Youthful (ideally) energy; a scrappy recruiter with mind for offensive basketball (forward motion kind of offensive, not the barfy Fox kind); flexible and willing to adjust and adapt based on talent and trends; and ideally BIPOC.
The one problem with slow but efficient play is its unappealing. This hurts recruiting, as it hurts stats that are necessary to be attractive at and advance to the next level, and no fun, and it kills viewership and engagement, because its known to kill recruiting, and is no fun.
It works for Randy Bennett and Tony Bennett because they have the credibility to overcome it, but Cal doesn't have that.
Definitely don't need coaches that are abusive to players. While that used to be seen as acceptable (or even desirable), it's an enormous liability now.
I'm sorry, anything that compromises Cal's academic integrity is off the table for me. Athletics is an extra-curricular activity, not the university. The hypocrisy of colleges recruiting athletes that cannot be peers of the other stdents who come for an education, makes college athletics a cynical scam.
Basically your list, but I'd add: (1) runs a tight enough ship that the program won't make headlines for academic or other off-court issues, and (2) good at picking assistants.
I feel one important trait should be the ability to develop talent. As stated above Cal will have multiple disadvantages when it comes to recruiting high profile players, whether that be out of high school or in the transfer portal. Unless a kid really cares about the degree they could get by coming to Cal they would have to be crazy to be in the first recruiting class whatever new head coach comes to Cal. You could point to what happened at K-State as a sign of hope, but I'd be willing to be they spent way more NIL money than Cal could even dream of spending right now. Because of this I think the new head coach should be good at identifying under recruited talent and coaching them up to be high level Pac 12 talent. At the end of the day rankings only mean so much so I'd rather have a coach that can really develop the talent, rather than one that can only recruit it, as the developer of talent will eventually get the higher ranked guys after having success while the good recruit has only so high of a ceiling and will typically underperform in relation to the talent on the roster.
Under 50 years of age; charisma, to be at least a solid recruiter; capable of running an efficient offense; has never been fired as a Head Coach at any school...no retreads - no Tim Miles, no Ben Howland. Cuonzo 2.0, long shot, would be intriguing tho...
We'll see how many we get...more than anything, the program needs a jolt of energy...a shot of adrenaline, to get people interested again, and quickly.
Pasternack, Stan Johnson, Ryan Odom, Danny Sprinkle, and seemingly 50-75 others fit the bill...my question: does Knowlton and Cal have a splashy hire in them, like Florida with Golden last year, like Sandy Barbour with Cuonzo...
I notice you did not mention graduation rates? That is something that is important to the faculty and to a lesser degree to alumni, since it is a reflection of our academic brand. Coach Fox achieved the highest mark in that area by contrast to our two previous coaches.
Cal hoops has tried the 'develop talent' style of existence (with a few happy aberrations) for the entire modern era with limited success.
Time to abandon that philosophy. It's a different world now.
With NIL & the portal, you can't count on even half of your HS recruits being around for their senior year. To paraphrase real estate agents, or Steve Ballmer, it's recruiting, recruiting, recruiting.
We need talent now. Our next coach has to have endless energy & enthusiasm for the recruiting process, create relationships with all of the bay area high schools, work nationwide plus the international hotbeds (have a dedicated international recruiter on staff). Double the recruiting budget as a condition of hire. Needs to have a big, persuasive personality to woo administrators to gain admission for the athletes he wants.
Agree we should not worry about age, and should not consider coaches with prior failures or sustained mediocracy, tempo would be nice (mostly as a recruiting inducement) but not a requirement, minor violations are ok.
Things that don't matter: prior turnaround projects (Cal is different enough that there's no assurance of it translating), prior limited resource experience - any competent coach would know what's they're getting into at Cal & would have a plan for success with what they're given (see recruiting budget above).
Embraces the UC Berkeley paradigm and Fiat Lux, a great teacher who gets the best from what they have, plays a type of game that stands up to scrutiny for being intelligent, and is charismatic enough to generate enthusiasm among donors and students. Win more games than you lose. Poke into March Madness every couple years.
Ability to retain local talent (i.e. recruiting). So annoyed to see guys go to Arizona, Kentucky, etc and then often transfer. Lock up the Bay Area. While recruiting and transfers has gone more national, building a local network is a big part of Cal's past success. It's so much more cost effective, too.
Your comment was incomplete, but if your reference to "P5" is to top tier basketball, I think the performance of Princeton and San Diego State suggest that schools with academic credentials can perform, albeit not as easily as those without either standards or financial impediments. I don't know a great deal about the prospective hire of Mark Madsen. I know he played for Mike Montgomery and attended a reputable academic institution. Hopefully, he can recruit the types of players that can be successful at Cal as Justin Wilcox has attempted to do with the football program. But I stand by my previous comments. Cal is not an athletic factory, nor should it be.
- A sharp sense of style
- Can make a french omelette
- Gets on base and sets the table for the heart of the order
- Is more of a mountain person than a beach person
- Well organized traveler, can fit everything into a carry-on for a week-long trip
- Left handed
- Knows the best places to get Vietnamese food in every Pac-12 city
Offensive chops, Recruiting, Turnaround guys. Doer rather than complainer.
