Coaches Being Interviewed 4/3/18

[TruePoint]

2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.

I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.

I agree with this, in general. A coach should not be hired solely because of a particular recruit or a particular recruiting class. But, there are two points to be made here, one general and one specific to URI's coaching job in 2018:

1. General point: you cannot ignore personnel. Coaches get hired in part on their ability to recruit. Being able to assemble talent is the most important job for a coach - more than Xs and Os, more than fundraising, more than media friendliness, more than ethics and character. All of those things are ALSO important, and no coach should even be considered that fails in any one of those categories. You cannot hire a buffoon that (you hope) can get players, just like you cannot hire an Xs and Os savant who cannot recruit. But it is silly to suggest that personnel should not factor into the decision.

2. Specific point: considering the personnel impact on hiring or not hiring David Cox is not similar, in any way, to Ron Petro and Bob Carothers naively and ignorantly believing Lamar Odom was going to come back to URI if they made his caddy the head basketball coach. This is not that situation. I know some fans from a certain generation have PTSD over the Jerry D fiasco, and that is understandable. But if you are around this program, you understand that David Cox is all the things that Jerry D was not: intelligent, deserving, talented, qualified, etc. And this is also not about one flaky and mercurial lottery talent. This is about an entire roster, and bigger picture, the entire program itself that Hurley built. Cox represents not only a chance to carry that forward from a personnel standpoint, but also from a culture standpoint, a leadership standpoint, a system standpoint, etc. URI is now in uncharted waters as far as its fundraising, attendance, recruiting and standing in its conference. The question should not be whether David Cox or Joe Dooley would do better over a four year span if they both started from square one, because that is not the choice at hand. The question should be who represents the more likely option to maintain and build on the momentum already established, and personnel obviously plays a huge role in that. The program has probably never been less able to afford a 7-23 season followed by a 14-16 season, which is what you're looking at with Dooley - everything built over the last half decade gone and relying on Dooley to rebuild it even back to where it is today. So the question for me is whether Cox is up to the task, not who would you pick in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum, we are in 2018 coming off back-to-back tournament wins and A-10 trophies with a core of all-conference caliber players with at least 2 years left each and the best recruiting class the program has ever had on the way. I will always choose 20-10 next year and 25-5 the year after over 7-23 and 14-16 without much concern over what happens in the out years. And for what its worth, I like Cox's ability to win in years 4, 5 and 6 better than Dooley's anyways, if only because he will be recruiting to a more successful, better funded program with better brand power and better facilities.

It is not as simple as "choosing a coach because of recruits." That is a gross oversimplification.

[steviep123]

Ashley Howard is intriguing in the surface. Asst on a 2 in 3 years Natl Champion. I’d have to research it more. But if he pulled his name then oh well. But LaSalle? I know he’s a philly guy but geez.

[steviep123]

2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.

I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.

I agree with this, in general. A coach should not be hired solely because of a particular recruit or a particular recruiting class. But, there are two points to be made here, one general and one specific to URI's coaching job in 2018:

1. General point: you cannot ignore personnel. Coaches get hired in part on their ability to recruit. Being able to assemble talent is the most important job for a coach - more than Xs and Os, more than fundraising, more than media friendliness, more than ethics and character. All of those things are ALSO important, and no coach should even be considered that fails in any one of those categories. You cannot hire a buffoon that (you hope) can get players, just like you cannot hire an Xs and Os savant who cannot recruit. But it is silly to suggest that personnel should not factor into the decision.

2. Specific point: considering the personnel impact on hiring or not hiring David Cox is not similar, in any way, to Ron Petro and Bob Carothers naively and ignorantly believing Lamar Odom was going to come back to URI if they made his caddy the head basketball coach. This is not that situation. I know some fans from a certain generation have PTSD over the Jerry D fiasco, and that is understandable. But if you are around this program, you understand that David Cox is all the things that Jerry D was not: intelligent, deserving, talented, qualified, etc. And this is also not about one flaky and mercurial lottery talent. This is about an entire roster, and bigger picture, the entire program itself that Hurley built. Cox represents not only a chance to carry that forward from a personnel standpoint, but also from a culture standpoint, a leadership standpoint, a system standpoint, etc. URI is now in uncharted waters as far as its fundraising, attendance, recruiting and standing in its conference. The question should not be whether David Cox or Joe Dooley would do better over a four year span if they both started from square one, because that is not the choice at hand. The question should be who represents the more likely option to maintain and build on the momentum already established, and personnel obviously plays a huge role in that. The program has probably never been less able to afford a 7-23 season followed by a 14-16 season, which is what you're looking at with Dooley - everything built over the last half decade gone and relying on Dooley to rebuild it even back to where it is today. So the question for me is whether Cox is up to the task, not who would you pick in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum, we are in 2018 coming off back-to-back tournament wins and A-10 trophies with a core of all-conference caliber players with at least 2 years left each and the best recruiting class the program has ever had on the way. I will always choose 20-10 next year and 25-5 the year after over 7-23 and 14-16 without much concern over what happens in the out years. And for what its worth, I like Cox's ability to win in years 4, 5 and 6 better than Dooley's anyways, if only because he will be recruiting to a more successful, better funded program with better brand power and better facilities.

It is not as simple as "choosing a coach because of recruits." That is a gross oversimplification.

This 100%

[wpbrown8267]

2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.

I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.

I agree with this, in general. A coach should not be hired solely because of a particular recruit or a particular recruiting class. But, there are two points to be made here, one general and one specific to URI's coaching job in 2018:

1. General point: you cannot ignore personnel. Coaches get hired in part on their ability to recruit. Being able to assemble talent is the most important job for a coach - more than Xs and Os, more than fundraising, more than media friendliness, more than ethics and character. All of those things are ALSO important, and no coach should even be considered that fails in any one of those categories. You cannot hire a buffoon that (you hope) can get players, just like you cannot hire an Xs and Os savant who cannot recruit. But it is silly to suggest that personnel should not factor into the decision.

