The top tier basketball schools coaching consideration/vetting process

[TankedCat]

Bare with me - this will be kinda wordy but I think its interesting food for thought

Our group has been having a discussion on coaches, discussing in particular Greg Marshall and Shaka Smart, both coaches who have been mentioned as replacements for Cal in the past during the inevitable Cal going to the pros threads that pop up from time to time.

For a school like Texas, Alabama or Stanford - hiring a Greg Marshall or Shaka Smart is a no brainer

but does their accomplishments really merit consideration to a top tier school - A UK, UNC, Duke, Kansas,and for sake of argument, lets throw in IU, Louisville and UCLA

Marshall in particular has had a string of impressive seasons. His last 5 seasons' wins: 25, 29, 27, 30, 35, and 30. He's won his conference 3 of the last 4 years and while the Missouri Valley isn't the ACC, it's not a bad conference. He is loyal and his juggernaut undefeated team looked to have a bead on the national championship until they ran into a disrespected NBA potential UK team.

The thought process is that if a coach like this is winning consistently at Wichita State and Winthrop (not sure if that was where is was or not) then coming to a top tier program with all they have to offer, its an obvious choice - but the body of work that most of these guys have is no more than 5 years - it seems a young hot coach will be snapped up by some program by then.

And Marshall doesn't have a history of NCAA success - the only real measuring tool that top tier programs will not yield on. So its seems interesting to me that many fans and Administrations lock in wins or recent history as a blueprint for what this coach will do at their school even though the coach in question has yet to reach the goals expected of him in his next job.

Now compare Marshall and Smart to say a Brad Stevens or Billy Donovan, yet even Brad Stevens, with 2 final four teams under his belt can't claim that he retooled and made final four runs with 2 different teams - a major, major difference between him and Donovan.

The next criteria to consider is NBA experience. Now both Stevens and Donovan have that at this point. Imagine a Brad Stevens or Billy Donovan being able to talk to a recruit about what it takes to get to the next level, about establishing a network of professional contacts and reaching out to teams. Can a Greg Marshall or Shaka Smart sell a recruit on that at this point?

Clearly UK's success has been with Pitino and Calipari - both coaches who put together a final four team prior to coming to UK, both coaches who had NBA experience and understood how to leverage that in the NCAA domain.

So if I were a UNC, a Duke or UK, or any of the other schools mentioned as traditional basketball powers, and I wanted to either return or remain a basketball power, would it make sense to go after a Greg Marshall/Shaka Smart (without their current records in question because really what I am saying is - do you go after the young coach making a name for himself in the college ranks) with a healthy but affordable contract knowing you will probably land the guy or do you go after the Brad Stevens/Billy Donovan with an incentive laden contract that exceeds whatever they're currently at with their current job with the belief that the cost of getting them will be less than failing with a very good but still unproven at the top tier level coach?

My take, if you haven't guessed by now is the latter. I see no reason to ever consider a coach for a top tier school that hasn't proved he can build a team on his own, take them to a final four (at least), and has the ability to recruit kids which translates in today's environment to NBA experience.

So when we have these "what if" discussions regarding coaches, I often find myself raising my eyebrows at some of the suggestions like we should bring in a former UK player, or a coach who just made it to the sweet sixteen for only the second time in his career with that person believing that they are ready to step in and take over a pressure filled job at a top tier basketball school.

Finally, I would say that if there isn't a Brad Stevens or Billy Donovan available, then you put together a contract that makes them available, like Alabama did for Nick Saban.

Does anyone think Alabama regrets doing what was necessary financially to bring in Nick Saban from the pro's?

Anyways, that's where my line of thinking is when considering/vetting a coaching prospect for our program.
You can't bring in a Matt Doherty/Billy Gillispie because of their potential or projecting what they would do at a top tier program based on what they did at their existing program. Its has to be apples to apples accomplishments.


just my .02 cents

 

[FiveStarCat]

Completely agree with your post. Billy Donovan has always been the pick for me to replace Calipari, with every one else a distant second. He has everything you could ask for in a college coach. I don't really care how many times he's turned down the job at this point - throw the bank at him and makes him turn us down again.