No retreads.
Youthful (ideally) energy; a scrappy recruiter with mind for offensive basketball (forward motion kind of offensive, not the barfy Fox kind); flexible and willing to adjust and adapt based on talent and trends; and ideally BIPOC.
The one problem with slow but efficient play is its unappealing. This hurts recruiting, as it hurts stats that are necessary to be attractive at and advance to the next level, and no fun, and it kills viewership and engagement, because its known to kill recruiting, and is no fun.
It works for Randy Bennett and Tony Bennett because they have the credibility to overcome it, but Cal doesn't have that.
Definitely don't need coaches that are abusive to players. While that used to be seen as acceptable (or even desirable), it's an enormous liability now.
I'm sorry, anything that compromises Cal's academic integrity is off the table for me. Athletics is an extra-curricular activity, not the university. The hypocrisy of colleges recruiting athletes that cannot be peers of the other stdents who come for an education, makes college athletics a cynical scam.
Basically your list, but I'd add: (1) runs a tight enough ship that the program won't make headlines for academic or other off-court issues, and (2) good at picking assistants.
I feel one important trait should be the ability to develop talent. As stated above Cal will have multiple disadvantages when it comes to recruiting high profile players, whether that be out of high school or in the transfer portal. Unless a kid really cares about the degree they could get by coming to Cal they would have to be crazy to be in the first recruiting class whatever new head coach comes to Cal. You could point to what happened at K-State as a sign of hope, but I'd be willing to be they spent way more NIL money than Cal could even dream of spending right now. Because of this I think the new head coach should be good at identifying under recruited talent and coaching them up to be high level Pac 12 talent. At the end of the day rankings only mean so much so I'd rather have a coach that can really develop the talent, rather than one that can only recruit it, as the developer of talent will eventually get the higher ranked guys after having success while the good recruit has only so high of a ceiling and will typically underperform in relation to the talent on the roster.
Under 50 years of age; charisma, to be at least a solid recruiter; capable of running an efficient offense; has never been fired as a Head Coach at any school...no retreads - no Tim Miles, no Ben Howland. Cuonzo 2.0, long shot, would be intriguing tho...
We'll see how many we get...more than anything, the program needs a jolt of energy...a shot of adrenaline, to get people interested again, and quickly.
Pasternack, Stan Johnson, Ryan Odom, Danny Sprinkle, and seemingly 50-75 others fit the bill...my question: does Knowlton and Cal have a splashy hire in them, like Florida with Golden last year, like Sandy Barbour with Cuonzo...
Good point. Penn State made good use of the transfer portal. I hope that Purdue's success was achieved without compromise.
I notice you did not mention graduation rates? That is something that is important to the faculty and to a lesser degree to alumni, since it is a reflection of our academic brand. Coach Fox achieved the highest mark in that area by contrast to our two previous coaches.
Cal hoops has tried the 'develop talent' style of existence (with a few happy aberrations) for the entire modern era with limited success.
Time to abandon that philosophy. It's a different world now.
With NIL & the portal, you can't count on even half of your HS recruits being around for their senior year. To paraphrase real estate agents, or Steve Ballmer, it's recruiting, recruiting, recruiting.
We need talent now. Our next coach has to have endless energy & enthusiasm for the recruiting process, create relationships with all of the bay area high schools, work nationwide plus the international hotbeds (have a dedicated international recruiter on staff). Double the recruiting budget as a condition of hire. Needs to have a big, persuasive personality to woo administrators to gain admission for the athletes he wants.
Agree we should not worry about age, and should not consider coaches with prior failures or sustained mediocracy, tempo would be nice (mostly as a recruiting inducement) but not a requirement, minor violations are ok.
Things that don't matter: prior turnaround projects (Cal is different enough that there's no assurance of it translating), prior limited resource experience - any competent coach would know what's they're getting into at Cal & would have a plan for success with what they're given (see recruiting budget above).
Embraces the UC Berkeley paradigm and Fiat Lux, a great teacher who gets the best from what they have, plays a type of game that stands up to scrutiny for being intelligent, and is charismatic enough to generate enthusiasm among donors and students. Win more games than you lose. Poke into March Madness every couple years.
Ability to retain local talent (i.e. recruiting). So annoyed to see guys go to Arizona, Kentucky, etc and then often transfer. Lock up the Bay Area. While recruiting and transfers has gone more national, building a local network is a big part of Cal's past success. It's so much more cost effective, too.
Bring back Todd Bozeman.
Your comment was incomplete, but if your reference to "P5" is to top tier basketball, I think the performance of Princeton and San Diego State suggest that schools with academic credentials can perform, albeit not as easily as those without either standards or financial impediments. I don't know a great deal about the prospective hire of Mark Madsen. I know he played for Mike Montgomery and attended a reputable academic institution. Hopefully, he can recruit the types of players that can be successful at Cal as Justin Wilcox has attempted to do with the football program. But I stand by my previous comments. Cal is not an athletic factory, nor should it be.