Not a lot to report other than scuttlebutt and rumors at the moment. In terms of making direct contact, as of last night based on what I've heard neither Mike Dunlap, Mark Fox, nor Randy Bennett have heard from Cal. That doesn't mean there aren't intermediaries having offline conversations but nothing has risen to the level of a formal conversation.
There may also be conversations happening with some of the long distance prospects like Tom Crean and potentially even Mike Brey, whom Sandy knows well.
My guess at this point is that Cal will land on Mark Fox as the choice to be the next head coach. Fox is young at 38 years old, he's had experience in the Pac 10 as an assistant, he was part of the rebuilding work at Nevada and has accelerated their progress since Trent Johnson left. As compared to Bennett, he is a proven recruiter who can land highly sought after preps and he has dominated his own conference over the past four years. Bennett should get credit for turning around a moribund St. Mary's program but that is far less relevant in my eyes as Cal is not that far down at the moment and the challenges are of a very different nature than what Bennett faced in Moraga. Fox is also a polished and charismatic personality who will play well with the press and alums.
The rumors around Mike Montgomery won't die. Many Old Blues who claim to be in the know believe there is an ongoing conversation happening between Monty and the Bears. The sticking points likely revolve around Monty's choice of assistants, most importantly his insistence that his son inherit the program when he retires and the size of his compensation package.
As I shared below, I don't see the fit with Montgomery and the Bears even without his demand to bequeath the program to his son. I hope this is just hopeful speculation on the part of some of the bigger donors and not substantive.
The one crazy rumor regarding Montgomery that won't go away is the one that involves Trent Johnson. Johnson has but one year left on his deal with Stanford and has been told he will be renewed but by all accounts, Stanford isn't in a huge hurry to get it done. The conspiracy theorists opine that Bowlsby (Stanford's AD) doesn't mesh well with Johnson and would prefer to have Monty come back rather than sign Johnson to a long term deal. Johnson, unlike Montgomery, has gone out of his way to praise Cal to folks off the record, citing the native recruiting advantages and the depth of talent currently on the Bears roster. Johnson feels like a better fit for Cal than for the Cardinal. All of this is a long shot but it could explain the lack of contact between Cal and other candidates and the rumors around Montgomery. It also gets credence from Barbour's recent quote that Cal would need to wait until certain prospects exited the tourney. She said this last week and speculation was that she was talking about Sean Miller (Xavier), but Johnson frankly makes more sense.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
More rumors on the hire
The Chronicle has some interesting thoughts:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/SP4TVSP0J.DTL
Let's discuss the two new names:
Tony Bennett (Washington State):
Pro: One of the first of the very popular trend of a father passing his coaching job to his son, Tony took over for his hall of fame father Dick and took WSU to heights it never imagined. While Dick laid the groundwork of rebuilding the Cougars, Tony was the recruiter who landed Derrick Low, Kyle Weaver, et al. Prior to WSU, Bennett was at Wisconsin, again under his father where he helped lead the Badgers to the final four and again was the recruiter responsible for Devin Harris and company. A defensive dynamo, WSU plays as tough a brand of half court defense as anyone. Young, high energy and respected for his ability to mentor and connect with players, Bennett has been equally successful in getting his kids to work hard in the classroom with several P10 All Academic team honors
Con: Only two years in the head chair, Bennett inherited a strong foundation from his father. His defensive approach has been flatteringly called ugly and may not impress fans or recruits. Will Bennett, who has played and coached in rural locations adapt to the Berkeley culture.
Bottom line: It's very rare to see a head coach make an inter conference job move but WSU has limited upside for Bennett both in salary and in what he can do with the basketball program. Bennett has shown so much in a short period of time, you can't help but be impressed. His recruiting acumen, his youth and his defensive smarts would all be welcomed at Cal. The challenge is the culture fit. Indiana may also be calling on Tony and that may end up being a better fit for his rural background and slow down system.
Mike Dunlap: (Denver Nuggets Assistant)
Pro: Known as one of the great teachers in the game, Dunlap has coached all over the world and at virtually ever level. He started his career as a head coach in the Australian professional league before getting assistant gigs at some big time D1 college programs including Iowa and USC. He then had a 12 year stint at two D2 programs as their head coach, nine at Denver's MetroState which he turned into a national powerhouse winning two national championships and losing one other in the finals. He spent the last year as an assistant for the Nuggets in the NBA.
Con: No D1 head coaching experience, his recruiting acumen has to be a major question mark. With his resume, you have to wonder why he hasn't been tapped as a mid major head coach to this point.
Bottom line: Perhaps Dunlap is a hidden gem, if he's interviewed and comes across as a dynamic personality, leader and recruiter, he could be worth the gamble. However, it feels high risk. He's not a spring chicken and is unknown as a recruiter. I think Sandy has better options.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/SP4TVSP0J.DTL
Let's discuss the two new names:
Tony Bennett (Washington State):
Pro: One of the first of the very popular trend of a father passing his coaching job to his son, Tony took over for his hall of fame father Dick and took WSU to heights it never imagined. While Dick laid the groundwork of rebuilding the Cougars, Tony was the recruiter who landed Derrick Low, Kyle Weaver, et al. Prior to WSU, Bennett was at Wisconsin, again under his father where he helped lead the Badgers to the final four and again was the recruiter responsible for Devin Harris and company. A defensive dynamo, WSU plays as tough a brand of half court defense as anyone. Young, high energy and respected for his ability to mentor and connect with players, Bennett has been equally successful in getting his kids to work hard in the classroom with several P10 All Academic team honors
Con: Only two years in the head chair, Bennett inherited a strong foundation from his father. His defensive approach has been flatteringly called ugly and may not impress fans or recruits. Will Bennett, who has played and coached in rural locations adapt to the Berkeley culture.
Bottom line: It's very rare to see a head coach make an inter conference job move but WSU has limited upside for Bennett both in salary and in what he can do with the basketball program. Bennett has shown so much in a short period of time, you can't help but be impressed. His recruiting acumen, his youth and his defensive smarts would all be welcomed at Cal. The challenge is the culture fit. Indiana may also be calling on Tony and that may end up being a better fit for his rural background and slow down system.
Mike Dunlap: (Denver Nuggets Assistant)
Pro: Known as one of the great teachers in the game, Dunlap has coached all over the world and at virtually ever level. He started his career as a head coach in the Australian professional league before getting assistant gigs at some big time D1 college programs including Iowa and USC. He then had a 12 year stint at two D2 programs as their head coach, nine at Denver's MetroState which he turned into a national powerhouse winning two national championships and losing one other in the finals. He spent the last year as an assistant for the Nuggets in the NBA.
Con: No D1 head coaching experience, his recruiting acumen has to be a major question mark. With his resume, you have to wonder why he hasn't been tapped as a mid major head coach to this point.
Bottom line: Perhaps Dunlap is a hidden gem, if he's interviewed and comes across as a dynamic personality, leader and recruiter, he could be worth the gamble. However, it feels high risk. He's not a spring chicken and is unknown as a recruiter. I think Sandy has better options.
Scratch Dixon from the list
But at least we know Sandy has her aim set high.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3318598
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3318598
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Candidate List
The cream of the crop:
Jamie Dixon (University of Pittsburgh):
Pro: Dixon’s first four years as a head coach have been incredibly successful. He picked up where Ben Howland left off and if anything Pitt has become an even stronger program. Having learned from Howland, arguably the top coach in the country at the moment, Dixon knows what it is to recruit and win in a BCS conference. Dixon has a system and recruits players to fit that system.