 

[TankedCat]

Completely agree with your post. Billy Donovan has always been the pick for me to replace Calipari, with every one else a distant second. He has everything you could ask for in a college coach. I don't really care how many times he's turned down the job at this point - throw the bank at him and makes him turn us down again.

yea, and while Donovan would have to be a consideration if this were to happen in the next 2 years, its really more of an understanding of what is required from a coach to be successful at the elite level - and in my eyes, clearly hoping that the current "hot" coach can do the job may be in reality just a set of circumstances that can't be recreated or improved upon at the next level.

So many fans are ready to jump at the eye candy coach - the halo effect - if you will, based on a handful or even one good season. Its a mistake, IMO because UK has no margin for error or on the job training. If they aren't succeeding now at the level UK demands or have in the past, they should not be considered for the position at UK.

 

[ipatent]

You make a valid point, but final four experience as a staff member is also a good qualification. Roy Williams had no head coaching experience at all before Kansas, but was on Dean Smith's staff. K had a losing record when Duke hired him, but was a grad assistant on Knight's IU teams in the mid 70s. Izzo was an assistant to Jud Heathcote who won a championship.

 

[TankedCat]

true, but coaching jobs are littered with failed 6 degrees of coaching pedigree hires.

 

[ipatent]

true, but coaching jobs are littered with failed 6 degrees of coaching pedigree hires.

True as well. No perfect formula, but if a coach gets a mid major to a final four its certainly a good sign.

 

[Deli owl]

Guess we would have never hired Rupp.

 

[FiveStarCat]

yea, and while Donovan would have to be a consideration if this were to happen in the next 2 years, its really more of an understanding of what is required from a coach to be successful at the elite level - and in my eyes, clearly hoping that the current "hot" coach can do the job may be in reality just a set of circumstances that can't be recreated or improved upon at the next level.

So many fans are ready to jump at the eye candy coach - the halo effect - if you will, based on a handful or even one good season. Its a mistake, IMO because UK has no margin for error or on the job training. If they aren't succeeding now at the level UK demands or have in the past, they should not be considered for the position at UK.

Agreed. I'm trying to come up with any other coaches that fit your criteria that are at least somewhat realistic (a coach like Coach K isn't leaving Duke for Kentucky, etc.) and the two you mentioned are the only ones that come to mind (Donovan and Stevens).

A couple of coaches with multiple Final Fours that could be worth a look at:

Tom Izzo has a million Final Fours. He would be a better version of Tubby Smith. He doesn't fit the criteria of NBA experience but there's no doubt he's proven himself among the elite of the elite in college coaching. Only negative is he is not a great recruiter and he is 60 years old.

Thad Matta has two Final Fours with two completely different teams (2007, 2012). He's probably the best recruiter this side of Calipari, Coach K and Self. Some of his teams seem to underachieve a bit relative to his talent but he has a decent NCAA Tournament record (24-13). He's only missed the tournament once in his coaching career and Ohio State won the NIT that year.

A few other coaches that I have my eye on would be Jay Wright, Sean Miller and Bruce Pearl.

 

[UKnCincy]

Bare with me - this will be kinda wordy but I think its interesting food for thought

Our group has been having a discussion on coaches, discussing in particular Greg Marshall and Shaka Smart, both coaches who have been mentioned as replacements for Cal in the past during the inevitable Cal going to the pros threads that pop up from time to time.

For a school like Texas, Alabama or Stanford - hiring a Greg Marshall or Shaka Smart is a no brainer

but does their accomplishments really merit consideration to a top tier school - A UK, UNC, Duke, Kansas,and for sake of argument, lets throw in IU, Louisville and UCLA

Marshall in particular has had a string of impressive seasons. His last 5 seasons' wins: 25, 29, 27, 30, 35, and 30. He's won his conference 3 of the last 4 years and while the Missouri Valley isn't the ACC, it's not a bad conference. He is loyal and his juggernaut undefeated team looked to have a bead on the national championship until they ran into a disrespected NBA potential UK team.

