MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith (/thread-24864.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith (/thread-24864.html)
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - BillBradley - 03-25-2024
Let me be clear: I am thrilled that Kyle Smith is our coach. BUT, he's basically just a solid coach. At USF he was 28-24 in the WCC and at WSU he was 49-48. His past performance isn't really much to brag about.
San Francisco Dons (West Coast Conference) (2016–2019)
2016–17 San Francisco 20–13 10–8 T–4th CBI First Round
2017–18 San Francisco 22–17 9–9 T–4th CBI Runner-Up
2018–19 San Francisco 21–10 9–7 4th
San Francisco: 63–40 (.612) 28–24 (.538)
Washington State Cougars (Pac-12 Conference) (2019–2024)
2019–20 Washington State 16–16 6–12 11th
2020–21 Washington State 14–13 7–12 10th
2021–22 Washington State 22–15 11–9 T–5th NIT Semifinals
2022–23 Washington State 17–17 11–9 T–5th NIT First Round
2023–24 Washington State 25–10 14–6 2nd NCAA Division I Round of 32
Washington State: 94–71 (.570) 49–48 (.505)
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - jacket3ree - 03-25-2024
Time will tell. The WSU board let out a sigh of relief when Michigan hired Dusty May. Many think Stanford is a terrible job, but one guy there said he heard through back channels that it was serious. I wish this were a couple of weeks later because I wanted the Cougs to go further. Iowa State sort of dismantled them after WSU started really strong.
Feel bad for the folks in Pullman. If they ever do well in anything, their coach will be taken by a bigger program closer to a real airport. I was going to use the colloquial Wazzu, and wanted to be sure I spelled that correctly, but found a bunch of different spellings (is it Wazzou like Mizzou or Wazzu?) and this:
Wazzu:
1. Slang term for the Washington State University (WSU). 2. Term used to describe the butthole.
Yeah, Streisand Effect.....
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - martyup - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 03:50 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Wazzu:
1. Slang term for the Washington State University (WSU). 2. Term used to describe the butthole.
Yeah, Streisand Effect.....
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc.tenor.com%2FollgUnqny...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc.tenor.com%2FollgUnqnyMsAAAAC%2Fkeeping-up-appearances-oh-nice.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=2a79cbcacf0311a9ee1ab105f14c90a5b1f2d307a461cd863506a17d311922ba&ipo=images)
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - norcard10 - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 03:29 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Let me be clear: I am thrilled that Kyle Smith is our coach. BUT, he's basically just a solid coach. At USF he was 28-24 in the WCC and at WSU he was 49-48. His past performance isn't really much to brag about.
San Francisco Dons (West Coast Conference) (2016–2019)
2016–17 San Francisco 20–13 10–8 T–4th CBI First Round
2017–18 San Francisco 22–17 9–9 T–4th CBI Runner-Up
2018–19 San Francisco 21–10 9–7 4th
San Francisco: 63–40 (.612) 28–24 (.538)
Washington State Cougars (Pac-12 Conference) (2019–2024)
2019–20 Washington State 16–16 6–12 11th
2020–21 Washington State 14–13 7–12 10th
2021–22 Washington State 22–15 11–9 T–5th NIT Semifinals
2022–23 Washington State 17–17 11–9 T–5th NIT First Round
2023–24 Washington State 25–10 14–6 2nd NCAA Division I Round of 32
Washington State: 94–71 (.570) 49–48 (.505)
Agreed. I wish him and MBB well but I am extremely unimpressed at this hire as compared to previous coaches (which isnt saying much).
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - jacket3ree - 03-25-2024
This may not be the place to update the P6+ Coaching Carousel, but I'd personally like not to keep wading into the Haase Fired thread. I'm happy to have this moved or ignored.