Con: Dixon’s Pitt teams are built around rough and tough defense and have never been described as having a fan or recruit friendly offense. Not known as a great recruiter, he finds kids who fit his system and rarely goes after elite national players
Bottom Line: Dixon is the most proven commodity who is likely to be interested in Cal. He should be right at if not at the very top of Sandy’s list
Anthony Grant (Virginia Commonwealth University)
Pro: – Has taken VCU from a middle of the road mid-major team to one of the most feared smaller schools in the country in two short years. His record is startlingly good: 52-15 overall and 31-5 in conference games. Was a longtime assistant to Billy Donovan at Florida and briefly was Florida’s head coach when Donovan announced he was headed to the NBA before quickly changing his mind. Known as a marvelous recruiter and a great offensive coach, his VCU teams play a very crowd and recruit pleasing fast paced style
Con: Limited experience as a head coach creates question marks as to how he will project as a head man at a BCS conference program. Will his up and down style work well in the defensive minded Pac 10 conference?
Bottom Line: He would be a great fit for Cal. His experience at Florida gives him the roadmap for success in Berkeley. He’s the type of pied piper recruiter who can pull the best talent from LA and Seattle while keeping NorCal’s finest at home. His style of play would put butts in the seats at Haas. Rumor has it that LSU wants him and he is asking for big money. A lifetime resident of the East Coast, it’s unclear how attractive Cal would be to him.
Jay Wright (Villanova University)
Pro: Proven winner as a head coach at both Hofstra and now Villanova. Has won 60% of his games at Villanova and 65% overall. His teams play a tough, gritty style of play that allows them to compete with anyone in the country. A proven recruiter who has landed three McD's All Americans.
Con: Wright struggled early to acclimate to a new level of talent as the program was hit by a phone card scandal and several players had to be dismissed. His style of play would fit well in the P10 alongside Herb Sendek, Tony Bennett and Ben Howland but his defense first approach is not likely to win over fans or recruits. A lifer on the East Coast, he may not be attracted to the Bay Area
Bottom Line: He’s a big time coach and Cal would win and win consistently with him. Unclear whether he could take the Bears to “elite” status given his recruiting deficiencies and the cultural fit with Berkeley may not be there
Tom Crean: (Marquette University)
Pro: One of the most respected X’s and O’s coaches in all college basketball. His in game decision making skills are as good as it gets. Has done a good job recruiting talent to a Marquette program that hasn’t historically attracted big time prep players. Has won 66% of his games over eight seasons including a Final Four run. A Tom Izzo protégé who was the top assistant at Michigan State during their heyday.
Con: Crean hasn’t been able to get Marquette from a good program to a great one. Some question whether he can recruit as well as his former mentor, Tom Izzo
Bottom Line: Marquette is not a AAA destination in college basketball and Cal offers Crean a more fertile recruiting base, a stronger academic profile and a more desirable place to live. Expect Sandy to inquire about his interest as he could be a great fit for the Bears.
Sean Miller – (Xavier University):
Pro: The son of a coach, Miller has made steady progress with Xavier during his first three years, including this years Elite Eight (and perhaps beyond) appearance. His Xavier teams have consistently exceeded expectations. A Thad Matta (perhaps the best lesser known coach in the country) protégé, Miller is known as a fiery competitor whose teams never back down or give up. Miller has served as an assistant at some of the better programs in the country including Wisconsin, NC State and Pitt.
Con: He inherited a healthy Xavier program and has yet to face the type of program building challenge he would have in Berkeley. His recruiting success to date has been modest. Limited experience as a head coach, especially since he has won with players inherited from Thad Matta.
Bottom Line: Miller is likely to benefit from the coaching carousel at bigger programs like Cal, LSU, Indiana, etc. If Dixon or Crean were to leave Pitt or Marquette, expect Miller to be those schools top choice. His age, background and competitive style would suit him well at Cal and I hope he gets a chance to meet with Sandy.
Mark Fox: (University of Nevada)
Pro: Took over for Trent Johnson when he left for Stanford as has continued the Wolfpack’s winning ways. He has won more than 75% of his games at Nevada including three NCAA appearances in four years. A stellar recruiter, Fox is finding hidden gems and landing the big fish including incoming McD’s AA Luke Babbitt.
Con: Nevada took a step back this year and even with the unexpected departure of PG Ramon Sessions, they underperformed relative to expectations. Fox took over a healthy Nevada program and it’s unclear how much of their recent success was built on the back of Trent Johnson
Bottom Line: Despite the obvious upgrade in jobs, Fox may be loathe to leave Nevada as he welcomes Babbitt and returns a wealth of talent next season. Fox is a year or two away from picking his job. He’s a perfect fit for Cal in terms of his youth, recruiting chops and knowledge of the west coast.
Mike Montgomery (See Previous Blog Post)
The second tier:
Mark Grier – (University of San Diego)
Pro: Spectacular first year success story with USD, giving them their most successful season ever. A long time Gonzaga assistant who has been inside a top flight program and a respected defensive specialist.
Con: Very limited experience as a head coach. Gonzaga was never known for their defense while Grier managed that side of things for the Zags. An unknown commodity as a recruiter of elite prep talent (although Gonzaga has of late recruited at that level)
Bottom Line: Timing doesn’t feel right. Grier is likely going to spend a few more years at USD honing his craft and waiting for Mark Few to move on to Oregon so that he can go back to Spokane and take over the Gonzaga program
Randy Bennett: (St. Mary’s University)
Pro: Took an awful St. Mary’s program (2-26 the year before he arrived) and built it into one of the better teams in the WCC. Has won over 55% of his WCC games and led the Gaels to two NCAA tournament appearances in his seven year tenure
Con: After getting back to respectability with the Gaels, Bennett has failed to establish a level of consistency on par with the elite mid major programs. A longtime assistant at other mid majors, Bennett has no experience recruiting or coaching at a BCS conference
Bottom Line: Bennett deserves an opportunity to coach at a P10 school, however, it’s Oregon State that should be excited to get him and not Cal.
Keno Davis (Drake University)
Pro; Son of legendary college coach Tom Davis, Keno has had a wonderful first year as the head man at Drake. He took over a 17-12 Drake team that lost four starters and led them to a 28-5 record.
Con: A very limited track record as a head coach with only one year. His career as an assistant was all at smaller schools. The biggest question would be his ability to recruit and motivate top prep talent
Bottom Line: A name to watch in the future but at this point in his career, he’s too much of a risk for Cal
Lon Kruger – (UNLV)
Pro; A proven winner who has done well at Florida, Illinois and now UNLV. Kruger has as impressive a resume as any mid major coach. The job he has done turning around UNLV has been just short of miraculous.
Con: Kruger is in the 8th inning of his career and despite his turnaround of UNLV, it’s doubtful he has the energy in doing it for the Bears. He never was able to make Florida or Illinois consistent winners so there are questions about his head room as well.
Bottom Line: Doesn’t feel like a good fit as the Bears need someone who wants to make their name at Cal and not make a final pit stop before heading off to retirement
Eric Musselman – (Former Golden State Warriors and Sacramento Kings head coach)
Pro: In his early twenties became one of the most successful head coaches in the NBAs minor leagues. He was exceptional at taking lesser known talents in the CBA and working with them to get to the NBA. Is known for his tremendous energy and enthusiasm
Con: Was not successful as an NBA head coach. Has no experience in the college game and has had a few off the court challenges (DUI)
Bottom Line: Musselman is actively campaigning for the Cal job. My guess is that his pro resume and relative youth and high energy level will translate into success as a recruiter in college. However, his lack of experience at this level and his off the court problems likely make him a second tier choice for the Bears.
