Cowduck said:
I guess you can't satisfy everyone with this hire. I don't see all the "Wyoming needs to hire someone with an established track record as a head coach" people getting even a little excited about this rumor, which baffles me because Kent fits that bill better than anyone currently on the market besides maybe Gillispie, but I would actually say Kent fits the bill better (two Elite Eights to Gillispie's one Sweet Sixteen...) There's precedent for coaches leaving a program on a downswing only to find success elsewhere. In fact, Oregon hired Dana Altman to replace Kent after four subpar seasons at Creighton - jury is still way out there but in just his first year he had an undermanned team playing pretty well by the end of the season and made the semis of the PAC-10 tourney. Plus his first recruiting class is stacked. Sometimes things run their course at a program and it gets to be time to be moving on - that doesn't mean a coach can't be successful in a different situation.
Seriously, wouldn't Ernie Kent have the strongest resume of any Wyoming hoops coach hire, ever? Am I missing something?
I think there are several things you are overlooking:
1. Altman's last 4 seasons at Creighton featured a conference record of 47-25, one regular season championship, never lower than 4th, and postseason every year. It might not have been the peak of his tenure, but it was pretty impressive.
2. Kent's last 4 seasons featured a conference record of 29--43. More damaging is that the last 3 years were 18-36 in conference play. This is at a job, that despite the historic lack of success, is now easily a top half job in its league (which Wyoming is not, especially now) due to the influence (even if perceived) of Nike. The facility investment, budgets, etc. put them in the top tier of the PAC-10, yet he couldn't win consistently. He had two-three really good years (01-02, 06-07, and 99-00), one conference title (02) and then a lot of mediocrity. His profile looks to have more in common with Steve McClain than Billy Gillispie. Keep in mind this isn't the ACC or Big East we are talking about, but rather a league (PAC-10) that has finished behind the MWC in RPI ratings on more than one occasion.
3. Off the court issues. You never know what to believe, but Kent comes with some baggage (all of the recruiting rumors from the Hairston/Porter recruitment, the personal life issues, etc.). It might all be total crap, but it's out there.
4. On a more personal level, I don't ever remember thinking Kent's teams looked particularly fundamentally sound. I saw a very loose style of ball with relatively high turnover rates. Good talent level (up until the last few years) and intensity (again, until the last few years), but not the consistent fundamental play that I would look for. If anything, I always thought Kent's program was a rich man's version of Steve McClain's. I could be wrong on this, but that's my perception and I know it is shared by others.