DePaul - Chris Holtmann (Ohio State)
Louisville - still empty
Michigan - Dusty May (FAU)
Ohio State - Jake Diebler (internal promotion)
Oklahoma State - 'reportedly a mess'
Rice - Rob Lanier (Rice)
SMU - Fired Rob Lanier after two years and improvement from 10 wins to 20 wins. Gearing up to enter the ACC. Rice ain't in the ACC.
Stanford - Kyle Smith (WSU)
Vanderbilt - Mark Byington (James Madison) - Vandy is getting into the NIL game
Washington - Danny Sprinkle (Utah State)
Washington State - on the clock
West Virginia - Darian DeVries (Drake)
By winning 7 games in 12 days, NC State's Kevin Keatts went from the hot seat to earning $600k in bonuses (and counting) and an extension through 2030. Big assist to the ex-Stanford player for nailing that shot and to UVA's Tony Bennett for abysmal late game strategy.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - Giants - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 03:29 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Let me be clear: I am thrilled that Kyle Smith is our coach. BUT, he's basically just a solid coach. At USF he was 28-24 in the WCC and at WSU he was 49-48. His past performance isn't really much to brag about.
San Francisco Dons (West Coast Conference) (2016–2019)
2016–17 San Francisco 20–13 10–8 T–4th CBI First Round
2017–18 San Francisco 22–17 9–9 T–4th CBI Runner-Up
2018–19 San Francisco 21–10 9–7 4th
San Francisco: 63–40 (.612) 28–24 (.538)
Washington State Cougars (Pac-12 Conference) (2019–2024)
2019–20 Washington State 16–16 6–12 11th
2020–21 Washington State 14–13 7–12 10th
2021–22 Washington State 22–15 11–9 T–5th NIT Semifinals
2022–23 Washington State 17–17 11–9 T–5th NIT First Round
2023–24 Washington State 25–10 14–6 2nd NCAA Division I Round of 32
Washington State: 94–71 (.570) 49–48 (.505)
WSU’s cumulative record for the five years prior to Smith’s arrival was 58-98.
That tells me that Smith did a terrific job at WSU. Given the resources available, I fully expect that he will have an even greater impact at Stanford.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - msqueri - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 03:29 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Let me be clear: I am thrilled that Kyle Smith is our coach. BUT, he's basically just a solid coach. At USF he was 28-24 in the WCC and at WSU he was 49-48. His past performance isn't really much to brag about.
San Francisco Dons (West Coast Conference) (2016–2019)
2016–17 San Francisco 20–13 10–8 T–4th CBI First Round
2017–18 San Francisco 22–17 9–9 T–4th CBI Runner-Up
2018–19 San Francisco 21–10 9–7 4th
San Francisco: 63–40 (.612) 28–24 (.538)
Washington State Cougars (Pac-12 Conference) (2019–2024)
2019–20 Washington State 16–16 6–12 11th
2020–21 Washington State 14–13 7–12 10th
2021–22 Washington State 22–15 11–9 T–5th NIT Semifinals
2022–23 Washington State 17–17 11–9 T–5th NIT First Round
2023–24 Washington State 25–10 14–6 2nd NCAA Division I Round of 32
Washington State: 94–71 (.570) 49–48 (.505)
This is a misleading way to look at it. Smith has coached at schools that have historically had a lot of trouble stringing together wins. A better way to look at it:
Columbia ranks pre-Smith, with Smith (2011-2016), and post-Smith:
2002: #239
2003: #316
2004: #267
2005: #250
2006: #297
2007: #206
2008: #262
2009: #280
2010: #297
2011: #214
2012: #184
2013: #196
2014: #119
2015: #165
2016: #113
2017: #235
2018: #231
2019: #215
2020: #299
2021: #286
2022: #351
2023: #341
2024: #235
Columbia median without Smith: #267
Columbia median under Smith: #165/#184
San Francisco ranks pre-Smith, with Smith (2017-2019), and post-Smith:
2002: #156
2003: #118
2004: #174
2005: #125
2006: #152
2007: #157
2008: #254
2009: #244
2010: #204
2011: #148
2012: #145
2013: #134
2014: #88
2015: #144
2016: #205
2017: #111
2018: #158
2019: #67
2020: #74
2021: #93
2022: #23 (tournament)
2023: #101
2024: #70
San Francisco median without Smith: #144/#145
San Francisco median under Smith: #111
Washington State ranks pre-Smith and with Smith (2020-2024):
2002: #216
2003: #208
2004: #126
2005: #79
2006: #99
2007: #27 (tournament)
2008: #10 (tournament)
2009: #49
2010: #115
2011: #60
2012: #99
2013: #90
2014: #190
2015: #186
2016: #186
2017: #193
2018: #186
2019: #207
2020: #127
2021: #78
2022: #44
2023: #67
2024: #39 (tournament)
Washington State median without Smith: #115/#126
Washington State median under Smith: #67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right way to think about this is that Smith always coaches at places that face tough rows to hoe and, so far, he has always coached them far better than their norm.