Steve Lavin – (Former UCLA head coach)
Pro: Led UCLA to four sweet sixteen appearances in six years. Landed almost every top recruit in SoCal during his tenure with the Bruins. A very bright and charismatic person. Lavin is a Bay Area native with a deep knowledge of the Pac 10
Con: Pushed into the head coaching seat too early, Lavin was over his head at UCLA and his teams played inconsistently, underperforming relative to their talent level. A far better motivator than X’s and O’s coach, it’s difficult to know whether he has the chops as a teacher to succeed.
Bottom Line: Arguably the best college basketball television analyst around, Lavin’s future may be in front of cameras and not roaming the sidelines. If Lavin was willing to take an assistant job for a top flight college coach for a few years, he might be a good pick, but right now, he’s a high risk candidate.
There are likely to be more names that surface as the search continues so check back for updates on the list above
Jamie Dixon (University of Pittsburgh):
Pro: Dixon’s first four years as a head coach have been incredibly successful. He picked up where Ben Howland left off and if anything Pitt has become an even stronger program. Having learned from Howland, arguably the top coach in the country at the moment, Dixon knows what it is to recruit and win in a BCS conference. Dixon has a system and recruits players to fit that system.
Con: Dixon’s Pitt teams are built around rough and tough defense and have never been described as having a fan or recruit friendly offense. Not known as a great recruiter, he finds kids who fit his system and rarely goes after elite national players
Bottom Line: Dixon is the most proven commodity who is likely to be interested in Cal. He should be right at if not at the very top of Sandy’s list
Anthony Grant (Virginia Commonwealth University)
Pro: – Has taken VCU from a middle of the road mid-major team to one of the most feared smaller schools in the country in two short years. His record is startlingly good: 52-15 overall and 31-5 in conference games. Was a longtime assistant to Billy Donovan at Florida and briefly was Florida’s head coach when Donovan announced he was headed to the NBA before quickly changing his mind. Known as a marvelous recruiter and a great offensive coach, his VCU teams play a very crowd and recruit pleasing fast paced style
Con: Limited experience as a head coach creates question marks as to how he will project as a head man at a BCS conference program. Will his up and down style work well in the defensive minded Pac 10 conference?
Bottom Line: He would be a great fit for Cal. His experience at Florida gives him the roadmap for success in Berkeley. He’s the type of pied piper recruiter who can pull the best talent from LA and Seattle while keeping NorCal’s finest at home. His style of play would put butts in the seats at Haas. Rumor has it that LSU wants him and he is asking for big money. A lifetime resident of the East Coast, it’s unclear how attractive Cal would be to him.
Jay Wright (Villanova University)
Pro: Proven winner as a head coach at both Hofstra and now Villanova. Has won 60% of his games at Villanova and 65% overall. His teams play a tough, gritty style of play that allows them to compete with anyone in the country. A proven recruiter who has landed three McD's All Americans.
Con: Wright struggled early to acclimate to a new level of talent as the program was hit by a phone card scandal and several players had to be dismissed. His style of play would fit well in the P10 alongside Herb Sendek, Tony Bennett and Ben Howland but his defense first approach is not likely to win over fans or recruits. A lifer on the East Coast, he may not be attracted to the Bay Area
Bottom Line: He’s a big time coach and Cal would win and win consistently with him. Unclear whether he could take the Bears to “elite” status given his recruiting deficiencies and the cultural fit with Berkeley may not be there
Tom Crean: (Marquette University)
Pro: One of the most respected X’s and O’s coaches in all college basketball. His in game decision making skills are as good as it gets. Has done a good job recruiting talent to a Marquette program that hasn’t historically attracted big time prep players. Has won 66% of his games over eight seasons including a Final Four run. A Tom Izzo protégé who was the top assistant at Michigan State during their heyday.
Con: Crean hasn’t been able to get Marquette from a good program to a great one. Some question whether he can recruit as well as his former mentor, Tom Izzo
Bottom Line: Marquette is not a AAA destination in college basketball and Cal offers Crean a more fertile recruiting base, a stronger academic profile and a more desirable place to live. Expect Sandy to inquire about his interest as he could be a great fit for the Bears.
Sean Miller – (Xavier University):
Pro: The son of a coach, Miller has made steady progress with Xavier during his first three years, including this years Elite Eight (and perhaps beyond) appearance. His Xavier teams have consistently exceeded expectations. A Thad Matta (perhaps the best lesser known coach in the country) protégé, Miller is known as a fiery competitor whose teams never back down or give up. Miller has served as an assistant at some of the better programs in the country including Wisconsin, NC State and Pitt.
Con: He inherited a healthy Xavier program and has yet to face the type of program building challenge he would have in Berkeley. His recruiting success to date has been modest. Limited experience as a head coach, especially since he has won with players inherited from Thad Matta.
Bottom Line: Miller is likely to benefit from the coaching carousel at bigger programs like Cal, LSU, Indiana, etc. If Dixon or Crean were to leave Pitt or Marquette, expect Miller to be those schools top choice. His age, background and competitive style would suit him well at Cal and I hope he gets a chance to meet with Sandy.
Mark Fox: (University of Nevada)
Pro: Took over for Trent Johnson when he left for Stanford as has continued the Wolfpack’s winning ways. He has won more than 75% of his games at Nevada including three NCAA appearances in four years. A stellar recruiter, Fox is finding hidden gems and landing the big fish including incoming McD’s AA Luke Babbitt.
Con: Nevada took a step back this year and even with the unexpected departure of PG Ramon Sessions, they underperformed relative to expectations. Fox took over a healthy Nevada program and it’s unclear how much of their recent success was built on the back of Trent Johnson
Bottom Line: Despite the obvious upgrade in jobs, Fox may be loathe to leave Nevada as he welcomes Babbitt and returns a wealth of talent next season. Fox is a year or two away from picking his job. He’s a perfect fit for Cal in terms of his youth, recruiting chops and knowledge of the west coast.
Mike Montgomery (See Previous Blog Post)
The second tier:
Mark Grier – (University of San Diego)
Pro: Spectacular first year success story with USD, giving them their most successful season ever. A long time Gonzaga assistant who has been inside a top flight program and a respected defensive specialist.
Con: Very limited experience as a head coach. Gonzaga was never known for their defense while Grier managed that side of things for the Zags. An unknown commodity as a recruiter of elite prep talent (although Gonzaga has of late recruited at that level)
Bottom Line: Timing doesn’t feel right. Grier is likely going to spend a few more years at USD honing his craft and waiting for Mark Few to move on to Oregon so that he can go back to Spokane and take over the Gonzaga program
Randy Bennett: (St. Mary’s University)
Pro: Took an awful St. Mary’s program (2-26 the year before he arrived) and built it into one of the better teams in the WCC. Has won over 55% of his WCC games and led the Gaels to two NCAA tournament appearances in his seven year tenure
Con: After getting back to respectability with the Gaels, Bennett has failed to establish a level of consistency on par with the elite mid major programs. A longtime assistant at other mid majors, Bennett has no experience recruiting or coaching at a BCS conference
Bottom Line: Bennett deserves an opportunity to coach at a P10 school, however, it’s Oregon State that should be excited to get him and not Cal.
