Kenny Payne became a staple of Kentucky basketball over the last ~decade. Whenever a program loses a personality as big as him that’s shared in so much of our success, it’s going to sting. And, I’m not blown away by the Flint hire.
BUT, I think the negative reaction to the latter has been way overblown, for a couple different reasons. You don’t have to buy all (or any) of them. These are just some things that I think a lot of people who have set their hair on fire today haven’t considered:
1.) There is value in bringing in someone you know you can work with and who understands your system, style, etc.
A lot of people are pissed off at the notion that Cal hired another one of his “buddies”, a la Barbee. I understand why that would be disappointing on the surface, but I think it ignores the fact that there is a benefit to bringing in someone who is already extremely familiar with how a coach operates, what they emphasize, how they wants to run things, how they wants to pitch to recruits, etc.
There’s a reason why head coaches - including ones at top programs - often hire assistants that they already have a prior history with, even when the assistants aren’t necessarily splashy hires or household names. Whatever you think of Flint as a coach, he’s going to adjust to Cal’s system and philosophy about as seamlessly as any new hire possibly could. There’s value in that.
2.) a terrible head coach can be a great assistant coach.
Jeff Capel was considered one of the top recruiters in the nation while at Duke. In fact, a lot of people here attributed the fact that Duke had caught up, if not surpassed, UK in recruiting almost exclusively to Capel.
But that was after he absolutely fell flat on his face as a HC at Oklahoma. He landed a handful of heralded recruits (mostly instate), yes. But ultimately, he only lasted five seasons and was fired after, quote, “two of the worst back-to-back losing seasons in Oklahoma basketball history.”
This isn’t to say that Flint will be Capel, or anywhere near it. But, it is to say that there have been plenty of guys who were excellent assistant coaches but didn’t make it as head coaches, for whatever reason. So, if you’re writing Flint off based on the belief that he was a terrible HC, consider that you may be judging him prematurely.
3.) there’s no precise formula for what makes a great assistant coach.
A lot of posters have pointed to a multitude of different (and often contradictory) traits that they would have preferred to see in Payne’s replacement, including:
Similarly, when UK fans learned Josh Pastner wasn’t coming to UK with Cal, a lot of people thought it was a tremendous loss for the program, as Pastner was seen as Cals ace recruiter. But Pastner essentially rode the bench in college and had no pro career to speak of. Cal hired him at Memphis when he was barely 30 years old.
The point is this: there isn’t an exact career path or trajectory that leads someone to be an excellent (or a terrible) assistant coach. A lot of the coaches that people here think highly of, wouldn’t have met the standards they wanted in Payne’s replacement when those coaches were first hired. So, while some traits might be desirable, totally writing off Flint now or thinking we’re doomed with him on the bench because he doesn’t check a particular box is illogical and ignores past history.
4.) Programs make coaches.
There’s been some revisionist history with Payne here over the last few days. Some people have acted like he was already this unbelievable recruiter setting the world on fire before he ever got to UK. While Payne had made a name for himself at Oregon, you’re absolutely fooling yourself if you think he had already had anywhere close to the reputation he now has before he ever stepped foot in Lexington. The (vast) majority of Payne’s clout as a coach comes from his time at UK...not from the handful of four stars he helped land at Oregon. As much as Payne helped UK, UK easily helped Payne just as much.
And that’s the story for tons and tons of coaches. Being at an elite program goes a long way towards getting elite results. By contrast, being at a crappy program goes a long way towards getting crappy results. That doesn’t mean individual coaches can’t excel or disappoint in their own right, but the program they work for has a loooooot to do with how successful they appear to be. Someone like Bruiser Flint might not appear like a great option at his prior stops, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be very successful in a different environment - ie, UK.
Like I said, I’m not blown away by the Flint hire. Personally, my first call would have been to Antigua. But some people are ready to jump off a cliff over Flint, and it really just does not make much sense to think it was some catastrophically awful hire or that the program is headed for ruin now.