2. Specific point: considering the personnel impact on hiring or not hiring David Cox is not similar, in any way, to Ron Petro and Bob Carothers naively and ignorantly believing Lamar Odom was going to come back to URI if they made his caddy the head basketball coach. This is not that situation. I know some fans from a certain generation have PTSD over the Jerry D fiasco, and that is understandable. But if you are around this program, you understand that David Cox is all the things that Jerry D was not: intelligent, deserving, talented, qualified, etc. And this is also not about one flaky and mercurial lottery talent. This is about an entire roster, and bigger picture, the entire program itself that Hurley built. Cox represents not only a chance to carry that forward from a personnel standpoint, but also from a culture standpoint, a leadership standpoint, a system standpoint, etc. URI is now in uncharted waters as far as its fundraising, attendance, recruiting and standing in its conference. The question should not be whether David Cox or Joe Dooley would do better over a four year span if they both started from square one, because that is not the choice at hand. The question should be who represents the more likely option to maintain and build on the momentum already established, and personnel obviously plays a huge role in that. The program has probably never been less able to afford a 7-23 season followed by a 14-16 season, which is what you're looking at with Dooley - everything built over the last half decade gone and relying on Dooley to rebuild it even back to where it is today. So the question for me is whether Cox is up to the task, not who would you pick in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum, we are in 2018 coming off back-to-back tournament wins and A-10 trophies with a core of all-conference caliber players with at least 2 years left each and the best recruiting class the program has ever had on the way. I will always choose 20-10 next year and 25-5 the year after over 7-23 and 14-16 without much concern over what happens in the out years. And for what its worth, I like Cox's ability to win in years 4, 5 and 6 better than Dooley's anyways, if only because he will be recruiting to a more successful, better funded program with better brand power and better facilities.

It is not as simple as "choosing a coach because of recruits." That is a gross oversimplification.

This.

[rambone 78]

TP send that to Thorr. Sums it all up.

[SGreenwell]

To also chime in a bit here - You shouldn't hire a college coach simply on his ability to coach. That seems like a silly thing to type, but at the college level, a coach doesn't just coach. He's also, in a way, the lead scout and general manager for a program. He can delegate to assistant coaches and they can help, but it's a weird combination of multiple roles, as opposed to say, professional coaching (which is more coaching and ego management and massaging) or high school coaching (which is more about development and pure coaching to me).

So, to me, it's relevant to "count" Cox's ability to recruit strongly. How is he at Xs and Os? I doubt we'll know until he's actually coaching. Of the four candidates in this thread, he's the most appealing to me - he allows for some measure of stability at the program and with the recruiting class. I also suspect he's strongly in the lead when it comes to being hired. I imagine that one of the other three candidates could still get the job though, if they blow Thorr away during the interview, or (if you're a pessimist) Cox completely craps the bed.

[Seawrightspostgame]

I like him more than the other 3. At this point his strengths or perceived strengths are tried and true.

I would like to hear that he loves RI though. Has a vision. That kind of stuff.

Why doesn't Koch do a piece with the only candidate Thor named in the press conference? Too busy tweeting about Joe Montana?

[hrstrat57]

To also chime in a bit here - You shouldn't hire a college coach simply on his ability to coach. That seems like a silly thing to type, but at the college level, a coach doesn't just coach. He's also, in a way, the lead scout and general manager for a program. He can delegate to assistant coaches and they can help, but it's a weird combination of multiple roles, as opposed to say, professional coaching (which is more coaching and ego management and massaging) or high school coaching (which is more about development and pure coaching to me).

So, to me, it's relevant to "count" Cox's ability to recruit strongly. How is he at Xs and Os? I doubt we'll know until he's actually coaching. Of the four candidates in this thread, he's the most appealing to me - he allows for some measure of stability at the program and with the recruiting class. I also suspect he's strongly in the lead when it comes to being hired. I imagine that one of the other three candidates could still get the job though, if they blow Thorr away during the interview, or (if you're a pessimist) Cox completely craps the bed.

Great post.

Hurley only tasted real success when he stopped trying to be the point guard in a suit and tie.

I still would like to know Cox offensive coaching strategy but perhaps I'm being ignored because nobody really knows......

The game coaching part is way overrated anyway. Recruit the best possible players, tell them clearly what you want them to do in practice, prepare 3/4 smooth inbounds and halfcourt plays, plan who leaks out on the break and when. Plan for end of game situations and prep a few strategies.....

Then roll the ball out and stay out of the way. Everything you need to know is in coach Smith's book.

I'm thinking Cox will start slow with the tough schedule ahead and then find his way quickly.....although I am very curious who the assistants will be and what roles they will fill.

Very optimistic for 18/19 success I am!

[Matunuck]

And your finalist are......... The below list of coaches will interview tomoorw in Boston, we should have an answer by Thursday.

1. David Cox
2. John Becker
3. Joe Dooley
4.Micah Shrewsberry

What are your thoughts ?

And this is why whoever was waiting at Green should be at Logan...

I wasted 12 days of my life, and gained 10 pounds.

[Gonebarongone]

2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.

I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.

I agree with this, in general. A coach should not be hired solely because of a particular recruit or a particular recruiting class. But, there are two points to be made here, one general and one specific to URI's coaching job in 2018:

1. General point: you cannot ignore personnel. Coaches get hired in part on their ability to recruit. Being able to assemble talent is the most important job for a coach - more than Xs and Os, more than fundraising, more than media friendliness, more than ethics and character. All of those things are ALSO important, and no coach should even be considered that fails in any one of those categories. You cannot hire a buffoon that (you hope) can get players, just like you cannot hire an Xs and Os savant who cannot recruit. But it is silly to suggest that personnel should not factor into the decision.

