OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Moreover, at the time Knowlton was making an unnecessarily speedy decision (prior to the NCAA tournament) to hire from the two choices given him by the search firm he hired to do his highly paid job (and hiring a guy fired from his last job and jobless for a year), the football staff had a sexual harassment claim that needed his attention. Wait until after the tournament, that is when the up and coming coaches from mid majors who made the tournament get hired by teams from power conferences.

Well - at least that's sort of an explanation why no one can provide names of the the hundreds of starving coaches that wanted the Cal job.

You don't hire proven mediocrity as a "transitional hire." You keep swinging. Wyking Jones was almost exactly Tom Holmoe, the unprepared assistant remaining after your head coach leaves unexpectedly. Taking a chance on an unproven up and comer is OK (just make sure you give them a contract that reflects that). If Holmoe doesnt work out don't extend him and don't fire him and rehire Theder as a "transitional coach" to "stabilize the program" try again and give an up and coming OC like Jeff Tedford a chance.

There are hundreds of head coaches in college basketball, most making very little who would jump at the chance to coach at Cal. Fox had 9 years at Georgia located in one of the best states for producing talent in the US. He landed some top talent too, SEC players of the year, future NBA players. Despite that he made the NCAA tournament only twice in 9 years, losing in the first round both times.

However, I feel bad bagging on him, it is Knowlton who is to blame here. Scratch that, I blame Christ for hiring Knowlton. How did she think a conservative Republican from the East Coast whose love and expertise is hockey and only experience was at military academies (and not even Army or Navy) was going to be a good fit in Berkeley? Then Knowlton hires Fox because he "felt more comfortable" with him and Travis seemed "unprepared" (interviewed the day he got back from his team losing to #8 Michigan in the NCAA Tournament)! Again what was the rush?

So you're suggesting that this was politically motivated. hmmm, you may be on to something . . . But you are actually supporting my point by blaming Christ and Knowlton. If they are as bad as you say - then who would want to work for them.

"Transitional hire"? More likely Fox gets extended because he "needs more time" but "does it the right way" and we spend nine years "in transition" at the bottom half of the conference, just like he did at Georgia.

Well, if Fox gets a fifth year after 4 season in the bottom third of the league and no improvement recruiting, then I will give more credence to your theories. I will also stop contributing to the program and following CalM BBall. If Fox is top third with recruiting picked up and gets an extension - I'm OK with that. If Fox is middle third with mediocre recruiting - then I'm still disappointed.

I'll leave the discussion with this... After almost 40 years of following Cal Basketball, It seemed to me that the Jones era was the all time low in terms of how attractive a program Cal had become. I think any institution can attract and hire better talent when the hiring manager and executives are better.

---

---

1. I'm disappointed you didn't acknowledge that you blew the characterization of Decuire by confusing him with Gates. Decuire is much respected for his time here and doesn't deserve that. I don't know if Gates did what was claimed (never made sense to me, personally) but it was never claimed that Decuire submarined his interview.

2. You are seriously arguing that none of the many coaches who make in the $150K-$300K range wouldn't take on a challenge for $1.5M? If they flame out in two years like Jones did, they likely collect what they'd make in 15 years of coaching and then go back to some similar job if they want. Cal rushed through the decision. Cal didn't consider other options Knowlton was very transparent on the process. And, quite frankly, if what you are saying is true (it isn't. it is just the ever present unfounded excuse for bad coaching hires) an AD who can't find better coaching candidates shouldn't be an AD.

---

OK. Last responses.

1. I wasn't confusing DeCuire and Gates. I do respect TD for his time here (and was more enthusiastic towards him than Fox). I don't believe TD put his best foot forward during the process - so I'll back off the term submarine - since semantics seems to be getting in the way (similarly - transition hire seems to mean something different to others as well).