The thought process is that if a coach like this is winning consistently at Wichita State and Winthrop (not sure if that was where is was or not) then coming to a top tier program with all they have to offer, its an obvious choice - but the body of work that most of these guys have is no more than 5 years - it seems a young hot coach will be snapped up by some program by then.

And Marshall doesn't have a history of NCAA success - the only real measuring tool that top tier programs will not yield on. So its seems interesting to me that many fans and Administrations lock in wins or recent history as a blueprint for what this coach will do at their school even though the coach in question has yet to reach the goals expected of him in his next job.

Now compare Marshall and Smart to say a Brad Stevens or Billy Donovan, yet even Brad Stevens, with 2 final four teams under his belt can't claim that he retooled and made final four runs with 2 different teams - a major, major difference between him and Donovan.

The next criteria to consider is NBA experience. Now both Stevens and Donovan have that at this point. Imagine a Brad Stevens or Billy Donovan being able to talk to a recruit about what it takes to get to the next level, about establishing a network of professional contacts and reaching out to teams. Can a Greg Marshall or Shaka Smart sell a recruit on that at this point?

Clearly UK's success has been with Pitino and Calipari - both coaches who put together a final four team prior to coming to UK, both coaches who had NBA experience and understood how to leverage that in the NCAA domain.

So if I were a UNC, a Duke or UK, or any of the other schools mentioned as traditional basketball powers, and I wanted to either return or remain a basketball power, would it make sense to go after a Greg Marshall/Shaka Smart (without their current records in question because really what I am saying is - do you go after the young coach making a name for himself in the college ranks) with a healthy but affordable contract knowing you will probably land the guy or do you go after the Brad Stevens/Billy Donovan with an incentive laden contract that exceeds whatever they're currently at with their current job with the belief that the cost of getting them will be less than failing with a very good but still unproven at the top tier level coach?

My take, if you haven't guessed by now is the latter. I see no reason to ever consider a coach for a top tier school that hasn't proved he can build a team on his own, take them to a final four (at least), and has the ability to recruit kids which translates in today's environment to NBA experience.

So when we have these "what if" discussions regarding coaches, I often find myself raising my eyebrows at some of the suggestions like we should bring in a former UK player, or a coach who just made it to the sweet sixteen for only the second time in his career with that person believing that they are ready to step in and take over a pressure filled job at a top tier basketball school.

Finally, I would say that if there isn't a Brad Stevens or Billy Donovan available, then you put together a contract that makes them available, like Alabama did for Nick Saban.

Does anyone think Alabama regrets doing what was necessary financially to bring in Nick Saban from the pro's?

Anyways, that's where my line of thinking is when considering/vetting a coaching prospect for our program.
You can't bring in a Matt Doherty/Billy Gillispie because of their potential or projecting what they would do at a top tier program based on what they did at their existing program. Its has to be apples to apples accomplishments.


just my .02 cents

Is it fair to say, using your criteria for hiring of coaches, that you would argue that selecting Billy Donovan to replace Pitino instead of Tubby Smith would've been a mistake?

 

[.S&C.]

If Donovan is struggling in Oklahoma City, then you go after him first. it doesn't really matter how many times he's turned us down NOW. He would kill it with Kentucky resources.

None of those guys would be considered by UK. Not Shaka, not marshal. You hire a proven winner in this day and age at UK. Texas sure. Kansas sure. Not Kentucky.

1. Donovan
2. Donovan
3. Proven coach
4. Proven coach
5. Proven coach
6. Bring in AD who can deliver 1-5.

 

[tank2009]

Donovan helped.his case even more by nba e,perience.

 

[.S&C.]