2. Specific point: considering the personnel impact on hiring or not hiring David Cox is not similar, in any way, to Ron Petro and Bob Carothers naively and ignorantly believing Lamar Odom was going to come back to URI if they made his caddy the head basketball coach. This is not that situation. I know some fans from a certain generation have PTSD over the Jerry D fiasco, and that is understandable. But if you are around this program, you understand that David Cox is all the things that Jerry D was not: intelligent, deserving, talented, qualified, etc. And this is also not about one flaky and mercurial lottery talent. This is about an entire roster, and bigger picture, the entire program itself that Hurley built. Cox represents not only a chance to carry that forward from a personnel standpoint, but also from a culture standpoint, a leadership standpoint, a system standpoint, etc. URI is now in uncharted waters as far as its fundraising, attendance, recruiting and standing in its conference. The question should not be whether David Cox or Joe Dooley would do better over a four year span if they both started from square one, because that is not the choice at hand. The question should be who represents the more likely option to maintain and build on the momentum already established, and personnel obviously plays a huge role in that. The program has probably never been less able to afford a 7-23 season followed by a 14-16 season, which is what you're looking at with Dooley - everything built over the last half decade gone and relying on Dooley to rebuild it even back to where it is today. So the question for me is whether Cox is up to the task, not who would you pick in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum, we are in 2018 coming off back-to-back tournament wins and A-10 trophies with a core of all-conference caliber players with at least 2 years left each and the best recruiting class the program has ever had on the way. I will always choose 20-10 next year and 25-5 the year after over 7-23 and 14-16 without much concern over what happens in the out years. And for what its worth, I like Cox's ability to win in years 4, 5 and 6 better than Dooley's anyways, if only because he will be recruiting to a more successful, better funded program with better brand power and better facilities.

It is not as simple as "choosing a coach because of recruits." That is a gross oversimplification.

Literally making up what the record with Dooley would be to support your position is nutso. You have no idea what connections he might have for a spring signing or two (as all of these coaches get hired/fired). You have no idea what fifth year guys he might be plugged into. And you probably have no idea how the 2018 class would react to his hire. Then you go on to say that Cox will be better in years 4,5 and 6 because of these imaginary seasons you have concocted and his ability to recruit off of those. What's even crazier is you are getting the message board equivalent of nodding heads. This is a perfect example of how insidious groupthink can be. Someone is reading that and is like "You know what...I like 25 wins more than 14!!!....Excellent point!"
Wowzer. Just crazy.

[Da_Process_Survivor]

2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.

I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.

I agree with this, in general. A coach should not be hired solely because of a particular recruit or a particular recruiting class. But, there are two points to be made here, one general and one specific to URI's coaching job in 2018:

1. General point: you cannot ignore personnel. Coaches get hired in part on their ability to recruit. Being able to assemble talent is the most important job for a coach - more than Xs and Os, more than fundraising, more than media friendliness, more than ethics and character. All of those things are ALSO important, and no coach should even be considered that fails in any one of those categories. You cannot hire a buffoon that (you hope) can get players, just like you cannot hire an Xs and Os savant who cannot recruit. But it is silly to suggest that personnel should not factor into the decision.

2. Specific point: considering the personnel impact on hiring or not hiring David Cox is not similar, in any way, to Ron Petro and Bob Carothers naively and ignorantly believing Lamar Odom was going to come back to URI if they made his caddy the head basketball coach. This is not that situation. I know some fans from a certain generation have PTSD over the Jerry D fiasco, and that is understandable. But if you are around this program, you understand that David Cox is all the things that Jerry D was not: intelligent, deserving, talented, qualified, etc. And this is also not about one flaky and mercurial lottery talent. This is about an entire roster, and bigger picture, the entire program itself that Hurley built. Cox represents not only a chance to carry that forward from a personnel standpoint, but also from a culture standpoint, a leadership standpoint, a system standpoint, etc. URI is now in uncharted waters as far as its fundraising, attendance, recruiting and standing in its conference. The question should not be whether David Cox or Joe Dooley would do better over a four year span if they both started from square one, because that is not the choice at hand. The question should be who represents the more likely option to maintain and build on the momentum already established, and personnel obviously plays a huge role in that. The program has probably never been less able to afford a 7-23 season followed by a 14-16 season, which is what you're looking at with Dooley - everything built over the last half decade gone and relying on Dooley to rebuild it even back to where it is today. So the question for me is whether Cox is up to the task, not who would you pick in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum, we are in 2018 coming off back-to-back tournament wins and A-10 trophies with a core of all-conference caliber players with at least 2 years left each and the best recruiting class the program has ever had on the way. I will always choose 20-10 next year and 25-5 the year after over 7-23 and 14-16 without much concern over what happens in the out years. And for what its worth, I like Cox's ability to win in years 4, 5 and 6 better than Dooley's anyways, if only because he will be recruiting to a more successful, better funded program with better brand power and better facilities.

It is not as simple as "choosing a coach because of recruits." That is a gross oversimplification.

Literally making up what the record with Dooley would be to support your position is nutso. You have no idea what connections he might have for a spring signing or two (as all of these coaches get hired/fired). You have no idea what fifth year guys he might be plugged into. And you probably have no idea how the 2018 class would react to his hire. Then you go on to say that Cox will be better in years 4,5 and 6 because of these imaginary seasons you have concocted and his ability to recruit off of those. What's even crazier is you are getting the message board equivalent of nodding heads. This is a perfect example of how insidious groupthink can be. Someone is reading that and is like "You know what...I like 25 wins more than 14!!!....Excellent point!"
Wowzer. Just crazy.

no worse than you acting like we are saying no thanks to Jay Wright, Brad Stevens and Bill Self in favor of hiring Cox.

