Rehire Ben Braun?

helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear SF City Bear: I lobbied long and hard for deCuire. So did Montgomery, Sandy and the players. dirks stiffed everyone by his hire of Martin. to channel Robert Frost, Cal could have done a lot worse if they had hired deCuire. he used to speak at the Alumni House. Nice guy--articulate- knew the game. Players supported him.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

calumnus said:


I think everyone on this board thinks we should at least be talking with DeCuire to gauge his interest.
I have greater aspirations than DeCuire
Maybe you have a shot at the job.
I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about wanting a better coach than DeCuire.
It was an ambiguous statement that could be taken several ways, so thank you for clearing that up about what you meant.

Personally, I would take DeCuire in a heartbeat over what we saw last season. If I was going to hire an assistant coach with no head coaching experience I would look a lot more closely at a Mike Montgomery assistant than I would at a Cuonzo Martin assistant. Cuonzo Martin was a mediocre to poor head coach, and proved to be a good Cal recruiter only one year out of four. (Jury still out on Jemarl Baker) Quite frankly, on offense, Cuonzo Martin could not coach his way out of a paper bag. What could his assistants learn from him?
And we saw the results last season, by hiring a Martin assistant. He has a steep learning curve to become what we want.

On the other hand, a Mike Montgomery assistant might be able to learn plenty on both offense and defense from a future Hall of Fame coach. As to recruiting, Montgomery recruited well only one year out of 6 at Cal, 2013, plus earlier gems like Jorge, Cobbs and Crabbe.

I understand your wanting a better coach than DeCuire, I guess, but what from his only head coaching experience, his current record at Montana, makes you think he is not a good enough coach for Cal?

DeCuire has been at Montana for 4 years. In that time, he had an 83-49 record, 0.629 winning percentage, won 2 conference championships, one conference tournament title and had one NCAA appearance. His best team was 26-8, a 0.765 winning percentage.

Another young coach with no head coaching experience was once hired to coach at Montana. His name was Mike Montgomery, and his record in his first 4 seasons at Montana was 67-43, a 0.609 winning percentage. He won no conference championships and had no NCAA appearances in that time. Travis DeCuire's record over his first four years at Montana was much better than Mike Montgomery's first 4 years at Montana.

Montgomery's next four years at Montana were very good, 87-34, and over 8 years at Montana his record was 154-77, a 0.667 percentage, and he won one conference championships, but had no NCAA appearances.

I would make the point that Stanford took a chance on a coach from a minor conference who had some good seasons there, and after some more experience in the PAC10, Mike Montgomery rewarded Stanford with some very good teams and seasons. Travis DeCuire has had a better record at Montana than Montgomery did in his first 4 years, so what would lead us to think that Travis DeCuire could not become the coach that Montgomery was at the PAC12 level, or better, if given the chance? I would not sell DeCuire short, if I were Cal. He should be under consideration, if not now, then in the future, if he continues his success at Montana or elsewhere.








SFCity:

I agree with everything you say here, although in fairness to Wyking, he had also been an assistant under Rick Pitino. Ignoring Pitino's ethical issues, he was a successful coach.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

calumnus said:


I think everyone on this board thinks we should at least be talking with DeCuire to gauge his interest.
I have greater aspirations than DeCuire
Maybe you have a shot at the job.
I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about wanting a better coach than DeCuire.
It was an ambiguous statement that could be taken several ways, so thank you for clearing that up about what you meant.

Personally, I would take DeCuire in a heartbeat over what we saw last season. If I was going to hire an assistant coach with no head coaching experience I would look a lot more closely at a Mike Montgomery assistant than I would at a Cuonzo Martin assistant. Cuonzo Martin was a mediocre to poor head coach, and proved to be a good Cal recruiter only one year out of four. (Jury still out on Jemarl Baker) Quite frankly, on offense, Cuonzo Martin could not coach his way out of a paper bag. What could his assistants learn from him?
And we saw the results last season, by hiring a Martin assistant. He has a steep learning curve to become what we want.

On the other hand, a Mike Montgomery assistant might be able to learn plenty on both offense and defense from a future Hall of Fame coach. As to recruiting, Montgomery recruited well only one year out of 6 at Cal, 2013, plus earlier gems like Jorge, Cobbs and Crabbe.

I understand your wanting a better coach than DeCuire, I guess, but what from his only head coaching experience, his current record at Montana, makes you think he is not a good enough coach for Cal?