Agreed. I'm trying to come up with any other coaches that fit your criteria that are at least somewhat realistic (a coach like Coach K isn't leaving Duke for Kentucky, etc.) and the two you mentioned are the only ones that come to mind (Donovan and Stevens).

A couple of coaches with multiple Final Fours that could be worth a look at:

Tom Izzo has a million Final Fours. He would be a better version of Tubby Smith. He doesn't fit the criteria of NBA experience but there's no doubt he's proven himself among the elite of the elite in college coaching. Only negative is he is not a great recruiter and he is 60 years old.

Thad Matta has two Final Fours with two completely different teams (2007, 2012). He's probably the best recruiter this side of Calipari, Coach K and Self. Some of his teams seem to underachieve a bit relative to his talent but he has a decent NCAA Tournament record (24-13). He's only missed the tournament once in his coaching career and Ohio State won the NIT that year.

A few other coaches that I have my eye on would be Jay Wright, Sean Miller and Bruce Pearl.

No to wright.
No to Pearl (would never happen)

I would seriously look at thad long the list. The guy made Ohio state basketball relevant, multiple final fours, title game, and at UK he would kill it with th recourses. I don't think it would be a bad hire.

 

[tank2009]

Plus he would be endorsed by Rick!

 

[TankedCat]

Guess we would have never hired Rupp.

If they aren't succeeding now at the level UK demands or have in the past, they should not be considered for the position at UK.

Even though UK basketball had some margin of success prior to 1930, the above statement would hold true for Rupp as well. Rupp played for the '22 and '23 Helms title teams and had coaching experience.

 

[ipatent]

Turgeon at Maryland hasn't been to a final four as a coach, but that could change in the near future.

 

[true blue1]

Billy Donavon or Brad Stephens.

 

[TankedCat]

Is it fair to say, using your criteria for hiring of coaches, that you would argue that selecting Billy Donovan to replace Pitino instead of Tubby Smith would've been a mistake?

Without researching I can't say what Billy Donovan had accomplished at the time Pitino had left but its probably safe to say at the time, based on my criteria I would have pushed UK to go for someone else and not either one of them.

Again, UK isn't about on the job training - and few UK fans would tolerate 4 or 5 years of just chumming the waters waiting for their coach to get it right.

 

[.S&C.]

Billy Donavon or Brad Stephens.

Cal wins 3 titles and hangs it up.
Indiana open coaching job
Kentucky open coaching job
Stevens takes UK.
Indiana takes Jonny Jones.

The next 15 years solved.

 

[.S&C.]

Without researching I can't say what Billy Donovan had accomplished at the time Pitino had left but its probably safe to say at the time, based on my criteria I would have pushed UK to go for someone else and not either one of them.

Again, UK isn't about on the job training - and few UK fans would tolerate 4 or 5 years of just chumming the waters waiting for their coach to get it right.

The players openly wanted Donovan. I rememeber my father really wanting Donovan. No one really wanted tubby.

But I agree. Hindsight is 20/20.today is different anyway. UK might have been able to hire a young up and comer then, but it's too risky now. We've got a lot on the line that we didn't have in 1989.

 

[FiveStarCat]

No to wright.
No to Pearl (would never happen)

I would seriously look at thad long the list. The guy made Ohio state basketball relevant, multiple final fours, title game, and at UK he would kill it with th recourses. I don't think it would be a bad hire.

I agree no to both Wright and Pearl right now. I'm just saying I'd keep my eye on them in the time between now and when Cal retires (hopefully at least 5 years from now). If they can crank out a couple more Final Fours, I think they would both be nice alternatives behind Donovan and Stevens if necessary.

 

[UKnCincy]

The players openly wanted Donovan. I rememeber my father really wanting Donovan. No one really wanted tubby.

But I agree. Hindsight is 20/20.today is different anyway. UK might have been able to hire a young up and comer then, but it's too risky now. We've got a lot on the line that we didn't have in 1989.

Pitino left in 1997 though, not 1989. After back to back title game appearances, and a team geared for another run, how is there more on the line today than when Pitino left?