[DC_Rams]

2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.

I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.

I agree with this, in general. A coach should not be hired solely because of a particular recruit or a particular recruiting class. But, there are two points to be made here, one general and one specific to URI's coaching job in 2018:

1. General point: you cannot ignore personnel. Coaches get hired in part on their ability to recruit. Being able to assemble talent is the most important job for a coach - more than Xs and Os, more than fundraising, more than media friendliness, more than ethics and character. All of those things are ALSO important, and no coach should even be considered that fails in any one of those categories. You cannot hire a buffoon that (you hope) can get players, just like you cannot hire an Xs and Os savant who cannot recruit. But it is silly to suggest that personnel should not factor into the decision.

2. Specific point: considering the personnel impact on hiring or not hiring David Cox is not similar, in any way, to Ron Petro and Bob Carothers naively and ignorantly believing Lamar Odom was going to come back to URI if they made his caddy the head basketball coach. This is not that situation. I know some fans from a certain generation have PTSD over the Jerry D fiasco, and that is understandable. But if you are around this program, you understand that David Cox is all the things that Jerry D was not: intelligent, deserving, talented, qualified, etc. And this is also not about one flaky and mercurial lottery talent. This is about an entire roster, and bigger picture, the entire program itself that Hurley built. Cox represents not only a chance to carry that forward from a personnel standpoint, but also from a culture standpoint, a leadership standpoint, a system standpoint, etc. URI is now in uncharted waters as far as its fundraising, attendance, recruiting and standing in its conference. The question should not be whether David Cox or Joe Dooley would do better over a four year span if they both started from square one, because that is not the choice at hand. The question should be who represents the more likely option to maintain and build on the momentum already established, and personnel obviously plays a huge role in that. The program has probably never been less able to afford a 7-23 season followed by a 14-16 season, which is what you're looking at with Dooley - everything built over the last half decade gone and relying on Dooley to rebuild it even back to where it is today. So the question for me is whether Cox is up to the task, not who would you pick in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum, we are in 2018 coming off back-to-back tournament wins and A-10 trophies with a core of all-conference caliber players with at least 2 years left each and the best recruiting class the program has ever had on the way. I will always choose 20-10 next year and 25-5 the year after over 7-23 and 14-16 without much concern over what happens in the out years. And for what its worth, I like Cox's ability to win in years 4, 5 and 6 better than Dooley's anyways, if only because he will be recruiting to a more successful, better funded program with better brand power and better facilities.

It is not as simple as "choosing a coach because of recruits." That is a gross oversimplification.

Literally making up what the record with Dooley would be to support your position is nutso. You have no idea what connections he might have for a spring signing or two (as all of these coaches get hired/fired). You have no idea what fifth year guys he might be plugged into. And you probably have no idea how the 2018 class would react to his hire. Then you go on to say that Cox will be better in years 4,5 and 6 because of these imaginary seasons you have concocted and his ability to recruit off of those. What's even crazier is you are getting the message board equivalent of nodding heads. This is a perfect example of how insidious groupthink can be. Someone is reading that and is like "You know what...I like 25 wins more than 14!!!....Excellent point!"
Wowzer. Just crazy.

....but, the twitter savvy 2018 class is aware of who the other candidates are and have spoken their mind. Not sure if we take that for face value or not, but I’m not going to call any bluffs.

[Gonebarongone]

no worse than you acting like we are saying no thanks to Jay Wright, Brad Stevens and Bill Self in favor of hiring Cox.

I don't get why people don''t understand the two things I have repeatedly said. One, I would be OK with Cox being the hire. Two, I just want the hire to be based on factors above and beyond Harris and Tate and others. I don't think the right hire, even if they lose say those two, all of a sudden is the wrong hire.

[TruePoint]

2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.

I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.

I agree with this, in general. A coach should not be hired solely because of a particular recruit or a particular recruiting class. But, there are two points to be made here, one general and one specific to URI's coaching job in 2018:

1. General point: you cannot ignore personnel. Coaches get hired in part on their ability to recruit. Being able to assemble talent is the most important job for a coach - more than Xs and Os, more than fundraising, more than media friendliness, more than ethics and character. All of those things are ALSO important, and no coach should even be considered that fails in any one of those categories. You cannot hire a buffoon that (you hope) can get players, just like you cannot hire an Xs and Os savant who cannot recruit. But it is silly to suggest that personnel should not factor into the decision.

2. Specific point: considering the personnel impact on hiring or not hiring David Cox is not similar, in any way, to Ron Petro and Bob Carothers naively and ignorantly believing Lamar Odom was going to come back to URI if they made his caddy the head basketball coach. This is not that situation. I know some fans from a certain generation have PTSD over the Jerry D fiasco, and that is understandable. But if you are around this program, you understand that David Cox is all the things that Jerry D was not: intelligent, deserving, talented, qualified, etc. And this is also not about one flaky and mercurial lottery talent. This is about an entire roster, and bigger picture, the entire program itself that Hurley built. Cox represents not only a chance to carry that forward from a personnel standpoint, but also from a culture standpoint, a leadership standpoint, a system standpoint, etc. URI is now in uncharted waters as far as its fundraising, attendance, recruiting and standing in its conference. The question should not be whether David Cox or Joe Dooley would do better over a four year span if they both started from square one, because that is not the choice at hand. The question should be who represents the more likely option to maintain and build on the momentum already established, and personnel obviously plays a huge role in that. The program has probably never been less able to afford a 7-23 season followed by a 14-16 season, which is what you're looking at with Dooley - everything built over the last half decade gone and relying on Dooley to rebuild it even back to where it is today. So the question for me is whether Cox is up to the task, not who would you pick in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum, we are in 2018 coming off back-to-back tournament wins and A-10 trophies with a core of all-conference caliber players with at least 2 years left each and the best recruiting class the program has ever had on the way. I will always choose 20-10 next year and 25-5 the year after over 7-23 and 14-16 without much concern over what happens in the out years. And for what its worth, I like Cox's ability to win in years 4, 5 and 6 better than Dooley's anyways, if only because he will be recruiting to a more successful, better funded program with better brand power and better facilities.

