available assistant to promote to the big bucks just happens to be in our backyard?

How about some excitement - a fresh start. I guess TD benefits from being hired after Dykes where anything looks like a genius hire.

---

Do you really think hiring Turner would bring excitement? The fans would come out in droves to see Pasternack coach?

If we hire DeCuire, it will be because he is the best candidate, not to "preserve continuity."

I for one will be happy if DeCuire is hired and will be looking forward to next season.

The excitement comes primarily from recruiting better players. Know little of Turner.

Just don't believe Decuire is the best assistant out there - just don't buy it - especially when current results are mediocre.

SmellinRoses;842302083 said:

---

The excitement comes primarily from recruiting better players. Know little of Turner.

Just don't believe Decuire is the best assistant out there - just don't buy it - especially when current results are mediocre.

---

But DeCuire has been the one bringing the relatively few top 100 players to Cal and that's with not getting great help from his head coach.

calumnus;842302080 said:

---

Do you really think hiring Turner would bring excitement? The fans would come out in droves to see Pasternack coach?

If we hire DeCuire, it will be because he is the best candidate, not to "preserve continuity."

I for one will be happy if DeCuire is hired and will be looking forward to next season.

---

I'm not totally against DeCuire, because IMO I have no way of knowing if he has the characteristics of a coach I think should be hired, but this statement shows a lot more confidence in Cal's hiring practices than I think history shows they deserve. How do you know it would be because he is the best candidate vs. continuity? Or the fact that he is cheap? Or that they lazily follow Monty's advice? Or that since he is here he "understands Cal" (which essentially = continuity). There have been plenty of times in Cal's history where best candidate did not seem to be the number 1 priority.

If DeCuire were coaching at any other school right now would he even be interviewed? You know the answer is "no" and that implies continuity is playing a big role.

I fully admit that DeCuire might be the right guy. However, there are wrong reasons to hire DeCuire. There may also be right reasons to hire him. Admittedly, I just don't have the confidence in Sandy right now to believe that if that is the decision she makes she will do it for the right reasons.

socaltownie;842302075 said:

---

How are they underachieving? The press picked em 5th. That sounds right. We also had our starting PG out almost the entire practice period before the real games and lots our starting 3 for big chunks of the season. 2 frosh played major minutes and another 2 were in the rotation till the end. Our starting Center was, well....a bit of a head case and was that way his entire time at Cal (love your Richard - but knocking self out on Door frame? Really?)

The unknown is can TD recruit without the baggage of Monty or was Monty pulling extra weight for TD? Who knows. I saw roll the dice now that Few, Smart, and Greg Marshall have all supposedly said no.

---

We were probably the most experienced team in the conference. A lot of guys returned from a team that was coming off of back-to-back tournament appearances. We under-achieved losing to USC, UCSB, and UTAH at home..The talent and experience was there. The execution was lacking.

GB54;842301998 said:

---

You need a search firm to tell you to hire someone internal with no coaching experience? Sorry, this stupidity is not the result of a search firm. It begins and ends with those retaining the search firm

---

This is true in business too. Recruiting firms are only as good as the company retaining them.

So either Sandy sucks at recruiting coaches or Cal really is seen as a coaching graveyard, no halfway decent coach wants the job and we're stuck praying our assistant can squeak us into the NIT.

yay

gobearswhopee

SFBearz;842302087 said:

---

But DeCuire has been the one bringing the relatively few top 100 players to Cal and that's with not getting great help from his head coach.

---

This is the impression I get as well. I think our recruiting would improve with Decuire in charge. There is only so much he can do as an assistant but most comments about his recruiting have been encouraging. Most successful college head coaches are tireless recruiters and Monty had very little interest in playing that game. It's hard to demonstrate to a recruit how much of a priority they are to your program when your head coach doesn't show up to their school or attend high school games or the AAU circuit etc. I bet Sean Miller attends 5x more AAU and high school games than Monty does in a season. I haven't heard of any reason to think Decuire won't be willing to dig up his sleeves and even that playing field which hopefully will provide tangible results in the quality of recruits he can land.

bigcocoon007;842302099 said:

---

We were probably the most experienced team in the conference. A lot of guys returned from a team that was coming off of back-to-back tournament appearances. We under-achieved losing to USC, UCSB, and UTAH at home..The talent and experience was there. The execution was lacking.