Keno Davis (Drake University)
Pro; Son of legendary college coach Tom Davis, Keno has had a wonderful first year as the head man at Drake. He took over a 17-12 Drake team that lost four starters and led them to a 28-5 record.
Con: A very limited track record as a head coach with only one year. His career as an assistant was all at smaller schools. The biggest question would be his ability to recruit and motivate top prep talent
Bottom Line: A name to watch in the future but at this point in his career, he’s too much of a risk for Cal
Lon Kruger – (UNLV)
Pro; A proven winner who has done well at Florida, Illinois and now UNLV. Kruger has as impressive a resume as any mid major coach. The job he has done turning around UNLV has been just short of miraculous.
Con: Kruger is in the 8th inning of his career and despite his turnaround of UNLV, it’s doubtful he has the energy in doing it for the Bears. He never was able to make Florida or Illinois consistent winners so there are questions about his head room as well.
Bottom Line: Doesn’t feel like a good fit as the Bears need someone who wants to make their name at Cal and not make a final pit stop before heading off to retirement
Eric Musselman – (Former Golden State Warriors and Sacramento Kings head coach)
Pro: In his early twenties became one of the most successful head coaches in the NBAs minor leagues. He was exceptional at taking lesser known talents in the CBA and working with them to get to the NBA. Is known for his tremendous energy and enthusiasm
Con: Was not successful as an NBA head coach. Has no experience in the college game and has had a few off the court challenges (DUI)
Bottom Line: Musselman is actively campaigning for the Cal job. My guess is that his pro resume and relative youth and high energy level will translate into success as a recruiter in college. However, his lack of experience at this level and his off the court problems likely make him a second tier choice for the Bears.
Steve Lavin – (Former UCLA head coach)
Pro: Led UCLA to four sweet sixteen appearances in six years. Landed almost every top recruit in SoCal during his tenure with the Bruins. A very bright and charismatic person. Lavin is a Bay Area native with a deep knowledge of the Pac 10
Con: Pushed into the head coaching seat too early, Lavin was over his head at UCLA and his teams played inconsistently, underperforming relative to their talent level. A far better motivator than X’s and O’s coach, it’s difficult to know whether he has the chops as a teacher to succeed.
Bottom Line: Arguably the best college basketball television analyst around, Lavin’s future may be in front of cameras and not roaming the sidelines. If Lavin was willing to take an assistant job for a top flight college coach for a few years, he might be a good pick, but right now, he’s a high risk candidate.
There are likely to be more names that surface as the search continues so check back for updates on the list above
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Full Monty
Clearly, taking our arch rivals most successful basketball coach is no longer considered blasphemy for the Cal faithful. As soon as the words dismissing Ben Braun were out of Sandy Barbour’s mouth, a hue and cry ensued demanding Mike Montgomery be his successor. It’s not hard to understand the appeal of seeing Mike Montgomery’s scowl on the sideline of Haas Pavilion. Montgomery took a clear cut bottom of the conference program at Stanford and made them a perennial P10 contender. He’s won over 70% of the games he’s coached at both Montana and Stanford, took the Cardinal to ten straight NCAA tournament appearances including one to the final four. He’s a future hall of fame coach who happens to live in the Bay Area and is currently unemployed. What’s not to like?
I’m glad you asked. Despite his incredibly impressive resume, Montgomery is in fact not a good fit for Cal. Montgomery has never been known as a great recruiter and he privately expressed his distaste for the process before leaving Palo Alto for the NBA. Stanford is unique in its ability to attract student athletes distinct from the health of its athletic programs or the recruiting acumen of its coaches. It has a nationwide brand based on stellar academics and its bucolic campus, not to mention the $125k+ in scholarship value they offer. As a result, Montgomery had good but not great talent at Stanford. In his 18 year tenure in Palo Alto, he attracted only two more McDs All Americans and fewer top 100 recruits than Braun did during his twelve year run in Berkeley. That’s shocking when you consider the disparity in the two programs on the court success and points up both Monty’s recruiting challenges as well as his ability to win with less talent than his opponents.
Montgomery won by having a system and finding kids who fit that system well. His teams were big, strong and rough down low and populated with great shooters who could come off screens and drain jumpers. His system was one that was as tightly scripted on offense and as complex on defense as any in college basketball and relied heavily on fourth and fifth seniors who had mastered the system for it work well. While I can imagine a similar approach working in Berkeley, it doesn’t strike me as one that leverages Cal’s inherent strengths and weaknesses as well as it did Stanford’s. Cal has a far more flexible admissions department when it comes to student athletes and the urban campus has always attracted some of the better basketball players on the West Coast. Recruiting those types of players requires a head coach who is a tireless and passionate recruiter. Even when he was forty, that wasn’t a favorite part of Montgomery’s job, at age 60, it’s very hard to imagine he is this type of a lead man. It’s doubtful that there won’t be more turnover in Berkeley than on the Farm as Stanford attracts players who are degree first and basketball second while Cal is almost certainly the opposite. This will lead to fewer senior dominated teams which were the hallmark of Monty’s Stanford program
It’s worth noting that the one arguable blight on Montgomery’s career is his lack of success in the post season. Outside of the one final four run, Montgomery was .500 in the NCAA tournament, not a terrible record until you realize that nearly 75% of his losses were when Stanford was a higher seed and a clear favorite. Stanford’s lack of athleticism, especially in the backcourt and Monty’s rigid offensive system were the culprits in Stanford’s post season stumbles. Trent Johnson may not be nearly as consistent as Montgomery in terms of the regular season, but it’s not hard to imagine he will have more post season success with his use of the motion offense and his approach to peaking his teams later in the year.
Finally, Mike Montgomery is sixty one years old and has already proven all he needs to in the college basketball coaching profession. He won’t come to Berkeley with the hunger or energy he had when he arrived in Palo Alto in the late 1980s. Cal needs that dynamism in its next head coach. It deserves someone who wants to define themselves by their tenure at Cal and not see it as a last stop before retiring. In short, Mike Montgomery is not the answer.
I’m glad you asked. Despite his incredibly impressive resume, Montgomery is in fact not a good fit for Cal. Montgomery has never been known as a great recruiter and he privately expressed his distaste for the process before leaving Palo Alto for the NBA. Stanford is unique in its ability to attract student athletes distinct from the health of its athletic programs or the recruiting acumen of its coaches. It has a nationwide brand based on stellar academics and its bucolic campus, not to mention the $125k+ in scholarship value they offer. As a result, Montgomery had good but not great talent at Stanford. In his 18 year tenure in Palo Alto, he attracted only two more McDs All Americans and fewer top 100 recruits than Braun did during his twelve year run in Berkeley. That’s shocking when you consider the disparity in the two programs on the court success and points up both Monty’s recruiting challenges as well as his ability to win with less talent than his opponents.