It is not as simple as "choosing a coach because of recruits." That is a gross oversimplification.

Literally making up what the record with Dooley would be to support your position is nutso. You have no idea what connections he might have for a spring signing or two (as all of these coaches get hired/fired). You have no idea what fifth year guys he might be plugged into. And you probably have no idea how the 2018 class would react to his hire. Then you go on to say that Cox will be better in years 4,5 and 6 because of these imaginary seasons you have concocted and his ability to recruit off of those. What's even crazier is you are getting the message board equivalent of nodding heads. This is a perfect example of how insidious groupthink can be. Someone is reading that and is like "You know what...I like 25 wins more than 14!!!....Excellent point!"
Wowzer. Just crazy.

Yes, I'm making some assumptions here. I'm giving my honest expectations if either guy is hired. Its not like I have access to Biff's sports almanac and I'm refusing to cite it and just choosing to make it up instead.

If you feel like Dooley will construct a roster for next season that is better than what Cox will have with none of the same players, then that would explain why you'd want Dooley, I guess. I don't believe that. I don't actually think you believe it, either. I think you've latched onto Dooley as the best vessel in which to store all of your contrarian hopes and dreams.

[TruePoint]

I just want the hire to be based on factors above and beyond Harris and Tate and others.

I just spent like 500 words laying out that case, and you quoted to gripe about one hypothetical I made to illustrate my overall point and ignored the entire rest of what I said. So I don't really think this is true. I do believe you're not anti-Cox. I'm pretty sure if the consensus here was that people wanted Dooley, you'd be making the argument for Cox. Whatever, man.

[Gonebarongone]

Yes, I'm making some assumptions here. I'm giving my honest expectations if either guy is hired. Its not like I have access to Biff's sports almanac and I'm refusing to cite it and just choosing to make it up instead.

If you feel like Dooley will construct a roster for next season that is better than what Cox will have with none of the same players, then that would explain why you'd want Dooley, I guess. I don't believe that. I don't actually think you believe it, either. I think you've latched onto Dooley as the best vessel in which to store all of your contrarian hopes and dreams.

Some assumptions? How about two full seasons of two different coaches, recruiting outcomes five years out, and how the roster will look in the fall? All you and I have are the resumes of either candidate and seeing Cox on the bench. Without question, Dooley has the better resume. What we don't have are the interviews, the background calls Thorr has made, and myriad other components to the search process. All of that could certainly push Cox over the top and make him the best hire. That's what you pay an AD for. All I am saying is I hope that doesn't include the whims of a couple teenagers. I am not saying I would rather have 25 wins in year three over the 9 that Cox would have. Because that would be making stuff up and I am not an omniscient deity. And, god help us if Thorr is using that thought process.

[Gonebarongone]

I do believe you're not anti-Cox. I'm pretty sure if the consensus here was that people wanted Dooley, you'd be making the argument for Cox. Whatever, man.

This what people say when they are done making things up. I would be suspicious of a Dooley hire if we heard stuff like "he could bring a few spring recruits with him". For the same reasons. The reality is I have no idea. No one does. Not a single person. It's hard to get a hire right. What is not hard is getting the process right.

[reckless jake]

2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.

I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.

I agree with this, in general. A coach should not be hired solely because of a particular recruit or a particular recruiting class. But, there are two points to be made here, one general and one specific to URI's coaching job in 2018:

1. General point: you cannot ignore personnel. Coaches get hired in part on their ability to recruit. Being able to assemble talent is the most important job for a coach - more than Xs and Os, more than fundraising, more than media friendliness, more than ethics and character. All of those things are ALSO important, and no coach should even be considered that fails in any one of those categories. You cannot hire a buffoon that (you hope) can get players, just like you cannot hire an Xs and Os savant who cannot recruit. But it is silly to suggest that personnel should not factor into the decision.

2. Specific point: considering the personnel impact on hiring or not hiring David Cox is not similar, in any way, to Ron Petro and Bob Carothers naively and ignorantly believing Lamar Odom was going to come back to URI if they made his caddy the head basketball coach. This is not that situation. I know some fans from a certain generation have PTSD over the Jerry D fiasco, and that is understandable. But if you are around this program, you understand that David Cox is all the things that Jerry D was not: intelligent, deserving, talented, qualified, etc. And this is also not about one flaky and mercurial lottery talent. This is about an entire roster, and bigger picture, the entire program itself that Hurley built. Cox represents not only a chance to carry that forward from a personnel standpoint, but also from a culture standpoint, a leadership standpoint, a system standpoint, etc. URI is now in uncharted waters as far as its fundraising, attendance, recruiting and standing in its conference. The question should not be whether David Cox or Joe Dooley would do better over a four year span if they both started from square one, because that is not the choice at hand. The question should be who represents the more likely option to maintain and build on the momentum already established, and personnel obviously plays a huge role in that. The program has probably never been less able to afford a 7-23 season followed by a 14-16 season, which is what you're looking at with Dooley - everything built over the last half decade gone and relying on Dooley to rebuild it even back to where it is today. So the question for me is whether Cox is up to the task, not who would you pick in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum, we are in 2018 coming off back-to-back tournament wins and A-10 trophies with a core of all-conference caliber players with at least 2 years left each and the best recruiting class the program has ever had on the way. I will always choose 20-10 next year and 25-5 the year after over 7-23 and 14-16 without much concern over what happens in the out years. And for what its worth, I like Cox's ability to win in years 4, 5 and 6 better than Dooley's anyways, if only because he will be recruiting to a more successful, better funded program with better brand power and better facilities.