 

[UKnCincy]

Without researching I can't say what Billy Donovan had accomplished at the time Pitino had left but its probably safe to say at the time, based on my criteria I would have pushed UK to go for someone else and not either one of them.

Again, UK isn't about on the job training - and few UK fans would tolerate 4 or 5 years of just chumming the waters waiting for their coach to get it right.

Donovan had three years of head coaching experience at the time. Two at Marshall where he was 35-20, and had just finished his first season at Florida where he went 13-17.

However, it was apparent very early on that Donovan could coach. By his fourth season at Florida, he had them in the title game.

In each generation of coaches, there are 3-4 guys that simply know how to coach. Whenever it's time to hire someone, schools should always go after one of those guys, whether or not they have a long track record of success.

 

[TankedCat]

my point is that Pitino and Cal have enough in common that its safe to say what works for UK in the modern era of college basketball.

I'm not saying that UK wouldn't be as successful with a coach like Greg Marshall, but I am saying we have no reason to believe we would be - there is no history that says he can - and if you couple that with the expectations that UK fans have - its a very, very high risk proposition to bring in anyone who hasn't reached the level of success expected at UK somewhere else.

Of course there are no guarantees that a Billy Donovan or Brad Stevens would hit it out of the park here, but we know they *could*.

 

[TankedCat]

Donovan had three years of head coaching experience at the time. Two at Marshall where he was 35-20, and had just finished his first season at Florida where he went 13-17.

However, it was apparent very early on that Donovan could coach. By his fourth season at Florida, he had them in the title game.

In each generation of coaches, there are 3-4 guys that simply know how to coach. Whenever it's time to hire someone, schools should always go after one of those guys, whether or not they have a long track record of success.

The other key issue here is you are assuming your AD can tell the difference between the obvious he can coach guy who just finished 13-17 at Florida and the guy that just beat Louisville in Rupp Arena coaching a football school. (not after Donovan had already won two NCAA championships)

 

[UKnCincy]

The other key issue here is you are assuming your AD can tell the difference between the obvious he can coach guy who just finished 13-17 at Florida and the guy that just beat Louisville in Rupp Arena coaching a football school. (not after Donovan had already won two NCAA championships)

I am assuming that, but that is because the topic of this thread was about a prescribed set of criteria (in terms of accomplishments) that should be used to narrow down a coaching search. My contention is that those types of approaches tend to oversimplify things and don't necessarily yield better results.

The best way, in my opinion, is to have a clearly defined view of what your ideal coach looks like in terms of competencies and behaviors, not necessarily accomplishments. You also need to understand which behaviors can be learned, and which ones they simply must have before hiring. You then look for those guys.

When you hear people talk about the great coaches when they were starting out, you almost always hear folks talk about how they just knew this guy would succeed because he did x, y, or z. Those are the things to focus on; not necessarily wins and losses.

If there are areas as an AD that you are unqualified to evaluate, then you make sure to bring in additional folks who can evaluate them and who's opinion you trust.

It's less about what have they done and more about are they the type of person who would be successful here. It's a more qualitative approach, which I believe is warranted because hiring people in any industry is not, and never will be, an exact science.

 

[Mojocat]

Tanked - agree with your stance. I'll point out that I think (just skimmed) everything everyone is saying in this thread focuses on coaching ability and coaching results and pedigree, etc.

I think we know now that UK is unique, and here personality is as important as coaching acumen. That simply has to be considered. I don't care how successful Greg Marshall is, or what kind of great coach he is in some absolute sense, everything I've heard of him indicates his bedside manner is only a hair better than Gillispie's. So, no.

Some coaches (Tubby) are simply private or introverted souls. Others are just horses asses. You put either type into this fishbowl, and though that guy may be an "8" somewhere else, he will languish here.

A word on Donovan: how many NITs did he have at Florida? Don't give me the "it's a football school" answer - he went to a Final Four early, then had back to back titles, so whatever limitations the school had tradition wise should have been overwhelmed by his mojo/momentum. This isn't a place that would tolerate NITs, even sandwiched around a title or Final Four.