2. I think you're oversimplifying how coaches are compensated - and how they move through the coaching ranks. I'm not arguing that none of them would - I'm asking you and others to tell me who they were(are). Because none of them showed up. As for you other points (Cal rushed, didn't consider options, Knowlton incompetence). I agree with most of it. However, as Fox is a step up from Jones, Knowlton is a step up from Williams.

I'm not defending the process, decision or the hire. Just pointing out that at the time - the School, Ath Dept and many other aspects of the Cal program were bad, bad, bad. So bad, that much of what you describe as an open job market - did not exist for Cal. If the timing was post Monty or post Cuonzo or even post Fox - all of that is back in play (which is why I use the term transitional hire for Fox). They had to hire someone to replace Jones - no doubt. Another Jones would have been a disaster.

As I recall, Gates and Decuire both had interview "problems". Gates did a phone interview for which he was reportedly unprepared. Decuire's interview, in person, came right after a long flight and after he had just been coaching his team in the tournament (I'm not doing justice to that story, but I remember thinking he was put in a difficult position to succeed at the interview.) Meanwhile, Fox had spent a whole year preparing to get back in the profession, being "coached up" by the same search firm that Knowlton was employing.

Again, at the time, I was firmly in the Decuire camp and very critical of the way the Fox hire went down. While it's fine to still be discussing it, here's why I'm not too critical of Fox yet: He seems like a solid coach and the program under him is still improving. He's our guy, for the present, and we are also still paying Jones' buyout. Let's support him until he reaches a plateau, then figure out what to do from there.

Meanwhile, any AD making the money that Knowlton is should be in a constant state of preparation to hire new head coaches in the revenue sports, because ya never know. That's one of the most important facets of their job.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Moreover, at the time Knowlton was making an unnecessarily speedy decision (prior to the NCAA tournament) to hire from the two choices given him by the search firm he hired to do his highly paid job (and hiring a guy fired from his last job and jobless for a year), the football staff had a sexual harassment claim that needed his attention. Wait until after the tournament, that is when the up and coming coaches from mid majors who made the tournament get hired by teams from power conferences.

Well - at least that's sort of an explanation why no one can provide names of the the hundreds of starving coaches that wanted the Cal job.

You don't hire proven mediocrity as a "transitional hire." You keep swinging. Wyking Jones was almost exactly Tom Holmoe, the unprepared assistant remaining after your head coach leaves unexpectedly. Taking a chance on an unproven up and comer is OK (just make sure you give them a contract that reflects that). If Holmoe doesnt work out don't extend him and don't fire him and rehire Theder as a "transitional coach" to "stabilize the program" try again and give an up and coming OC like Jeff Tedford a chance.

There are hundreds of head coaches in college basketball, most making very little who would jump at the chance to coach at Cal. Fox had 9 years at Georgia located in one of the best states for producing talent in the US. He landed some top talent too, SEC players of the year, future NBA players. Despite that he made the NCAA tournament only twice in 9 years, losing in the first round both times.

However, I feel bad bagging on him, it is Knowlton who is to blame here. Scratch that, I blame Christ for hiring Knowlton. How did she think a conservative Republican from the East Coast whose love and expertise is hockey and only experience was at military academies (and not even Army or Navy) was going to be a good fit in Berkeley? Then Knowlton hires Fox because he "felt more comfortable" with him and Travis seemed "unprepared" (interviewed the day he got back from his team losing to #8 Michigan in the NCAA Tournament)! Again what was the rush?

So you're suggesting that this was politically motivated. hmmm, you may be on to something . . . But you are actually supporting my point by blaming Christ and Knowlton. If they are as bad as you say - then who would want to work for them.

"Transitional hire"? More likely Fox gets extended because he "needs more time" but "does it the right way" and we spend nine years "in transition" at the bottom half of the conference, just like he did at Georgia.

Well, if Fox gets a fifth year after 4 season in the bottom third of the league and no improvement recruiting, then I will give more credence to your theories. I will also stop contributing to the program and following CalM BBall. If Fox is top third with recruiting picked up and gets an extension - I'm OK with that. If Fox is middle third with mediocre recruiting - then I'm still disappointed.

