I will stop repeating myself here at some point, but not right now.Cameron_Dollar wrote:2. Never hire or fire a coach based on an incoming recruiting class.
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.