BUT, I think the negative reaction to the latter has been way overblown, for a couple different reasons. You don’t have to buy all (or any) of them. These are just some things that I think a lot of people who have set their hair on fire today haven’t considered:
1.) There is value in bringing in someone you know you can work with and who understands your system, style, etc.
A lot of people are pissed off at the notion that Cal hired another one of his “buddies”, a la Barbee. I understand why that would be disappointing on the surface, but I think it ignores the fact that there is a benefit to bringing in someone who is already extremely familiar with how a coach operates, what they emphasize, how they wants to run things, how they wants to pitch to recruits, etc.
There’s a reason why head coaches - including ones at top programs - often hire assistants that they already have a prior history with, even when the assistants aren’t necessarily splashy hires or household names. Whatever you think of Flint as a coach, he’s going to adjust to Cal’s system and philosophy about as seamlessly as any new hire possibly could. There’s value in that.
2.) a terrible head coach can be a great assistant coach.
Jeff Capel was considered one of the top recruiters in the nation while at Duke. In fact, a lot of people here attributed the fact that Duke had caught up, if not surpassed, UK in recruiting almost exclusively to Capel.
But that was after he absolutely fell flat on his face as a HC at Oklahoma. He landed a handful of heralded recruits (mostly instate), yes. But ultimately, he only lasted five seasons and was fired after, quote, “two of the worst back-to-back losing seasons in Oklahoma basketball history.”
This isn’t to say that Flint will be Capel, or anywhere near it. But, it is to say that there have been plenty of guys who were excellent assistant coaches but didn’t make it as head coaches, for whatever reason. So, if you’re writing Flint off based on the belief that he was a terrible HC, consider that you may be judging him prematurely.
3.) there’s no precise formula for what makes a great assistant coach.
A lot of posters have pointed to a multitude of different (and often contradictory) traits that they would have preferred to see in Payne’s replacement, including:
- A young coach who relates to recruits
- A coach with significant college playing experience
- A coach with significant NBA playing experience
- A coach with prior college or NBA coaching experience
- A “household name”, a la Jalen Rose, etc.
Similarly, when UK fans learned Josh Pastner wasn’t coming to UK with Cal, a lot of people thought it was a tremendous loss for the program, as Pastner was seen as Cals ace recruiter. But Pastner essentially rode the bench in college and had no pro career to speak of. Cal hired him at Memphis when he was barely 30 years old.
The point is this: there isn’t an exact career path or trajectory that leads someone to be an excellent (or a terrible) assistant coach. A lot of the coaches that people here think highly of, wouldn’t have met the standards they wanted in Payne’s replacement when those coaches were first hired. So, while some traits might be desirable, totally writing off Flint now or thinking we’re doomed with him on the bench because he doesn’t check a particular box is illogical and ignores past history.
4.) Programs make coaches.
There’s been some revisionist history with Payne here over the last few days. Some people have acted like he was already this unbelievable recruiter setting the world on fire before he ever got to UK. While Payne had made a name for himself at Oregon, you’re absolutely fooling yourself if you think he had already had anywhere close to the reputation he now has before he ever stepped foot in Lexington. The (vast) majority of Payne’s clout as a coach comes from his time at UK...not from the handful of four stars he helped land at Oregon. As much as Payne helped UK, UK easily helped Payne just as much.
And that’s the story for tons and tons of coaches. Being at an elite program goes a long way towards getting elite results. By contrast, being at a crappy program goes a long way towards getting crappy results. That doesn’t mean individual coaches can’t excel or disappoint in their own right, but the program they work for has a loooooot to do with how successful they appear to be. Someone like Bruiser Flint might not appear like a great option at his prior stops, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be very successful in a different environment - ie, UK.
Like I said, I’m not blown away by the Flint hire. Personally, my first call would have been to Antigua. But some people are ready to jump off a cliff over Flint, and it really just does not make much sense to think it was some catastrophically awful hire or that the program is headed for ruin now.