DeCuire has been at Montana for 4 years. In that time, he had an 83-49 record, 0.629 winning percentage, won 2 conference championships, one conference tournament title and had one NCAA appearance. His best team was 26-8, a 0.765 winning percentage.

Another young coach with no head coaching experience was once hired to coach at Montana. His name was Mike Montgomery, and his record in his first 4 seasons at Montana was 67-43, a 0.609 winning percentage. He won no conference championships and had no NCAA appearances in that time. Travis DeCuire's record over his first four years at Montana was much better than Mike Montgomery's first 4 years at Montana.

Montgomery's next four years at Montana were very good, 87-34, and over 8 years at Montana his record was 154-77, a 0.667 percentage, and he won one conference championships, but had no NCAA appearances.

I would make the point that Stanford took a chance on a coach from a minor conference who had some good seasons there, and after some more experience in the PAC10, Mike Montgomery rewarded Stanford with some very good teams and seasons. Travis DeCuire has had a better record at Montana than Montgomery did in his first 4 years, so what would lead us to think that Travis DeCuire could not become the coach that Montgomery was at the PAC12 level, or better, if given the chance? I would not sell DeCuire short, if I were Cal. He should be under consideration, if not now, then in the future, if he continues his success at Montana or elsewhere.








SFCity:

I agree with everything you say here, although in fairness to Wyking, he had also been an assistant under Rick Pitino. Ignoring Pitino's ethical issues, he was a successful coach.
You're right, and I'm probably speculating too much. Jones has had only one season, but it was a truly awful one. I can't ignore Pitino's ethical issues or his moral ones, but even doing so, that full court press that Jones tried last season was something he got from Pitino, I believe, and we saw how well that worked. There is a time and place for a full court press, and Cal's roster last season was too inexperienced a roster to be trying that, IMO, and I wrote that here before the season began. I hear Jones will be trying it again this season. If true, I still remain skeptical.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

calumnus said:


I think everyone on this board thinks we should at least be talking with DeCuire to gauge his interest.
I have greater aspirations than DeCuire
Maybe you have a shot at the job.
I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about wanting a better coach than DeCuire.
It was an ambiguous statement that could be taken several ways, so thank you for clearing that up about what you meant.

Personally, I would take DeCuire in a heartbeat over what we saw last season. If I was going to hire an assistant coach with no head coaching experience I would look a lot more closely at a Mike Montgomery assistant than I would at a Cuonzo Martin assistant. Cuonzo Martin was a mediocre to poor head coach, and proved to be a good Cal recruiter only one year out of four. (Jury still out on Jemarl Baker) Quite frankly, on offense, Cuonzo Martin could not coach his way out of a paper bag. What could his assistants learn from him?
And we saw the results last season, by hiring a Martin assistant. He has a steep learning curve to become what we want.

On the other hand, a Mike Montgomery assistant might be able to learn plenty on both offense and defense from a future Hall of Fame coach. As to recruiting, Montgomery recruited well only one year out of 6 at Cal, 2013, plus earlier gems like Jorge, Cobbs and Crabbe.

I understand your wanting a better coach than DeCuire, I guess, but what from his only head coaching experience, his current record at Montana, makes you think he is not a good enough coach for Cal?

DeCuire has been at Montana for 4 years. In that time, he had an 83-49 record, 0.629 winning percentage, won 2 conference championships, one conference tournament title and had one NCAA appearance. His best team was 26-8, a 0.765 winning percentage.

Another young coach with no head coaching experience was once hired to coach at Montana. His name was Mike Montgomery, and his record in his first 4 seasons at Montana was 67-43, a 0.609 winning percentage. He won no conference championships and had no NCAA appearances in that time. Travis DeCuire's record over his first four years at Montana was much better than Mike Montgomery's first 4 years at Montana.

Montgomery's next four years at Montana were very good, 87-34, and over 8 years at Montana his record was 154-77, a 0.667 percentage, and he won one conference championships, but had no NCAA appearances.

I would make the point that Stanford took a chance on a coach from a minor conference who had some good seasons there, and after some more experience in the PAC10, Mike Montgomery rewarded Stanford with some very good teams and seasons. Travis DeCuire has had a better record at Montana than Montgomery did in his first 4 years, so what would lead us to think that Travis DeCuire could not become the coach that Montgomery was at the PAC12 level, or better, if given the chance? I would not sell DeCuire short, if I were Cal. He should be under consideration, if not now, then in the future, if he continues his success at Montana or elsewhere.