Montgomery won by having a system and finding kids who fit that system well. His teams were big, strong and rough down low and populated with great shooters who could come off screens and drain jumpers. His system was one that was as tightly scripted on offense and as complex on defense as any in college basketball and relied heavily on fourth and fifth seniors who had mastered the system for it work well. While I can imagine a similar approach working in Berkeley, it doesn’t strike me as one that leverages Cal’s inherent strengths and weaknesses as well as it did Stanford’s. Cal has a far more flexible admissions department when it comes to student athletes and the urban campus has always attracted some of the better basketball players on the West Coast. Recruiting those types of players requires a head coach who is a tireless and passionate recruiter. Even when he was forty, that wasn’t a favorite part of Montgomery’s job, at age 60, it’s very hard to imagine he is this type of a lead man. It’s doubtful that there won’t be more turnover in Berkeley than on the Farm as Stanford attracts players who are degree first and basketball second while Cal is almost certainly the opposite. This will lead to fewer senior dominated teams which were the hallmark of Monty’s Stanford program
It’s worth noting that the one arguable blight on Montgomery’s career is his lack of success in the post season. Outside of the one final four run, Montgomery was .500 in the NCAA tournament, not a terrible record until you realize that nearly 75% of his losses were when Stanford was a higher seed and a clear favorite. Stanford’s lack of athleticism, especially in the backcourt and Monty’s rigid offensive system were the culprits in Stanford’s post season stumbles. Trent Johnson may not be nearly as consistent as Montgomery in terms of the regular season, but it’s not hard to imagine he will have more post season success with his use of the motion offense and his approach to peaking his teams later in the year.
Finally, Mike Montgomery is sixty one years old and has already proven all he needs to in the college basketball coaching profession. He won’t come to Berkeley with the hunger or energy he had when he arrived in Palo Alto in the late 1980s. Cal needs that dynamism in its next head coach. It deserves someone who wants to define themselves by their tenure at Cal and not see it as a last stop before retiring. In short, Mike Montgomery is not the answer.
The Search Criteria
Before we start to compile a list of potential candidates for the head coaching job, it would be good to review what we want in those candidates and why.
Unlike college football, where there are a limited number of Division 1 programs, finding a candidate with head coaching experience in basketball is much easier. Hiring a basketball head coach who has been a life long assistant is a high risk and is almost never done in the better BCS conference programs. When it has been done, the results have been less than ideal. In football, where you have upwards of 100 players, many of whom need to have specialized skills and none of whom play both ways, assistant coaches have tremendous autonomy. The offensive and defensive coordinators are often head coaches of their discipline which allows them to prove they have the requisite leadership skills. In college basketball, where staff size is generally three assistants or fewer, the head coach makes virtually every decision of import and is deeply involved in all aspects of the program. Projecting a top assistant as a head basketball coach thus becomes very difficult.
Cal will want a coach who has at least two to three years as a head coach at some high level of basketball. More than simply experience is a track record of success as a head coach. If the coach has fewer years in the lead chair, you'll want to see the impact they made relative to the previous regime in terms of winning, catalyzing interest in the program and recruiting. A longer term head coach needs to demonstrate that he can build something that makes steady progress in all three aspects (winning, fan interest and recruiting).
One can discuss whether Cal prefers a coach who has a certain type of system, e.g. getting up and down on offense, full court pressure on defense, etc. While there's little doubt that some of these systems are more fan friendly than others, what's critical is that the coach has a system that is well defined, that he can recruit players to match and that they have the flexibility to modify and adapt this system as time goes on. While this may sound ubiquitous, one could easily argue that Ben Braun had no real system, recruited players of all different types and seemed to be experimenting from year to year.
Many mid major coaches who have the ingredients above have failed to make the jump to the BCS conference programs. Largely, this is the result of their inability to either recruit or manage the talent at that level. When you jump from the WCC or the MWC to the P10, where and how you recruit changes as does the manner in which these youngsters are motivated. Going from young men who were thrilled to play at D1 level and thus willing to buy into whatever the coach is selling to kids who aspire to the NBA is a jump most head coaches fail to make. One mitigant to this risk is to find a coach who’s had experience as an assistant at a top 20 program. Not only do they know what a top program looks and feels like, they have recruited and motivated (often while learning from one of the masters of the profession) the very best talent.
Berkeley is a unique place and requires a unique coach. It's an urban campus in an area laden with talent, but talent this is often not ready for the academic rigors of Cal. You have to deal with an athletic administration that is in consistently in the red and with an academic administration which often views sports as a necessary evil. Most importantly, it's not a school that is right for every student athlete. Jeff Tedford has turned scouting for this fit into an art form as evidenced by the extraordinary low transfer and academic failure rate within his football program. Understanding Cal and the type of student athletes who can succeed here is essential in our next head basketball coach.
In the nice to have category, it would be great to find a head coach who sees themselves as a west coast person. They would know the AAU and top HS programs on the west coast, have an affinity for the Pac 10 players, coaches and officiating. It would also be great to find someone who has tremendous energy and enthusiasm (e.g they are young and charismatic). Unlike Cal football, where traditional alumni booster organizations exist, there are none for basketball. Finding a head coach who can help create these groups would help overcome some of the endemic financial difficulties within the athletic program and hopefully galvanize more fan interest in the program.
The ideal candidate to me would be a younger head coach looking to build their legacy at a program with great facilities, a world class academic reputation and access to tremendous local talent while playing in one of the best basketball conferences in the country. They would have a proven track record, as a head coach, in recruiting and motivating top 50 prep prospects and would arrive at Cal with a system they understand and a plan to get to the Final Four in the next five years. Now it’s time to find that ideal.
Unlike college football, where there are a limited number of Division 1 programs, finding a candidate with head coaching experience in basketball is much easier. Hiring a basketball head coach who has been a life long assistant is a high risk and is almost never done in the better BCS conference programs. When it has been done, the results have been less than ideal. In football, where you have upwards of 100 players, many of whom need to have specialized skills and none of whom play both ways, assistant coaches have tremendous autonomy. The offensive and defensive coordinators are often head coaches of their discipline which allows them to prove they have the requisite leadership skills. In college basketball, where staff size is generally three assistants or fewer, the head coach makes virtually every decision of import and is deeply involved in all aspects of the program. Projecting a top assistant as a head basketball coach thus becomes very difficult.
Cal will want a coach who has at least two to three years as a head coach at some high level of basketball. More than simply experience is a track record of success as a head coach. If the coach has fewer years in the lead chair, you'll want to see the impact they made relative to the previous regime in terms of winning, catalyzing interest in the program and recruiting. A longer term head coach needs to demonstrate that he can build something that makes steady progress in all three aspects (winning, fan interest and recruiting).
One can discuss whether Cal prefers a coach who has a certain type of system, e.g. getting up and down on offense, full court pressure on defense, etc. While there's little doubt that some of these systems are more fan friendly than others, what's critical is that the coach has a system that is well defined, that he can recruit players to match and that they have the flexibility to modify and adapt this system as time goes on. While this may sound ubiquitous, one could easily argue that Ben Braun had no real system, recruited players of all different types and seemed to be experimenting from year to year.
Many mid major coaches who have the ingredients above have failed to make the jump to the BCS conference programs. Largely, this is the result of their inability to either recruit or manage the talent at that level. When you jump from the WCC or the MWC to the P10, where and how you recruit changes as does the manner in which these youngsters are motivated. Going from young men who were thrilled to play at D1 level and thus willing to buy into whatever the coach is selling to kids who aspire to the NBA is a jump most head coaches fail to make. One mitigant to this risk is to find a coach who’s had experience as an assistant at a top 20 program. Not only do they know what a top program looks and feels like, they have recruited and motivated (often while learning from one of the masters of the profession) the very best talent.
Berkeley is a unique place and requires a unique coach. It's an urban campus in an area laden with talent, but talent this is often not ready for the academic rigors of Cal. You have to deal with an athletic administration that is in consistently in the red and with an academic administration which often views sports as a necessary evil. Most importantly, it's not a school that is right for every student athlete. Jeff Tedford has turned scouting for this fit into an art form as evidenced by the extraordinary low transfer and academic failure rate within his football program. Understanding Cal and the type of student athletes who can succeed here is essential in our next head basketball coach.