I'll leave the discussion with this... After almost 40 years of following Cal Basketball, It seemed to me that the Jones era was the all time low in terms of how attractive a program Cal had become. I think any institution can attract and hire better talent when the hiring manager and executives are better.

---

---

1. I'm disappointed you didn't acknowledge that you blew the characterization of Decuire by confusing him with Gates. Decuire is much respected for his time here and doesn't deserve that. I don't know if Gates did what was claimed (never made sense to me, personally) but it was never claimed that Decuire submarined his interview.

2. You are seriously arguing that none of the many coaches who make in the $150K-$300K range wouldn't take on a challenge for $1.5M? If they flame out in two years like Jones did, they likely collect what they'd make in 15 years of coaching and then go back to some similar job if they want. Cal rushed through the decision. Cal didn't consider other options Knowlton was very transparent on the process. And, quite frankly, if what you are saying is true (it isn't. it is just the ever present unfounded excuse for bad coaching hires) an AD who can't find better coaching candidates shouldn't be an AD.

---

OK. Last responses.

1. I wasn't confusing DeCuire and Gates. I do respect TD for his time here (and was more enthusiastic towards him than Fox). I don't believe TD put his best foot forward during the process - so I'll back off the term submarine - since semantics seems to be getting in the way (similarly - transition hire seems to mean something different to others as well).

2. I think you're oversimplifying how coaches are compensated - and how they move through the coaching ranks. I'm not arguing that none of them would - I'm asking you and others to tell me who they were(are). Because none of them showed up. As for you other points (Cal rushed, didn't consider options, Knowlton incompetence). I agree with most of it. However, as Fox is a step up from Jones, Knowlton is a step up from Williams.

I'm not defending the process, decision or the hire. Just pointing out that at the time - the School, Ath Dept and many other aspects of the Cal program were bad, bad, bad. So bad, that much of what you describe as an open job market - did not exist for Cal. If the timing was post Monty or post Cuonzo or even post Fox - all of that is back in play (which is why I use the term transitional hire for Fox). They had to hire someone to replace Jones - no doubt. Another Jones would have been a disaster.

---

1. The only one's in the interview room were Decuire and Knowlton. I'm really trying not to "go there" but as was said at the time, Knowlton's comments about the two interviews were so cliche. Knowlton never said Decuire was a bad interview. He said he was more comfortable with Fox and his experience. I'm going to say again. Monty publicly lobbied hard for Decuire. There is no way that happened without Decuire wanting the job. No way did Decuire intentionally give a poor interview.

2. How were they supposed to "show up"? You acknowledge the situation is rushed. It is illogical to think that no one was willing to take a 500% pay raise had Cal decided to look. Of course I can't point to anyone because Cal shut it down before anyone could "show up".

Better than Jones is not the goal I had in mind. Frankly, I factor in money. My preference is to try and actually be successful. However, in light of what we did, I'd rather they go cheap, accept being the Washington Generals and just put a team out their for the TV money and to be part of the conference than to spend a lot more money and just be the Washington Generals anyway. What Knowlton did is the worst possible option.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Moreover, at the time Knowlton was making an unnecessarily speedy decision (prior to the NCAA tournament) to hire from the two choices given him by the search firm he hired to do his highly paid job (and hiring a guy fired from his last job and jobless for a year), the football staff had a sexual harassment claim that needed his attention. Wait until after the tournament, that is when the up and coming coaches from mid majors who made the tournament get hired by teams from power conferences.

Well - at least that's sort of an explanation why no one can provide names of the the hundreds of starving coaches that wanted the Cal job.