---

Nope. We had frosh in key roles all over the place and lost our number 1 scorer. We had NO backup at the 4 or 5 - limiting all year what we could do. And I chuckle at the idea that we had more experience than Furd - who started I think all upper classmen....or ASU.

Yes. We had some frustrating losses. The USC was the worst. But we were a lot closer to our ceiling than our floor - suggesting that Monty once again got what he could from the talent that he had.

BeachyBear;842302101 said:

---

.....or Cal really is seen as a coaching graveyard, no halfway decent coach wants the job

---

that is the bigger issue and one that the whales and the Chancellor need to think long and hard about. If we are going to actually compete (and not have IA be a fiscal black hole) that has to change - at least to the extent that the negative are within the control of the powers that be.

BTW - we need to get this done by Friday. April 16th is the first day of the Spring Signing period and we REALLY need the Austrian or else we are going to have to hire Don Nelson and teach the guys how to play smurf ball.

UrsaMajor;842302076 said:

---

If Sandy had hired Travis a week ago without any search, everyone on this board (including the OP, no doubt) would be screaming bloody murder that she didn't even do any kind of search. Now that we have conducted a search and IF she decides on Travis, there is screaming about her having hired a firm. I know she is hated on this Board, but lets not trash EVERYTHING that is done just out of habit. FWIW, if you are going to conduct a search, you NEED a firm to do the initial "feeling out." Currently employed coaches won't respond to direct contacts. Perhaps we really did want Few or Smart, or Marshall and they weren't willing to come (gee, never thought of that). Now the decision may be that Travis is the best choice. Why is that so strange?

---

My argument is that TD has been mentioned as an heir apparent for awhile now and Sandy has had ample time to monitor him and gain a level of comfort with him. Certainly she has thoughts about his ability to lead this program. If it ends up being TD I have no problem with the hire - my only critique would be that the Search firm seems like an effort to justify that we couldn't land Gregg Marshall or Shaka Smart, or whoever else is on the wish list. Contrary to your post - I would have been more impressed if we had immediately named TD as coach right after the Monty presser. It would have shown that Cal had a plan in place to move forward after Monty's departure. Or do you really think that Barbour was completely blindsided by the retirement? If so, then that is another conversation altogether....

RollOn;842302119 said:

---

My argument is that TD has been mentioned as an heir apparent for awhile now and Sandy has had ample time to monitor him and gain a level of comfort with him. Certainly she has thoughts about his ability to lead this program. If it ends up being TD I have no problem with the hire - my only critique would be that the Search firm seems like an effort to justify that we couldn't land Gregg Marshall or Shaka Smart, or whoever else is on the wish list. Contrary to your post - I would have been more impressed if we had immediately named TD as coach right after the Monty presser. It would have shown that Cal had a plan in place to move forward after Monty's departure. Or do you really think that Barbour was completely blindsided by the retirement? If so, then that is another conversation altogether....

---

Good point and better expressed than I in my "bashing thread". I mean if you are not happy with Travis than you should be prepared and ready to make a monster hire. So much of what Sandy does in the searches from revenue sport coaches seems improvising. Good ADs have plans in place months (if not YEARS) for their big sports.

That was the day Monty retired. We had just come off a nice little 5-0 start to conference play. He figured this would be a nice way to go out. He secretly told the AD and the remainder of the season was a double-secret test for Travis Decuire.

At that point, Cal went 7-10 - never winning more than two in a row the rest of the way. Unfortunately, no one told Travis, so he was trying to support Monty who seemed to have lost his spark for the game.

The AD - uninspired by .412 winning percentage and feeling Travis failed his test - needed to engage a search firm to get the best coach out there. When no one came a knockin' she went back to plan A. My guess is that she will announce Travis Decuire as the INTERIM coach later this week. Andy Buh will be named Director of basketball Operations.

:p

OaktownBear;842302098 said:

---

I'm not totally against DeCuire, because IMO I have no way of knowing if he has the characteristics of a coach I think should be hired, but this statement shows a lot more confidence in Cal's hiring practices than I think history shows they deserve. How do you know it would be because he is the best candidate vs. continuity? Or the fact that he is cheap? Or that they lazily follow Monty's advice? Or that since he is here he "understands Cal" (which essentially = continuity). There have been plenty of times in Cal's history where best candidate did not seem to be the number 1 priority.

If DeCuire were coaching at any other school right now would he even be interviewed? You know the answer is "no" and that implies continuity is playing a big role.