In the nice to have category, it would be great to find a head coach who sees themselves as a west coast person. They would know the AAU and top HS programs on the west coast, have an affinity for the Pac 10 players, coaches and officiating. It would also be great to find someone who has tremendous energy and enthusiasm (e.g they are young and charismatic). Unlike Cal football, where traditional alumni booster organizations exist, there are none for basketball. Finding a head coach who can help create these groups would help overcome some of the endemic financial difficulties within the athletic program and hopefully galvanize more fan interest in the program.
The ideal candidate to me would be a younger head coach looking to build their legacy at a program with great facilities, a world class academic reputation and access to tremendous local talent while playing in one of the best basketball conferences in the country. They would have a proven track record, as a head coach, in recruiting and motivating top 50 prep prospects and would arrive at Cal with a system they understand and a plan to get to the Final Four in the next five years. Now it’s time to find that ideal.
Monday, March 24, 2008
A Fitting End
Cal’s blow out loss to Ohio State could not have more perfectly captured the current state of the program and its relative standing in the basketball world. For an OSU team that last year was in the Final Four to be able to sell out an almost irrelevant 2nd round NIT game while Cal’s post season starved fans could muster only 1900 fans for last week’s game against New Mexico speaks volumes about the two progams. The only contrast stronger was the difference between the two teams play on the court. Thad Matta’s Buckeyes played smart, tough basketball and overcame an early shooting slump to discombobulate the Bears who played with all the passion and energy of Joe Barry Carroll on one of his off nights. From my vantage point, you could swap coaches for this game and the two teams score would follow.
If, even after tonight’s debacle, Sandy Barbour has any doubts about the right thing to do with Braun all she need do is sit down with the players. She will find a team that has lost confidence and respect for their coach, many of whom are evaluating their options whether it’s early to the NBA or transferring to another school. Should Braun return next season, it’s likely that at least four and perhaps all five of last night’s starters would no longer be on the team.
The quicker Barbour can move to remove Braun and name a successor, the more likely our new coach can convince the remaining talent to stay in Berkeley. For all of Braun’s faults, it’s not like the cupboard is bare. If Anderson returns, he is a likely preseason AA. Christopher is easily a preseason AP10 selection and it’s not hard to imagine Jerome Randle taking a big step forward as many point guards do between their sophomore and junior seasons. Add in Jamal Boykin, Theo Robertson, Omondi Amoke, the 7’2” Max Zhang and two absolute stud incoming freshman guards and this team has real potential. But only if they don’t all leave as quickly as rats fleeing a sinking ship.
An announcement could come as soon as the next few days, but Barbour may wait until she can simultaneously announce Braun’s departure and successor. My next post will outline the likely candidates she is considering.
If, even after tonight’s debacle, Sandy Barbour has any doubts about the right thing to do with Braun all she need do is sit down with the players. She will find a team that has lost confidence and respect for their coach, many of whom are evaluating their options whether it’s early to the NBA or transferring to another school. Should Braun return next season, it’s likely that at least four and perhaps all five of last night’s starters would no longer be on the team.
The quicker Barbour can move to remove Braun and name a successor, the more likely our new coach can convince the remaining talent to stay in Berkeley. For all of Braun’s faults, it’s not like the cupboard is bare. If Anderson returns, he is a likely preseason AA. Christopher is easily a preseason AP10 selection and it’s not hard to imagine Jerome Randle taking a big step forward as many point guards do between their sophomore and junior seasons. Add in Jamal Boykin, Theo Robertson, Omondi Amoke, the 7’2” Max Zhang and two absolute stud incoming freshman guards and this team has real potential. But only if they don’t all leave as quickly as rats fleeing a sinking ship.
An announcement could come as soon as the next few days, but Barbour may wait until she can simultaneously announce Braun’s departure and successor. My next post will outline the likely candidates she is considering.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
James Montgomery has left the building
Cal football's heir apparent at the tailback position asked for and received his release in order to transfer to another school. According to the often dubious reporting of a University of Washington fan site, Montgomery left the Bears with a few parting shots about how Cal was never his first choice out of high school, that we didn't have the type of football tradition he wanted and that in general he never felt comfortable in Berkeley.
Regardless of the accuracy of those statements, what you have is a Sophomore running back who was seemingly on the verge of inheriting one of the more coveted roles in Pac 10 football. Under Jeff Tedford, Cal's running game has become a staple of the offense and the men running the rock for the Bears have achieved at a minimum local stardom and more often than not tremendous opportunities in the NFL. From Adiminobe Echemandu to JJ Arrington to Marshawn Lynch to Justin Forsett, the legacy here is nothing to sneeze about. Add to the equation that the Cal staff believes next years offensive line will be the deepest and most talented in the Tedford era and you begin to scratch your head about what Monty was thinking in bailing out on the eve of Spring Practice.
While the team now has less depth and virtually no returning experience at the position going into the Spring, the answer may be good news for Bear faithful. Montgomery is a bit of a tweener back. In high school, he used his superior quickness and speed to become a Sacramento prep legend. His exploits led to offers from USC, UW and a host of others. Since coming to Berkeley, Montgomery has put on 15-20 pounds of muscle but in doing so may have given up some of his vaunted quickness and speed. The result is that at 5'9" and 205lbs, he lacks the size and strength to be a punishing power back while at the same time is unable to demonstrate the burst and ability to make defenders miss. In watching Montgomery last Spring, I personally thought he was a future star. He was a one cut and go, north south type runner who had very good quickness. However, this Fall as Forsett's principal backup, he seemed to lack the vision and burst required to excel at this level.
It's not impossible to imagine that Montgomery realized that despite his experience and prep credentials that he might exit next Fall not only not starting but buried on the depth chart. Montgomery recently had minor surgery on his knee and hand and was reportedly worried about his ability to perform at a high level in the Spring. When Jeff Tedford moved back the start date of Spring practice, he specifically called out giving time for both Montgomery and fellow TB Shane Vereen as a principal reason to do so underlying that the competition at tailback would be one of areas the staff plans to focus on. The only conclusion I can draw is that Monty looked at the competitive set and felt his knees shake. Best showed that he is far from a track star playing football with a couple of eye popping runs against CSU and Tenn. He also showed off his toughness with stellar special teams play. Vereen had a fabulous Fall camp last year and starred on the Scout team throughout the season. Only a shade slower than Best, Vereen might be quicker and more elusive in the open field. While Best has fought a late season hip injury and Vereen some hamstring problems, the staff is confident both will be 100% soon. Meanwhile, Prep AA TB Covaughn DeBoskie enrolled early at Cal and will play in the Spring. Deboskie is bigger (5'11" and 200lbs) and brings great pass catching skills to the table. Finally, Cal's lone big back, Tracy Slocum has finally gotten healthy and Tedford recently remarked that he looked very impressive in pre Spring workouts.
Tough to lose Montgomery but his reason for departing might be simply that Cal has four studs at his position. If a talented player like Montgomery is scared of the competition, you can't help but feel good about what remains.