It is not as simple as "choosing a coach because of recruits." That is a gross oversimplification.

Nailed it. Thank you.

[TruePoint]

Yes, I'm making some assumptions here. I'm giving my honest expectations if either guy is hired. Its not like I have access to Biff's sports almanac and I'm refusing to cite it and just choosing to make it up instead.

If you feel like Dooley will construct a roster for next season that is better than what Cox will have with none of the same players, then that would explain why you'd want Dooley, I guess. I don't believe that. I don't actually think you believe it, either. I think you've latched onto Dooley as the best vessel in which to store all of your contrarian hopes and dreams.

Some assumptions? How about two full seasons of two different coaches, recruiting outcomes five years out, and how the roster will look in the fall? All you and I have are the resumes of either candidate and seeing Cox on the bench. Without question, Dooley has the better resume. What we don't have are the interviews, the background calls Thorr has made, and myriad other components to the search process. All of that could certainly push Cox over the top and make him the best hire. That's what you pay an AD for. All I am saying is I hope that doesn't include the whims of a couple teenagers. I am not saying I would rather have 25 wins in year three over the 9 that Cox would have. Because that would be making stuff up and I am not an omniscient deity. And, god help us if Thorr is using that thought process.

Yeah, I mean I'm making assumptions and projecting out based on those. Those assumptions are not arbitrary, they're based on what I know. I think one area where you and I may not see eye to eye is your obsession with resume and my borderline indifference to it. I care about what is likely to happen as best as I can ascertain it, not a rote and rigid adherence to a resume contest. Every coach who gets their first job will have less head coaching experience on their resume than other available candidates. Every first year player will have less experience on their resume than more experienced players. Every first-time candidate for office, every debut artist, every newly appointed judge, every newly hired teacher, every first-time boss will have less experience than someone else, and inevitably some of these people will do much better and go on to much more success than people that would have brought more experience to it. I feel like I've laid out the case for Cox for this particular job over and over again for two weeks, and it goes way beyond securing the continued commitment of a recruit. If this were another job, say if they were both up for the ECU job, maybe I'd think Dooley would be a safer hire there. A lot of Cox's candidacy is based on incumbency, there is no question. But that would not matter to me if I didn't believe he was personally qualified and capable of crushing it here.

[BleedBlue87]

I do believe you're not anti-Cox. I'm pretty sure if the consensus here was that people wanted Dooley, you'd be making the argument for Cox. Whatever, man.

This what people say when they are done making things up. I would be suspicious of a Dooley hire if we heard stuff like "he could bring a few spring recruits with him". For the same reasons. The reality is I have no idea. No one does. Not a single person. It's hard to get a hire right. What is not hard is getting the process right.

I really don't think anyone is saying hire Cox solely based on recruits. Thorr is going through a process. They are doing the interviews. He isn't going to make the decision based on the incoming class alone. I think there is a tough decision to be made between Cox and Dooley that Thorr will have to make. I would imagine they are the top 2. But there is questions for both right? We know Dooley has good HC experience but can he make that transition and find success in the A-10? Cox is a know recruiter who has the love of his players, is known to be an x's and o's guy but lacks HC experience. Can he shine as HC as he does as an AC? Stability wise, Cox edges Dooley but everything else is anyone's guess.

[DC_Rams]

TP, I want you to write my obituary when I die brother. You may be the most articulate internet poster I’ve ever come across. You say what I am thinking and try to say, 100000 times better than I ever could. I mean that man lol....

[NJRhodyFan]

[TruePoint]

TP, I want you to write my obituary when I die brother. You may be the most articulate internet poster I’ve ever come across. You say what I am thinking and try to say, 100000 times better than I ever could. I mean that man lol....

Lol...thanks man. I feel like my arguments have gotten crisper here lately because I've had so much practice making them over the last two weeks.

[Gonebarongone]

TP, I want you to write my obituary when I die brother. You may be the most articulate internet poster I’ve ever come across. You say what I am thinking and try to say, 100000 times better than I ever could. I mean that man lol....

Of course you would want him to. He'll make up some really cool stuff. Did you have a 35 win season as a college coach? You do now.

[DC_Rams]

TP, I want you to write my obituary when I die brother. You may be the most articulate internet poster I’ve ever come across. You say what I am thinking and try to say, 100000 times better than I ever could. I mean that man lol....

Of course you would want him to. He'll make up some really cool stuff. Did you have a 35 win season as a college coach? You do now.

I don’t care what he writes, the guy gets his points across. You do too GBG, I just hate your points. LOL!

[josephski]

This what people say when they are done making things up. I would be suspicious of a Dooley hire if we heard stuff like "he could bring a few spring recruits with him". For the same reasons. The reality is I have no idea. No one does. Not a single person. It's hard to get a hire right. What is not hard is getting the process right.

I really don't think anyone is saying hire Cox solely based on recruits. Thorr is going through a process. They are doing the interviews. He isn't going to make the decision based on the incoming class alone. I think there is a tough decision to be made between Cox and Dooley that Thorr will have to make. I would imagine they are the top 2. But there is questions for both right? We know Dooley has good HC experience but can he make that transition and find success in the A-10? Cox is a know recruiter who has the love of his players, is known to be an x's and o's guy but lacks HC experience. Can he shine as HC as he does as an AC? Stability wise, Cox edges Dooley but everything else is anyone's guess.

No one is saying hire Cox solely based on recruits but that's pretty much what it comes down to. The fact we lost 5 guys this year definitely plays a huge part in the coaching search. If you don't hire Cox you potentially lose all 4 recruits, I would think Fatts is definitely gone as well. Any coach other than Cox would most likely have a minimum of 6 scholarships to fill, add in guys like Langevine and Dowtin transferring and you return a shell of last year's team with a shit load of scholarships to fill.