Will say the same thing I said when it was obvious Rick was about to leave: we've been spoiled, and whomever is next won't match him. At least when Rick left, there was someone - Cal - you could point to with the personality and, perhaps though it wasn't clear at that time, the coaching ability to handle this place. I don't see that next someone out there right now.....

 

[Jkwo]

I agree with the "you need a proven guy".

Disagree that Marshall is not proven. His run at WSU is as impressive as what Cal did at UMass, both with predominantly low level recruits. Rare that I pencil in a mid major guy as "proven", but he and Stevens are proven. Smart has not been good enough.


So among the possibilities -

Izzo is already 60 today - when Cal goes, he's not a long term solution.
Marshall is a prickly guy - would not be good for the PR side of the job.
Stevens looks like he's gonna be a long-term success in the NBA. Probably a no-go.
Shaka and Archie are unproven.
Wright and Few are in the same boat - flop in the tournament every year with high expectations and neither will ever leave their current job anyways.

Matta could be very good. He's a very good recruiter and a pretty good coach, and he's a lot younger than he looks. I believe he would do very well at UK - he's perennially underrated in top coach conversations. A staple in the second tier (for the moment). OSU has lots of resources, but how much better would he do better at the basketball school to end all basketball schools? A little? A lot?

S Miller could be very good. Seems to be a good coach, and would reel in a top 3-4 class every single year - often #1. He's been to many elite 8s, and has lost only to legendary coaches once there. Then again, there's not much holding him back at Arizona - he controls an entire coast. If in a couple years he hasn't seriously threatened for a championship, I might begin to wonder.

Pearl would kill it. Absolutely crush it. He is an above average coach and his recruiting would be elite here. He took Tennessee to a level of prominence that it had no business occupying. Has the boisterous personality for the PR side. Do not care about a damn BBQ. There are certain coaches with big red flags - kid at a BBQ does not count. Sorry. Downside - he's only a year younger than Cal, and Cal doesn't seem to like him (loud, talkative alpha dogs clashing?).

Donovan would be perfect, and S&C is right - presuming he doesn't cut it at OKC, he should be the first offer, because the factors keeping him from accepting the job before no longer exist. Multiple championships, no question.

Of course, there are other scenarios - the next Marshall/Stevens type mid major prodigy, Steve Prohm might crush it at Iowa State (seems likely), Avery Johnson might be the first guy in decades to turn Alabama into a threat (wild ass guess).

But for certain my top selections would be

1. Donovan
-
2, 3, 4 Pearl or Miller or Matta in some order.

Probably Pearl at 2, fully understanding that Matta has the best resume, Miller is great, but those other two have had opportunities at serious big boy schools. Something deep inside tells me that Pearl at Kentucky would be a nightmare for everybody else.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

After the run we've had with Cal, I don't think it's really going to matter who we get. Nobody is going to do nearly as well and will pale in comparison. We just have to accept that after he leaves, we are going to have a noticeable drop in recruiting and yearly FFs.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

No way do I want Donovan. He's turned down the job twice, committed the NBA and then immediately went back on it, and then finally took the plunge. If he came back to college it would be because he didn't make it in the pros, and his past history has shown that he hasn't really wanted to coach here. Not a great recipe for success.

 

[Willy4UK]

You make a valid point, but final four experience as a staff member is also a good qualification. Roy Williams had no head coaching experience at all before Kansas, but was on Dean Smith's staff. K had a losing record when Duke hired him, but was a grad assistant on Knight's IU teams in the mid 70s. Izzo was an assistant to Jud Heathcote who won a championship.

And Saint K's miracle growth in coaching came after 1 year after the creation of ESPN in 1979.

 

[Jkwo]

No way do I want Donovan. He's turned down the job twice, committed the NBA and then immediately went back on it, and then finally took the plunge. If he came back to college it would be because he didn't make it in the pros, and his past history has shown that he hasn't really wanted to coach here. Not a great recipe for success.