Regardless of the accuracy of those statements, what you have is a Sophomore running back who was seemingly on the verge of inheriting one of the more coveted roles in Pac 10 football. Under Jeff Tedford, Cal's running game has become a staple of the offense and the men running the rock for the Bears have achieved at a minimum local stardom and more often than not tremendous opportunities in the NFL. From Adiminobe Echemandu to JJ Arrington to Marshawn Lynch to Justin Forsett, the legacy here is nothing to sneeze about. Add to the equation that the Cal staff believes next years offensive line will be the deepest and most talented in the Tedford era and you begin to scratch your head about what Monty was thinking in bailing out on the eve of Spring Practice.
While the team now has less depth and virtually no returning experience at the position going into the Spring, the answer may be good news for Bear faithful. Montgomery is a bit of a tweener back. In high school, he used his superior quickness and speed to become a Sacramento prep legend. His exploits led to offers from USC, UW and a host of others. Since coming to Berkeley, Montgomery has put on 15-20 pounds of muscle but in doing so may have given up some of his vaunted quickness and speed. The result is that at 5'9" and 205lbs, he lacks the size and strength to be a punishing power back while at the same time is unable to demonstrate the burst and ability to make defenders miss. In watching Montgomery last Spring, I personally thought he was a future star. He was a one cut and go, north south type runner who had very good quickness. However, this Fall as Forsett's principal backup, he seemed to lack the vision and burst required to excel at this level.
It's not impossible to imagine that Montgomery realized that despite his experience and prep credentials that he might exit next Fall not only not starting but buried on the depth chart. Montgomery recently had minor surgery on his knee and hand and was reportedly worried about his ability to perform at a high level in the Spring. When Jeff Tedford moved back the start date of Spring practice, he specifically called out giving time for both Montgomery and fellow TB Shane Vereen as a principal reason to do so underlying that the competition at tailback would be one of areas the staff plans to focus on. The only conclusion I can draw is that Monty looked at the competitive set and felt his knees shake. Best showed that he is far from a track star playing football with a couple of eye popping runs against CSU and Tenn. He also showed off his toughness with stellar special teams play. Vereen had a fabulous Fall camp last year and starred on the Scout team throughout the season. Only a shade slower than Best, Vereen might be quicker and more elusive in the open field. While Best has fought a late season hip injury and Vereen some hamstring problems, the staff is confident both will be 100% soon. Meanwhile, Prep AA TB Covaughn DeBoskie enrolled early at Cal and will play in the Spring. Deboskie is bigger (5'11" and 200lbs) and brings great pass catching skills to the table. Finally, Cal's lone big back, Tracy Slocum has finally gotten healthy and Tedford recently remarked that he looked very impressive in pre Spring workouts.
Tough to lose Montgomery but his reason for departing might be simply that Cal has four studs at his position. If a talented player like Montgomery is scared of the competition, you can't help but feel good about what remains.
Friday, March 14, 2008
QB Spring Battle
As much curiosity as the future of Ben Braun evokes from Cal fans, it pales next to the question of who will line up behind center against Michigan State next Fall.
Nate Longshore lost most Bear fans last season with his inability to recover from an ankle sprain and his obvious lack of cool under fire. Worse still was the likely loss of his teammate’s confidence in him. Enter Kevin Riley, who wowed fans with his big time arm, his mobility and his obvious moxie. Tedford has said the job is up for grabs going into the Spring but he may be tipping his hand by listing Nate Longshore first on the depth chart. You have to empathize with Tedford, a coach who puts so many mental demands on quarterbacks and thus instinctively has to view Nate’s experience and knowledge of the offense as huge factors. Tedford knows well that teams with senior QBs starting for them markedly outperform those that don’t.
That said, you have to wonder how Nate will respond to the teams melt down under his leadership and more specifically his consistently awful 4th quarter gaffes. And it’s not like Longshore didn’t have a front row seat at the Armed Forces Bowl when Riley looked like a young Joe Montana. Keep in mind this is a young man who lost his father a few years ago and played spectacularly a year earlier than and as recently as last October looked ready to leave early for the NFL after leading the Bears to a 5-0 start and #2 national ranking. Given all that transpired following it, it’s easy to forget how well Nate played against Oregon hitting a myriad of big third down passes.
And as obvious as Riley’s skills are, he wasn’t sitting on the bench last year for no reason at all. Word is that Tedford was reluctant to play him earlier than the Bowl game in large part because he was a bit off a goof, not the most intense practice player and generally acting more like a 19 year old frat boy than the back up QB to the #2 team in the country. Even his at times impressive debut against the Beavers masked a myriad of misreads and mental mistakes. It’s also worth noting that Air Force doesn’t represent the best pass defense in D1 football.
The one thing that is crystal clear is that the Bears will have tremendous depth at QB next year with both Longshore and Riley
I won’t pretend to have any special insight into the QB battle, but I will offer a simple perspective. Riley’s strengths (physical tools, confidence and leadership) are innate while his weaknesses are not unique and almost always get better as a player matures and gains experience. Juxtaposed to Longshore, whose challenges are a crisis of confidence and an inability to make plays when the game is on the line, which are not things that can easily be fixed. To my eye, Riley has a special quality, a certain “it” factor. If he can go into the Spring and demonstrate his mastery of the playbook and his maturity, it would be hard to imagine Tedford not betting on him knowing he has Longshore in the wings if things go awry. If JT goes the other way, he risks alienating the team and his fans and putting even more pressure on the already heavy shoulders of Nate Longshore.
Nate Longshore lost most Bear fans last season with his inability to recover from an ankle sprain and his obvious lack of cool under fire. Worse still was the likely loss of his teammate’s confidence in him. Enter Kevin Riley, who wowed fans with his big time arm, his mobility and his obvious moxie. Tedford has said the job is up for grabs going into the Spring but he may be tipping his hand by listing Nate Longshore first on the depth chart. You have to empathize with Tedford, a coach who puts so many mental demands on quarterbacks and thus instinctively has to view Nate’s experience and knowledge of the offense as huge factors. Tedford knows well that teams with senior QBs starting for them markedly outperform those that don’t.
That said, you have to wonder how Nate will respond to the teams melt down under his leadership and more specifically his consistently awful 4th quarter gaffes. And it’s not like Longshore didn’t have a front row seat at the Armed Forces Bowl when Riley looked like a young Joe Montana. Keep in mind this is a young man who lost his father a few years ago and played spectacularly a year earlier than and as recently as last October looked ready to leave early for the NFL after leading the Bears to a 5-0 start and #2 national ranking. Given all that transpired following it, it’s easy to forget how well Nate played against Oregon hitting a myriad of big third down passes.
And as obvious as Riley’s skills are, he wasn’t sitting on the bench last year for no reason at all. Word is that Tedford was reluctant to play him earlier than the Bowl game in large part because he was a bit off a goof, not the most intense practice player and generally acting more like a 19 year old frat boy than the back up QB to the #2 team in the country. Even his at times impressive debut against the Beavers masked a myriad of misreads and mental mistakes. It’s also worth noting that Air Force doesn’t represent the best pass defense in D1 football.