You don't hire proven mediocrity as a "transitional hire." You keep swinging. Wyking Jones was almost exactly Tom Holmoe, the unprepared assistant remaining after your head coach leaves unexpectedly. Taking a chance on an unproven up and comer is OK (just make sure you give them a contract that reflects that). If Holmoe doesnt work out don't extend him and don't fire him and rehire Theder as a "transitional coach" to "stabilize the program" try again and give an up and coming OC like Jeff Tedford a chance.

There are hundreds of head coaches in college basketball, most making very little who would jump at the chance to coach at Cal. Fox had 9 years at Georgia located in one of the best states for producing talent in the US. He landed some top talent too, SEC players of the year, future NBA players. Despite that he made the NCAA tournament only twice in 9 years, losing in the first round both times.

However, I feel bad bagging on him, it is Knowlton who is to blame here. Scratch that, I blame Christ for hiring Knowlton. How did she think a conservative Republican from the East Coast whose love and expertise is hockey and only experience was at military academies (and not even Army or Navy) was going to be a good fit in Berkeley? Then Knowlton hires Fox because he "felt more comfortable" with him and Travis seemed "unprepared" (interviewed the day he got back from his team losing to #8 Michigan in the NCAA Tournament)! Again what was the rush?

So you're suggesting that this was politically motivated. hmmm, you may be on to something . . . But you are actually supporting my point by blaming Christ and Knowlton. If they are as bad as you say - then who would want to work for them.

"Transitional hire"? More likely Fox gets extended because he "needs more time" but "does it the right way" and we spend nine years "in transition" at the bottom half of the conference, just like he did at Georgia.

Well, if Fox gets a fifth year after 4 season in the bottom third of the league and no improvement recruiting, then I will give more credence to your theories. I will also stop contributing to the program and following CalM BBall. If Fox is top third with recruiting picked up and gets an extension - I'm OK with that. If Fox is middle third with mediocre recruiting - then I'm still disappointed.

I'll leave the discussion with this... After almost 40 years of following Cal Basketball, It seemed to me that the Jones era was the all time low in terms of how attractive a program Cal had become. I think any institution can attract and hire better talent when the hiring manager and executives are better.

---

---

1. I'm disappointed you didn't acknowledge that you blew the characterization of Decuire by confusing him with Gates. Decuire is much respected for his time here and doesn't deserve that. I don't know if Gates did what was claimed (never made sense to me, personally) but it was never claimed that Decuire submarined his interview.

2. You are seriously arguing that none of the many coaches who make in the $150K-$300K range wouldn't take on a challenge for $1.5M? If they flame out in two years like Jones did, they likely collect what they'd make in 15 years of coaching and then go back to some similar job if they want. Cal rushed through the decision. Cal didn't consider other options Knowlton was very transparent on the process. And, quite frankly, if what you are saying is true (it isn't. it is just the ever present unfounded excuse for bad coaching hires) an AD who can't find better coaching candidates shouldn't be an AD.

---

OK. Last responses.

1. I wasn't confusing DeCuire and Gates. I do respect TD for his time here (and was more enthusiastic towards him than Fox). I don't believe TD put his best foot forward during the process - so I'll back off the term submarine - since semantics seems to be getting in the way (similarly - transition hire seems to mean something different to others as well).

2. I think you're oversimplifying how coaches are compensated - and how they move through the coaching ranks. I'm not arguing that none of them would - I'm asking you and others to tell me who they were(are). Because none of them showed up. As for you other points (Cal rushed, didn't consider options, Knowlton incompetence). I agree with most of it. However, as Fox is a step up from Jones, Knowlton is a step up from Williams.

I'm not defending the process, decision or the hire. Just pointing out that at the time - the School, Ath Dept and many other aspects of the Cal program were bad, bad, bad. So bad, that much of what you describe as an open job market - did not exist for Cal. If the timing was post Monty or post Cuonzo or even post Fox - all of that is back in play (which is why I use the term transitional hire for Fox). They had to hire someone to replace Jones - no doubt. Another Jones would have been a disaster.

---

"Because none of them showed up"?