[reckless jake]

The ECU radio network is reporting that ECU has reached agreement with Joe Dooley

[NJRhodyFan]

The ECU radio network is reporting that ECU has reached agreement with Joe Dooley

Is anybody else surprised by this? East Carolina...really??

[Matunuck]

They have been waiting until he is no longer under consideration at Rhody to announce ECU

[DC_Rams]

Sounds like we are down to Becker and Shrewsbury. This should definitely be a no brainer for Cox at this point.

[Gonebarongone]

The ECU radio network is reporting that ECU has reached agreement with Joe Dooley

Is anybody else surprised by this? East Carolina...really??

Will be interested to see what the contract looks like. Some big time schools in the American conference.

[rhodylaw]

The ECU radio network is reporting that ECU has reached agreement with Joe Dooley

Is anybody else surprised by this? East Carolina...really??

No - it’s a step up in conference and he has to stay on the move for his career. Also should not be too hard to be middle of the pack in that conference so his resume will grow. Just needs to take them to 1 NCAA then he will bolt again.

[SGreenwell]

This what people say when they are done making things up. I would be suspicious of a Dooley hire if we heard stuff like "he could bring a few spring recruits with him". For the same reasons. The reality is I have no idea. No one does. Not a single person. It's hard to get a hire right. What is not hard is getting the process right.

I really don't think anyone is saying hire Cox solely based on recruits. Thorr is going through a process. They are doing the interviews. He isn't going to make the decision based on the incoming class alone. I think there is a tough decision to be made between Cox and Dooley that Thorr will have to make. I would imagine they are the top 2. But there is questions for both right? We know Dooley has good HC experience but can he make that transition and find success in the A-10? Cox is a know recruiter who has the love of his players, is known to be an x's and o's guy but lacks HC experience. Can he shine as HC as he does as an AC? Stability wise, Cox edges Dooley but everything else is anyone's guess.

No one is saying hire Cox solely based on recruits but that's pretty much what it comes down to. The fact we lost 5 guys this year definitely plays a huge part in the coaching search. If you don't hire Cox you potentially lose all 4 recruits, I would think Fatts is definitely gone as well. Any coach other than Cox would most likely have a minimum of 6 scholarships to fill, add in guys like Langevine and Dowtin transferring and you return a shell of last year's team with a shit load of scholarships to fill.

I mean, that's kind of why I'm saying that Thorr would have to be blown away to hire someone else. Unless you think Cox is going to be awful, you probably hire him to retain the players on the roster, and the incoming class. Because otherwise, you need to recruit 4+ players for 2018-19. (Even the guys who we have recruited, the new coach would probably have to re-recruit them.)

I don't think there are red flags that Cox would be a bad head coach, like there was with Jerry D., but I think any elevation of an assistant to head coach comes with a lot of unknowns. Or, hell, any elevation of a coach from a low conference to the Atlantic 10, for that matter. (I'm positive we could find threads from three to four years ago about other Atlantic 10 teams making what we thought was a good hire, but the results have been murky.) There's some grey unknowns in all of this, so because Cox has the edge with the current recruits, plus the buyout clause, plus he already knows the URI administration in athletics, I assume he's the heavy favorite for the job.

[josephski]

The ECU radio network is reporting that ECU has reached agreement with Joe Dooley

Is anybody else surprised by this? East Carolina...really??

Will be interested to see what the contract looks like. Some big time schools in the American conference.

Yea American looks like they're really stepping it up. With Hurley at Uconn, Hardaway at Memphis, McKie at Temple and now Dooley going to ECU it looks like the American could easily pull away from the A10 in conference strength.

[rjsuperfly66]

The game coaching part is way overrated anyway. Recruit the best possible players, tell them clearly what you want them to do in practice, prepare 3/4 smooth inbounds and halfcourt plays, plan who leaks out on the break and when. Plan for end of game situations and prep a few strategies.....
!

I've never fully understood this -- there is a reason that Kentucky or Duke (while competitive every season) do not win big every single year. Sure, if you have a butt-ton of talent, you should still win a lot, but X's and O's is a major equalizer at points in the NCAA Tournament. So if you look at Villanova, they have won 2 out of 3 National Championships. Their 3 best players in 2016 were Josh Hart, Kris Jenkins, and Ryan Archidiacono and their 3 best players in 2018 were Jalen Brunson, Mikal Bridges, and Donte Divicenzo. Their respective recruiting rankings in order (from 24/7): 123-111-60-30-114-109. The difference is that Jay Wright is a FANTASTIC X's and O's coach and he develops and gets the most out of his players. 'Nova doesn't just trot out and do the same thing game to game or half to half. The play to the strengths of their team versus the weakness of their opponents. Does it always work? Of course not. But for example, I can think of some past games against Nova, 2016 BET stands out for PC ... PC played close to them most of the night, but Bentil got in foul trouble, leaving Lindsey to play the "5." Villanova threw the ball into Ochefu every single possession -- win, lose, or draw, they took that mismatch and shoved it down PC's throat. Coaching and game strategy matter a lot more than people give ti credit for, but of course you need the moldable talent to be able to get to that point to match-up.

[Seawrightspostgame]

Is anybody else surprised by this? East Carolina...really??

Will be interested to see what the contract looks like. Some big time schools in the American conference.

Yea American looks like they're really stepping it up. With Hurley at Uconn, Hardaway at Memphis, McKie at Temple and now Dooley going to ECU it looks like the American could easily pull away from the A10 in conference strength.

Is this serious?