The one thing that is crystal clear is that the Bears will have tremendous depth at QB next year with both Longshore and Riley
I won’t pretend to have any special insight into the QB battle, but I will offer a simple perspective. Riley’s strengths (physical tools, confidence and leadership) are innate while his weaknesses are not unique and almost always get better as a player matures and gains experience. Juxtaposed to Longshore, whose challenges are a crisis of confidence and an inability to make plays when the game is on the line, which are not things that can easily be fixed. To my eye, Riley has a special quality, a certain “it” factor. If he can go into the Spring and demonstrate his mastery of the playbook and his maturity, it would be hard to imagine Tedford not betting on him knowing he has Longshore in the wings if things go awry. If JT goes the other way, he risks alienating the team and his fans and putting even more pressure on the already heavy shoulders of Nate Longshore.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
NFL Draft
Jeff Teford may experience a sense of insult being added to injury when he watches the NFL draft unfold in April. The teams 5-0 start and subsequent meltdown are going to be painfully remembered when people look back at the tremendous talent on last years team. Despite graduating only six starters, the Bears may have as many as eight players picked in the six round draft next month. After yesterday's pro day in Berkeley, it seems likely that at least five Cal players will hear their names called during the draft. DeSean Jackson cemented his first round status catching everything thrown his way during the workout while getting effusive praise from his new mentor, Jerry Rice (BTW, Where the hell was Rice when DeSean was running the wrong routes and fearing any pattern over the middle?). Lavelle Hawkins erased doubts about his speed running a 4.48 40 yesterday while the third amigo Robert Jordan ran a 4.44. Hawkins could go as high as the 2nd and likely won't last past the fourth round. Jordan will be at best a second day pick and may get signed as a Free Agent.
Justin Forsett doesn't have great measurables as his 40 was a 4.56, but his first 20 yards are as quick as any back around and few play with as much heart. He'll join Jordan as a FA signee or a late round pick around almost certain draftees Craig Stevens, Thomas DeCoud and Mike Gibson. Andrew Larsen rounds out the Bears NFL prospects.
When Cal was 5-0 and DeSean was giving interviews on ESPN Gameday, sending this large of the group to the NFL not only seemed possible but likely. But then came the death spiral the second half of the year. One clear cut observation is that from the group of seniors above, none but Forsett came close to being a positive leader for the team. Stevens disappointed on the field, blocking poorly in short yardage situations and never was a factor on passing downs. His quiet, low key personality was a non factor off the field DeCoud ran hot and cold and was never the rallying point he needed to be for a defense that lost its heart down the stretch. Despite having one of the more outgoing personalities on the team, Hawkins dropped too many critical balls (Big Game anyone) and seemed to be too busy cracking up his teammates to give them a kick in the pants. Jackson will be remembered as a wonderful talent whose value as a teammate decreased as adversity (or the failing of Cal's offense to get him the ball) increased.
Going into Spring practice, Tedford and next years crop of seniors are all saying the right things about leadership, but until Cal finds players who are willing to lead by example BOTH on the field and in the locker room a repeat of last years meltdown is a possibility.
Justin Forsett doesn't have great measurables as his 40 was a 4.56, but his first 20 yards are as quick as any back around and few play with as much heart. He'll join Jordan as a FA signee or a late round pick around almost certain draftees Craig Stevens, Thomas DeCoud and Mike Gibson. Andrew Larsen rounds out the Bears NFL prospects.
When Cal was 5-0 and DeSean was giving interviews on ESPN Gameday, sending this large of the group to the NFL not only seemed possible but likely. But then came the death spiral the second half of the year. One clear cut observation is that from the group of seniors above, none but Forsett came close to being a positive leader for the team. Stevens disappointed on the field, blocking poorly in short yardage situations and never was a factor on passing downs. His quiet, low key personality was a non factor off the field DeCoud ran hot and cold and was never the rallying point he needed to be for a defense that lost its heart down the stretch. Despite having one of the more outgoing personalities on the team, Hawkins dropped too many critical balls (Big Game anyone) and seemed to be too busy cracking up his teammates to give them a kick in the pants. Jackson will be remembered as a wonderful talent whose value as a teammate decreased as adversity (or the failing of Cal's offense to get him the ball) increased.
Going into Spring practice, Tedford and next years crop of seniors are all saying the right things about leadership, but until Cal finds players who are willing to lead by example BOTH on the field and in the locker room a repeat of last years meltdown is a possibility.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Braun era ends
As the Bears limp into the Pac 10 tournament this week sporting an impressive # 9 seed, it's become clear to anyone watching that these will be Ben Braun's final days on the sidelines coaching Cal's basketball team. While some have posited that Cal cannot afford his buyout, the reality is they cannot afford not to pay his buyout. The lost revenue from the increasing number of empty seats at Haas Pavilion and more importantly the loss of any donation interest on behalf of the basketball program more than offset the $1M + payout Ben will receive if he is fired. Equally as important is the loss of face for the athletic department at a sensitive time. Influential alumni are not happy with the delays surrounding the new training and office facility near Memorial Stadium and the knock on effect those delays have for the stadium retrofit. While the athletic department cannot be held completely accountable for the delays, the will be for the negative fallout. Further delays could impact Jeff Tedford's decision to stay in Berkeley long term and in conjunction with Ben Braun's challenges would leave the school with both revenue generating sports in disarray. Expect an announcement from Sandy Barbour in the next seven days detailing Braun's departure.
Ben Braun will not be the only unplanned departure from the basketball program this Spring. Sophomore Ryan Anderson is a virtual certainty to declare for the NBA draft. Anderson has a combination of size and skills that are valued at a premium in the NBA and he will likely be a mid 1st round draft choice in June.
With the likely departure of Braun and Anderson, what type of a team will the next head men's basketball coach inherit? Further departures from the existing roster will be limited as only four non seniors under scholarship have not already taken a redshirt year. Having used the NCAA allowed one year to sit out, it's unlikely a player will forfeit another year sitting out per the NCAAs transfer rules. While there's risk that Patrick Christopher, Harper Kamp and/or Jerome Randle could leave in the wake of Braun's departure, it doesn't seem likely that any of the three would choose to do so. Randle and Christopher are both starters and should be the focal points of next years team with the loss of Devon Hardin and Ryan Anderson. Kamp saw significant minutes as a true freshman this year and figures to be in the mix for a starting spot next season. The bigger risks in my opinion are incoming freshman guards, Garrett Sim and DJ Seeley. Both are combination guards with good size and the ability to score. Seeley is a top 50 national player who will likely be the Bears first wing off the bench next year while Sim will challenge Knezevic for the backup PG role. The NCAA allows incoming freshman to get out of their letters of intent if there is a head coaching change and it will be a priority for the new head coach to re recruit them to Berkeley
Ben Braun will not be the only unplanned departure from the basketball program this Spring. Sophomore Ryan Anderson is a virtual certainty to declare for the NBA draft. Anderson has a combination of size and skills that are valued at a premium in the NBA and he will likely be a mid 1st round draft choice in June.
With the likely departure of Braun and Anderson, what type of a team will the next head men's basketball coach inherit? Further departures from the existing roster will be limited as only four non seniors under scholarship have not already taken a redshirt year. Having used the NCAA allowed one year to sit out, it's unlikely a player will forfeit another year sitting out per the NCAAs transfer rules. While there's risk that Patrick Christopher, Harper Kamp and/or Jerome Randle could leave in the wake of Braun's departure, it doesn't seem likely that any of the three would choose to do so. Randle and Christopher are both starters and should be the focal points of next years team with the loss of Devon Hardin and Ryan Anderson. Kamp saw significant minutes as a true freshman this year and figures to be in the mix for a starting spot next season. The bigger risks in my opinion are incoming freshman guards, Garrett Sim and DJ Seeley. Both are combination guards with good size and the ability to score. Seeley is a top 50 national player who will likely be the Bears first wing off the bench next year while Sim will challenge Knezevic for the backup PG role. The NCAA allows incoming freshman to get out of their letters of intent if there is a head coaching change and it will be a priority for the new head coach to re recruit them to Berkeley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