Wyking Jones was fired on March 23. Mark Fox's hiring was announced 5 days later on Mar. 28.

The NCAA Tournament was still going on. DeCuire was interviewed by Knowlton the day he got back from his team's 1st round loss to Michigan. Other coaches' teams are still playing, they are not "showing up" for the Cal job at that time (and if they are you don't want to hire them anyway). They are focused on getting their team ready for the next game. All Knowlton had to do is have the job open another week or two and find out who might be interested. Fox was going to still be available.

April 9, UCLA hired Cincinnati coach Mick Cronin. April 14, Cincinnati hired John Brannen whose Northern Kentucky team had just had a nice run in the Tournament. April 6, Arkansas hires Musselman away from Nevada.

Jason Kidd said he was interested on March 25th but we later learned he was not interviewed and Knowlton had already decided he was hiring Fox.

Big C said:

---

As I recall, Gates and Decuire both had interview "problems". Gates did a phone interview for which he was reportedly unprepared. Decuire's interview, in person, came right after a long flight and after he had just been coaching his team in the tournament (I'm not doing justice to that story, but I remember thinking he was put in a difficult position to succeed at the interview.) Meanwhile, Fox had spent a whole year preparing to get back in the profession, being "coached up" by the same search firm that Knowlton was employing.

Again, at the time, I was firmly in the Decuire camp and very critical of the way the Fox hire went down. While it's fine to still be discussing it, here's why I'm not too critical of Fox yet: He seems like a solid coach and the program under him is still improving. He's our guy, for the present, and we are also still paying Jones' buyout. Let's support him until he reaches a plateau, then figure out what to do from there.

Meanwhile, any AD making the money that Knowlton is should be in a constant state of preparation to hire new head coaches in the revenue sports, because ya never know. That's one of the most important facets of their job.

---

Improving? In what way? Bottom this year. No reason not to think bottom next year.

Sluggo

sluggo said:

---

Big C said:

---

As I recall, Gates and Decuire both had interview "problems". Gates did a phone interview for which he was reportedly unprepared. Decuire's interview, in person, came right after a long flight and after he had just been coaching his team in the tournament (I'm not doing justice to that story, but I remember thinking he was put in a difficult position to succeed at the interview.) Meanwhile, Fox had spent a whole year preparing to get back in the profession, being "coached up" by the same search firm that Knowlton was employing.

Again, at the time, I was firmly in the Decuire camp and very critical of the way the Fox hire went down. While it's fine to still be discussing it, here's why I'm not too critical of Fox yet: He seems like a solid coach and the program under him is still improving. He's our guy, for the present, and we are also still paying Jones' buyout. Let's support him until he reaches a plateau, then figure out what to do from there.

Meanwhile, any AD making the money that Knowlton is should be in a constant state of preparation to hire new head coaches in the revenue sports, because ya never know. That's one of the most important facets of their job.

---

Improving? In what way? Bottom this year. No reason not to think bottom next year.

Sluggo

---

Well, "bottom" was Wyking Jones' first season. That was whale feces bottom. Jones' second season was a tiny bit better (don't remember if we got out of the conference cellar).

Fox's Season One (last season) was better than that, so there's the improvement. Not sure how this season or next are going to turn out, but lets actually play the games and see how recruiting is going. His recruiting classes appear to be improving, incrementally.

I mean, how many buyouts are we going to be paying, simultaneously? If your general point is that Cal Basketball is one big "meh" right now, well, I can't disagree with that.

2017-2018 Season

They finished the season 8-24, 2-16 in Pac-12 play to finish in last place. They lost in the first round of the Pac-12 Tournament to Stanford.

2018-2019 Season

They finished the season 8-23, 3-15 in Pac-12 play to finish in last place. They lost in the first round of the Pac-12 Tournament to Colorado.

Coach Jones crushed the record books in Season 2 when he helmed the team to a record breaking 16 L's in a row

bearister said:

---

2017-2018 Season

They finished the season 8-24, 2-16 in Pac-12 play to finish in last place. They lost in the first round of the Pac-12 Tournament to Stanford.