The "bouncing from the NBA" thing has locked in a good number of coaches at previously unlikely schools.

And the media people with "sources" disagreed on a lot of details re: Donovan hiring attempts, but the one thing they all stated was that it was a tortured decision - meaning UK has a substantial pull for him.

So IF he didn't make it at the NBA level, and the UK job came open, I see it as a really natural landing spot. And considering how long he stayed at Florida, I'm inclined to believe that he'd retire here in that scenario.

 

[FiveStarCat]

Tanked - agree with your stance. I'll point out that I think (just skimmed) everything everyone is saying in this thread focuses on coaching ability and coaching results and pedigree, etc.

I think we know now that UK is unique, and here personality is as important as coaching acumen. That simply has to be considered. I don't care how successful Greg Marshall is, or what kind of great coach he is in some absolute sense, everything I've heard of him indicates his bedside manner is only a hair better than Gillispie's. So, no.

Some coaches (Tubby) are simply private or introverted souls. Others are just horses asses. You put either type into this fishbowl, and though that guy may be an "8" somewhere else, he will languish here.

A word on Donovan: how many NITs did he have at Florida? Don't give me the "it's a football school" answer - he went to a Final Four early, then had back to back titles, so whatever limitations the school had tradition wise should have been overwhelmed by his mojo/momentum. This isn't a place that would tolerate NITs, even sandwiched around a title or Final Four.

Will say the same thing I said when it was obvious Rick was about to leave: we've been spoiled, and whomever is next won't match him. At least when Rick left, there was someone - Cal - you could point to with the personality and, perhaps though it wasn't clear at that time, the coaching ability to handle this place. I don't see that next someone out there right now.....

This is why I mentioned Bruce Pearl. He absolutely has the right mix of personality and coaching ability to handle Kentucky and its pressures. I think if he turns Auburn into a legit program with a Final Four appearance before Cal is done, he would shoot into my pick for first alternative behind Donovan.

 

[FiveStarCat]

I agree with the "you need a proven guy".

Disagree that Marshall is not proven. His run at WSU is as impressive as what Cal did at UMass, both with predominantly low level recruits. Rare that I pencil in a mid major guy as "proven", but he and Stevens are proven. Smart has not been good enough.


So among the possibilities -

Izzo is already 60 today - when Cal goes, he's not a long term solution.
Marshall is a prickly guy - would not be good for the PR side of the job.
Stevens looks like he's gonna be a long-term success in the NBA. Probably a no-go.
Shaka and Archie are unproven.
Wright and Few are in the same boat - flop in the tournament every year with high expectations and neither will ever leave their current job anyways.

Matta could be very good. He's a very good recruiter and a pretty good coach, and he's a lot younger than he looks. I believe he would do very well at UK - he's perennially underrated in top coach conversations. A staple in the second tier (for the moment). OSU has lots of resources, but how much better would he do better at the basketball school to end all basketball schools? A little? A lot?

S Miller could be very good. Seems to be a good coach, and would reel in a top 3-4 class every single year - often #1. He's been to many elite 8s, and has lost only to legendary coaches once there. Then again, there's not much holding him back at Arizona - he controls an entire coast. If in a couple years he hasn't seriously threatened for a championship, I might begin to wonder.

Pearl would kill it. Absolutely crush it. He is an above average coach and his recruiting would be elite here. He took Tennessee to a level of prominence that it had no business occupying. Has the boisterous personality for the PR side. Do not care about a damn BBQ. There are certain coaches with big red flags - kid at a BBQ does not count. Sorry. Downside - he's only a year younger than Cal, and Cal doesn't seem to like him (loud, talkative alpha dogs clashing?).

Donovan would be perfect, and S&C is right - presuming he doesn't cut it at OKC, he should be the first offer, because the factors keeping him from accepting the job before no longer exist. Multiple championships, no question.