[TruePoint]

The game coaching part is way overrated anyway. Recruit the best possible players, tell them clearly what you want them to do in practice, prepare 3/4 smooth inbounds and halfcourt plays, plan who leaks out on the break and when. Plan for end of game situations and prep a few strategies.....
!

I've never fully understood this -- there is a reason that Kentucky or Duke (while competitive every season) do not win big every single year. Sure, if you have a butt-ton of talent, you should still win a lot, but X's and O's is a major equalizer at points in the NCAA Tournament. So if you look at Villanova, they have won 2 out of 3 National Championships. Their 3 best players in 2016 were Josh Hart, Kris Jenkins, and Ryan Archidiacono and their 3 best players in 2018 were Jalen Brunson, Mikal Bridges, and Donte Divicenzo. Their respective recruiting rankings in order (from 24/7): 123-111-60-30-114-109. The difference is that Jay Wright is a FANTASTIC bench coach and he develops and gets the most out of his players. The goal always have to be about building a program, and that far exceeds simply recruiting or simply X's and O's ... You need to be able to identify moldable talent, be able to coach them up, and be able to create a system where they can be successful. It's not just about getting the best players, but also the right players, and what is right for one might not be right for the other.

Villanova also benefits from being in the recruiting Goldilocks zone: they recruit from the best pool of players who are likely to stick around for more than one year. Talent matters, and yes, Xs and Os matters (to your point), but experience also really helps. I'll take a team full of seniors that are just good enough to be cut in NBA training camp over a team totally dependent on 3 or 4 one-and-dones. I feel like Wright has navigated recruiting in this era of college basketball almost perfectly - fill your roster with great (if not transcendent) college players who will be with you for 3-4 years who perfectly fit your system.

[SGreenwell]

The game coaching part is way overrated anyway. Recruit the best possible players, tell them clearly what you want them to do in practice, prepare 3/4 smooth inbounds and halfcourt plays, plan who leaks out on the break and when. Plan for end of game situations and prep a few strategies.....
!

I've never fully understood this -- there is a reason that Kentucky or Duke (while competitive every season) do not win big every single year. Sure, if you have a butt-ton of talent, you should still win a lot, but X's and O's is a major equalizer at points in the NCAA Tournament. So if you look at Villanova, they have won 2 out of 3 National Championships. Their 3 best players in 2016 were Josh Hart, Kris Jenkins, and Ryan Archidiacono and their 3 best players in 2018 were Jalen Brunson, Mikal Bridges, and Donte Divicenzo. Their respective recruiting rankings in order (from 24/7): 123-111-60-30-114-109. The difference is that Jay Wright is a FANTASTIC bench coach and he develops and gets the most out of his players. The goal always have to be about building a program, and that far exceeds simply recruiting or simply X's and O's ... You need to be able to identify moldable talent, be able to coach them up, and be able to create a system where they can be successful. It's not just about getting the best players, but also the right players, and what is right for one might not be right for the other.

I think at the very elite levels, you can be choosier about coaching aspects. It's more important to have a great bench coach at Kentucky, Duke, UNC, because your resources give you a great edge in recruiting anyway. Unless you're a horrible scout of HS talent, or you actively turn off incoming recuirts, you should have your pick of college players good enough to be a perennial power.

[rambone 78]

Just getting a ton of talent doesn't guarantee a national championship.

Duke has found out that sometimes the pieces just don't fit....no matter how good a bench coach K might be.

Of course with the one and dones, one year isn't enough to get those pieces to gel, at least most of the time.

[josephski]

Will be interested to see what the contract looks like. Some big time schools in the American conference.

Yea American looks like they're really stepping it up. With Hurley at Uconn, Hardaway at Memphis, McKie at Temple and now Dooley going to ECU it looks like the American could easily pull away from the A10 in conference strength.

Is this serious?

You think it's already obvious the American is better?

[SGreenwell]

Yea American looks like they're really stepping it up. With Hurley at Uconn, Hardaway at Memphis, McKie at Temple and now Dooley going to ECU it looks like the American could easily pull away from the A10 in conference strength.

Is this serious?

You think it's already obvious the American is better?

I think Hurley is an upgrade over Ollie. Dooley is a good candidate and he'll probably improve ECU. Hardaway and McKie are unknowns, and the track record on star player to coach has tons of examples ranging from bad to good to great. So, I'm not sure if the conference actually has improved coaching situations at all four, but hey, those programs are showing a willingness to spend money at least.

[Billyboy78]

Goodman is still the only one reporting that Shrewsberry is getting an interview.

[hrstrat57]

Was Shrewsberry the main recruiter at Butler? What was his role exactly on those great teams?

[rambone 78]

The silence is deafening.......but will pop very soon.

[NYGFan_Section208]

Anyone else hearing that the decision is being pushed back a week?

[Gonebarongone]

Was Shrewsberry the main recruiter at Butler? What was his role exactly on those great teams?

Would have recruited/coached Nored, Hayward, Mack and Purdue had a ton of good recruits from 2011-13. Thought he was a really interesting candidate from jump street.

[RamIt!]

Ashley Howard's name now being thrown in the mix?

[TruePoint]

Was Shrewsberry the main recruiter at Butler? What was his role exactly on those great teams?

Would have recruited/coached Nored, Hayward, Mack and Purdue had a ton of good recruits from 2011-13. Thought he was a really interesting candidate from jump street.

I agree he is interesting, but my issue is the lack of recruiting experience in this part of the country. Until he got to the Celtics, he basically spent his entire life in Indiana.

Also, are you less concerned about Shrewsberry's lack of head coaching experience than Cox's?

[rambone 78]

If any of that were true....that tells me they aren't sold on Cox whatsoever....and bye bye players.....

Really doubt it....last minute bullshit.

Yeah, I want to see Cox go to UConn, along with our recruiting class and some of our holdovers....right.

[DC_Rams]

Why are you guys making up baseless last minute rumors?