I fully admit that DeCuire might be the right guy. However, there are wrong reasons to hire DeCuire. There may also be right reasons to hire him. Admittedly, I just don't have the confidence in Sandy right now to believe that if that is the decision she makes she will do it for the right reasons.

---

And I don't trust Sandy's judgement enough to trust her hiring someone other than DeCuire or a big name like Few or Smart.

I trust longtime coaches like Montgomery and Mathews, the players and recruits like Rorie.

I know Mike Montgomery well enough to know he isn't going to make someone his Associate Head Coach and let them stand and coach his team during games while he sits on the bench with his arms folded if he did not really respect the guy's basketball knowledge and ability to motivate the players (perhaps even acknowledging he was better at it). He just wouldn't. It is still his reputation on the line. If you have seen any of his press conferences you would know he does not suffer fools. He thinks very highly of Travis and of that I am sure. Thus, all indications from Monty are that DeCuire is a very good coach and knows basketball, maybe as well as Monty.

Now combine that with the fact that he is very well liked by players and recruits. Known for his integrity and loyalty. Still relatively young and energetic, but now will put that energy into building his own program. Knows the local and West Coast recruiting scene. I would expect a major improvement in recruiting and team motivation.

Bottom line is all info indicates he would be a solid hire.

OaktownBear;842302098 said:

---

If DeCuire were coaching at any other school right now would he even be interviewed? You know the answer is "no" and that implies continuity is playing a big role.

---

It may be more than just continuity. It could also be that the admin. knows TD better than if he were an assistant at another school. I would think it'd much easier to identify a diamond in the rough head coach if you've had a working relationship with them.

I think that TD is the best choice at this point for a variety of reasons. It's also been echoed that TD only had so much that he could do for the program while sitting in the second chair. Tony Bennett certainly spread his wings after sitting behind his dad for a few years. Once TD can put his own stamp on the program I think that we'll all be pleasantly surprised by the results

If he can surround himself with a capable team of coaches around him - I don't see why he cant take what he learned from Monty and make it his own. Hopefully with the added energy that would befit a man of his age.

just don't know why we needed to go thru the whole dog and pony show. Either Sandy thinks he's the man or not. Hiring the search firm suggests that if he's hired she wasn't completely sold on him in the first place and we were simply turned down by the guys that she had targeted - which again is a miscalculation on her part. Not meant to rip Sandy, just curious about her methodology.....this of course assumes that TD gets the job :p

socaltownie;842302108 said:

---

Nope. We had frosh in key roles all over the place and lost our number 1 scorer. We had NO backup at the 4 or 5 - limiting all year what we could do. And I chuckle at the idea that we had more experience than Furd - who started I think all upper classmen....or ASU.

Yes. We had some frustrating losses. The USC was the worst. But we were a lot closer to our ceiling than our floor - suggesting that Monty once again got what he could from the talent that he had.

---

Disagree vehemently. I'd elaborate but I'm a bit busy atm.

The team came out asleep in many games (admittedly so) - just don't know how you can write this. Don't see Kravish playing to his ceiling etc.

SmellinRoses;842302265 said:

---

The team came out asleep in many games (admittedly so) - just don't know how you can write this. Don't see Kravish playing to his ceiling etc.

---

Re: david. really? Did you see the Wear twins (much less Gordon) essentially throw David around. Love the kid but he was overmatched against MANY stronger 4s in the Conference. He has a very sweet midrange game but lack of energy isn't explaining his rebounding woes - especially on the defensive glass.

Re: Energy. Yes. And a lot of that was the Frosh that had to play against the best scoring threat on the floor. Jabari essentially never played (I think) defense in HS. Mathews knows what he is going but is limited. Wallace lacks lateral quickness. Sure, I GUESS they could have come out with their hair on fire - but it is so typical of Frosh to let a few missed shots get into their heads on the defensive end.

We had a nice run of 5 games to start conference. Against 3 schools that didn't go to the tournament (who we matched up well against), a fourth which was a basketcase for most of the year (the zeros) and Furd who didn't shoot well from outside and where their bigs got 2 early fouls each. Fantastic. But don't think the 5-0 start was indicative of the Bears ceiling.

Honestly, did you see this team as anything more than a bubble - especially when we got past shockters hype of the monsters? Nice kids. Basically an 18 to 21 win team. good for them. Entertaining basketball. But not a 2nd weekend team by a long shot - especially with 2 injuries - both at the three.