Of course, there are other scenarios - the next Marshall/Stevens type mid major prodigy, Steve Prohm might crush it at Iowa State (seems likely), Avery Johnson might be the first guy in decades to turn Alabama into a threat (wild ass guess).

But for certain my top selections would be

1. Donovan
-
2, 3, 4 Pearl or Miller or Matta in some order.

Probably Pearl at 2, fully understanding that Matta has the best resume, Miller is great, but those other two have had opportunities at serious big boy schools. Something deep inside tells me that Pearl at Kentucky would be a nightmare for everybody else.

Didn't see this before my last post but this post absolutely nails it. Great summary.

 

[W2R]

Take personal feelings out of it. If a blue blood job opened up tomorrow would you rather have Ben Howland tubby smith final fours under their belt or Bruce pearl

I would rather have Bruce pearl

I think Donovan got tired of the recruiting process bTw. Also CBB has changed. If it's stays th OAD model. To stay relative you need to have your nose to the grind on recruiting plus be a proven coach. Their are extremes to both sides. There not too many John calipari types. Even coach K admitted he had to change. I don't look forward to replacing Cal anytime soon.

 

[TankedCat]

I am assuming that, but that is because the topic of this thread was about a prescribed set of criteria (in terms of accomplishments) that should be used to narrow down a coaching search. My contention is that those types of approaches tend to oversimplify things and don't necessarily yield better results.

The best way, in my opinion, is to have a clearly defined view of what your ideal coach looks like in terms of competencies and behaviors, not necessarily accomplishments. You also need to understand which behaviors can be learned, and which ones they simply must have before hiring. You then look for those guys.

When you hear people talk about the great coaches when they were starting out, you almost always hear folks talk about how they just knew this guy would succeed because he did x, y, or z. Those are the things to focus on; not necessarily wins and losses.

If there are areas as an AD that you are unqualified to evaluate, then you make sure to bring in additional folks who can evaluate them and who's opinion you trust.

It's less about what have they done and more about are they the type of person who would be successful here. It's a more qualitative approach, which I believe is warranted because hiring people in any industry is not, and never will be, an exact science.

as noted, behaviors and personality are a big part of it - just like Cal tells his kids, the same is true of coaches - you can't hide at UK. And as accomplished as I think Roy Williams and Tom Izzo are, they wouldn't have succeeded at UK because they don't have the thick skin necessary to live thru the down times.

However there is no way I would have advocated rolling the dice on a 13-17 coach at Florida - even if history would have proved me wrong. We bring in a Billy Donovan now, or back after Tubby left but you don't bring him in at the end of 1996. Its easy to say he would have worked out great at UK but its also easy to say that had he turned in a couple of NIT seasons, UK would have been done with him - and Donovan in 1996 could have gone either way.

I would contend that you go with the highest probability coach - and the its obvious he can coach approach will burn you more often than not - which is why you go with a proven set of criteria.

 

[CatColumbia]

Brad Stevens gets my vote. He took Butler to back-to-back Final Fours and is also doing a good job in Boston with mediocre NBA talent.

 

[Jkwo]

Also forgot to mention that Billy Kennedy could be good five years down the road. All his teams do is get better over the years, and now that he's at a P5 school, he's getting ranked. Certainly not qualified for UK, but just for prediction's sake, I bet he'll be one of the hot names before the decade is over.

As for Howland, he might end up doing good things, has about as good a tourney record as any non-elite coach, but if you read the big SI story on his UCLA program - he totally lost control to where that big white kid he had was beating up other players, etc - just a mess.

 

[westerncat]

So when Cal retires will Cal have a say so in the next coach ?

 

[KY Long Rifle]

I really hate to see the day that we have to replace Calipari. But, if Stevens is available, he would be my top choice. I wanted Donavan when Pitino left, but I haven't been overly interested since.

 

[Jkwo]

So when Cal retires will Cal have a say so in the next coach ?

He's too loyal to his guys to be objective about that. He'll say to take Barbee or something like that.