2018-2019 Season

They finished the season 8-23, 3-15 in Pac-12 play to finish in last place. They lost in the first round of the Pac-12 Tournament to Colorado.

Coach Jones crushed the record books in Season 2 when he helmed the team to a record breaking 16 L's in a row

---

Can you believe Wyking Jones, in only his 2nd year, increased his conference wins by 50% and got a pink slip to show for it?!?


(kidding)

calumnus said:

---

"Because none of them showed up"?

Wyking Jones was fired on March 23. Mark Fox's hiring was announced 5 days later on Mar. 28.

The NCAA Tournament was still going on. DeCuire was interviewed by Knowlton the day he got back from his team's 1st round loss to Michigan. Other coaches' teams are still playing, they are not "showing up" for the Cal job at that time (and if they are you don't want to hire them anyway). They are focused on getting their team ready for the next game. All Knowlton had to do is have the job open another week or two and find out who might be interested. Fox was going to still be available.

April 9, UCLA hired Cincinnati coach Mick Cronin. April 14, Cincinnati hired John Brannen whose Northern Kentucky team had just had a nice run in the Tournament. April 6, Arkansas hires Musselman away from Nevada.

Jason Kidd said he was interested on March 25th but we later learned he was not interviewed and Knowlton had already decided he was hiring Fox.

---

Going by this timetable, well this is simply malpractice by Knowlton.

I would assume that Fox, who had really done nothing of note at Georgia, saw that Jones was on his way at Cal. Fox had previously been at Nevada and had some success there. My guess is that his agent let it be known he was interested in the job and getting back to the West Coast. Knowlton probably liked the idea of landing an SEC coach and so this was a done deal before Jones had cleaned out his office.

No need to interview anyone else. Didn't matter if Jason Kidd had an interest. Didn't have to call Randy Bennett to gauge interest. Fox was the guy and probably had been for some time.

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

Kyle Smith frumpy? He looks like a WWII soldier!

?resize=300%2C423

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

---

DeCuire was a no brainer. Proven as a head coach. Loved by the players, loved by recruits, experience at a Cal, Monty could be an adviser...

It was such a no brainer

After all Monty, Coach K of Utah, and coach Tinkle of OSU all came into the conference from small mid-major teams

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

---

DeCuire was a no brainer. Proven as a head coach. Loved by the players, loved by recruits, experience at a Cal, Monty could be an adviser...

---

HoopDreams said:

---

It was such a no brainer

After all Monty, Coach K of Utah, and coach Tinkle of OSU all came into the conference from small mid-major teams

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

---

DeCuire was a no brainer. Proven as a head coach. Loved by the players, loved by recruits, experience at a Cal, Monty could be an adviser...

---

---

Actually, all the guys you mentioned either coached or played at Montana....

bearmanpg said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

It was such a no brainer

After all Monty, Coach K of Utah, and coach Tinkle of OSU all came into the conference from small mid-major teams

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

---

DeCuire was a no brainer. Proven as a head coach. Loved by the players, loved by recruits, experience at a Cal, Monty could be an adviser...

---

---

Actually, all the guys you mentioned either coached or played at Montana....

---

yeah I remember Monty and Tinkle coached at Montana

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

---

DeCuire was a no brainer. Proven as a head coach. Loved by the players, loved by recruits, experience at a Cal, Monty could be an adviser...

---

Not so fast. Hiring your best assistant doesn't always work out. After Pete Newell retired, he recommended that Cal hire his outstanding assistant, Rene Herrerias, which we did, and we all saw how that worked out. Heck, we had a lot of the 1960 team back, and I stayed up all night before the 1960-61 season to buy my tickets for the NCAA Finals in Kansas City, because I was sure we were headed back the the Final Four. Instead we got several years of disappointment, and when Rene left, Cal went from average to below average for many years.