SFCity:

I agree with everything you say here, although in fairness to Wyking, he had also been an assistant under Rick Pitino. Ignoring Pitino's ethical issues, he was a successful coach.
You're right, and I'm probably speculating too much. Jones has had only one season, but it was a truly awful one. I can't ignore Pitino's ethical issues or his moral ones, but even doing so, that full court press that Jones tried last season was something he got from Pitino, I believe, and we saw how well that worked. There is a time and place for a full court press, and Cal's roster last season was too inexperienced a roster to be trying that, IMO, and I wrote that here before the season began. I hear Jones will be trying it again this season. If true, I still remain skeptical.
totally agree! I was just pointing out that WJ did have at least one coaching mentor with some success. Doesn't mean that he's learned anything...
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

calumnus said:


I think everyone on this board thinks we should at least be talking with DeCuire to gauge his interest.
I have greater aspirations than DeCuire
Maybe you have a shot at the job.
I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about wanting a better coach than DeCuire.
It was an ambiguous statement that could be taken several ways, so thank you for clearing that up about what you meant.

Personally, I would take DeCuire in a heartbeat over what we saw last season. If I was going to hire an assistant coach with no head coaching experience I would look a lot more closely at a Mike Montgomery assistant than I would at a Cuonzo Martin assistant. Cuonzo Martin was a mediocre to poor head coach, and proved to be a good Cal recruiter only one year out of four. (Jury still out on Jemarl Baker) Quite frankly, on offense, Cuonzo Martin could not coach his way out of a paper bag. What could his assistants learn from him?
And we saw the results last season, by hiring a Martin assistant. He has a steep learning curve to become what we want.

On the other hand, a Mike Montgomery assistant might be able to learn plenty on both offense and defense from a future Hall of Fame coach. As to recruiting, Montgomery recruited well only one year out of 6 at Cal, 2013, plus earlier gems like Jorge, Cobbs and Crabbe.

I understand your wanting a better coach than DeCuire, I guess, but what from his only head coaching experience, his current record at Montana, makes you think he is not a good enough coach for Cal?

DeCuire has been at Montana for 4 years. In that time, he had an 83-49 record, 0.629 winning percentage, won 2 conference championships, one conference tournament title and had one NCAA appearance. His best team was 26-8, a 0.765 winning percentage.

Another young coach with no head coaching experience was once hired to coach at Montana. His name was Mike Montgomery, and his record in his first 4 seasons at Montana was 67-43, a 0.609 winning percentage. He won no conference championships and had no NCAA appearances in that time. Travis DeCuire's record over his first four years at Montana was much better than Mike Montgomery's first 4 years at Montana.

Montgomery's next four years at Montana were very good, 87-34, and over 8 years at Montana his record was 154-77, a 0.667 percentage, and he won one conference championships, but had no NCAA appearances.

I would make the point that Stanford took a chance on a coach from a minor conference who had some good seasons there, and after some more experience in the PAC10, Mike Montgomery rewarded Stanford with some very good teams and seasons. Travis DeCuire has had a better record at Montana than Montgomery did in his first 4 years, so what would lead us to think that Travis DeCuire could not become the coach that Montgomery was at the PAC12 level, or better, if given the chance? I would not sell DeCuire short, if I were Cal. He should be under consideration, if not now, then in the future, if he continues his success at Montana or elsewhere.








SFCity:

I agree with everything you say here, although in fairness to Wyking, he had also been an assistant under Rick Pitino. Ignoring Pitino's ethical issues, he was a successful coach.
You're right, and I'm probably speculating too much. Jones has had only one season, but it was a truly awful one. I can't ignore Pitino's ethical issues or his moral ones, but even doing so, that full court press that Jones tried last season was something he got from Pitino, I believe, and we saw how well that worked. There is a time and place for a full court press, and Cal's roster last season was too inexperienced a roster to be trying that, IMO, and I wrote that here before the season began. I hear Jones will be trying it again this season. If true, I still remain skeptical.
totally agree! I was just pointing out that WJ did have at least one coaching mentor with some success. Doesn't mean that he's learned anything...
I should add that while Montgomery had good success in his career, it was mostly in-conference, plus a Final Four, while Pitino had a far more successful coaching career, with 2 NCAA titles, beaucoup Final Fours, and an NBA division title. Montgomery was faced with recruiting restrictions at Stanford, and Pitino was coach at some schools which were recruit magnets.
Page 3 of 3
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.