SFCityBear said:

---

Not so fast. Hiring your best assistant doesn't always work out. After Pete Newell retired, he recommended that Cal hire his outstanding assistant, Rene Herrerias, which we did, and we all saw how that worked out.

---

Decuire was not only an assistant but also a pretty successful head coach. That's not a transition everyone succeeds at.

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

---

DeCuire was a no brainer. Proven as a head coach. Loved by the players, loved by recruits, experience at a Cal, Monty could be an adviser...

---

Not so fast. Hiring your best assistant doesn't always work out. After Pete Newell retired, he recommended that Cal hire his outstanding assistant, Rene Herrerias, which we did, and we all saw how that worked out. Heck, we had a lot of the 1960 team back, and I stayed up all night before the 1960-61 season to buy my tickets for the NCAA Finals in Kansas City, because I was sure we were headed back the the Final Four. Instead we got several years of disappointment, and when Rene left, Cal went from average to below average for many years.

---

I agree with some caution (to the sunshine pumpers). But by offering DeCuire we coulda saved some cash with a make-it contract. (something Willians did not do with Jones; we should sue Williams for AD malpractice.)

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

---

DeCuire was a no brainer. Proven as a head coach. Loved by the players, loved by recruits, experience at a Cal, Monty could be an adviser...

---

Not so fast. Hiring your best assistant doesn't always work out. After Pete Newell retired, he recommended that Cal hire his outstanding assistant, Rene Herrerias, which we did, and we all saw how that worked out. Heck, we had a lot of the 1960 team back, and I stayed up all night before the 1960-61 season to buy my tickets for the NCAA Finals in Kansas City, because I was sure we were headed back the the Final Four. Instead we got several years of disappointment, and when Rene left, Cal went from average to below average for many years.

---

We are not talking about hiring DeCuire immediately after Monty, since getting Cuonzo from the SEC fresh off a Sweet 16 run was pretty compelling. We are talking about hiring DeCuire (instead of Fox) after we fired Wyking and DeCuire had demonstrated great success as a HC at Montana.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

Despite the dismissal of his candidacy on this board and possibly by Knowlton, I thought Kyle Smith should have been given more consideration.

He proved himself capable in a challenging program like USF. He had the academic background coming from the Ivy League. Yes he has a frumpy appearance, however he just looks and acts like a coach to me. His players seem to like him. He's got a great sense of humor. He was developing Bay Area connections.

At the time, I thought he would have been an "equal" hire as Fox. But there sure as hell would have been outrage if he got the job. (we have always looked down at the WCC) He took over a suffering program at the same time as Fox and his reclamation project has shown way more progress.

---

If we got Bennett away from SMC most would be happy.
Hiring successful head coaches from lower levels or top assistants from top programs is the way it is generally done. There is no way hiring away a guy from USF who was hired away from Columbia is "worse" than hiring a guy who has been unemployed for a year.

---

or hiring the highly recommended protege from one of our best coaches of all time and a future HoFer.

---

DeCuire was a no brainer. Proven as a head coach. Loved by the players, loved by recruits, experience at a Cal, Monty could be an adviser...

---

Not so fast. Hiring your best assistant doesn't always work out. After Pete Newell retired, he recommended that Cal hire his outstanding assistant, Rene Herrerias, which we did, and we all saw how that worked out. Heck, we had a lot of the 1960 team back, and I stayed up all night before the 1960-61 season to buy my tickets for the NCAA Finals in Kansas City, because I was sure we were headed back the the Final Four. Instead we got several years of disappointment, and when Rene left, Cal went from average to below average for many years.

---

We are not talking about hiring DeCuire immediately after Monty, since getting Cuonzo from the SEC fresh off a Sweet 16 run was pretty compelling. We are talking about hiring DeCuire (instead of Fox) after we fired Wyking and DeCuire had demonstrated great success as a HC at Montana.

---

Good point.