Now he is coming to Stanford, a program qualitatively different than he's ever experienced in terms of ceiling. This century, the three programs Smith has coached have combined to make four NCAA tournaments and one Sweet Sixteen. In that span, Stanford alone, despite a lost last eight years, has made eight NCAA tournaments and three Sweet Sixteens. Smith is coming to a totally different level of program than he's ever coached at. The optimistic way to look at it is that he showed what he could do at deeply limited programs and now will have a much higher ceiling at a program with much greater advantages. The pessimistic way to look at it is that he's moving a step up in expectations and at some point some coaches find their level and can't keep leveling up. I think there may be something to both but I think there is more reason to be optimistic about Smith than practically any coach we've hired in a major sport in my lifetime, which is 40 years and counting. (Yes, Bob, Montgomery and Harbaugh turned out great, but at time of hire they were not even remotely close to as accomplished and obviously qualified as Smith is)
P.S. For perspective, Stanford's median is #66.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - jacket3ree - 03-25-2024
The ceiling is a function of Stanford as much as Smith. Many ACC programs are still built through high school recruiting, but NIL, as flawed as it is, appears to be fundamental to team success, through retention at a minimum. Get old, stay old now means "get paid".
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - CowboyIndian - 03-25-2024
Has anyone ever seen Kyle Smith and Sean Penn in the same room? Just curious.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - norcard10 - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 05:58 PM)msqueri Wrote:(03-25-2024, 03:29 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Let me be clear: I am thrilled that Kyle Smith is our coach. BUT, he's basically just a solid coach. At USF he was 28-24 in the WCC and at WSU he was 49-48. His past performance isn't really much to brag about.
San Francisco Dons (West Coast Conference) (2016–2019)
2016–17 San Francisco 20–13 10–8 T–4th CBI First Round
2017–18 San Francisco 22–17 9–9 T–4th CBI Runner-Up
2018–19 San Francisco 21–10 9–7 4th
San Francisco: 63–40 (.612) 28–24 (.538)
Washington State Cougars (Pac-12 Conference) (2019–2024)
2019–20 Washington State 16–16 6–12 11th
2020–21 Washington State 14–13 7–12 10th
2021–22 Washington State 22–15 11–9 T–5th NIT Semifinals
2022–23 Washington State 17–17 11–9 T–5th NIT First Round
2023–24 Washington State 25–10 14–6 2nd NCAA Division I Round of 32
Washington State: 94–71 (.570) 49–48 (.505)
This is a misleading way to look at it. Smith has coached at schools that have historically had a lot of trouble stringing together wins. A better way to look at it:
Columbia ranks pre-Smith, with Smith (2011-2016), and post-Smith:
2002: #239
2003: #316
2004: #267
2005: #250
2006: #297
2007: #206
2008: #262
2009: #280
2010: #297
2011: #214
2012: #184
2013: #196
2014: #119
2015: #165
2016: #113
2017: #235
2018: #231
2019: #215
2020: #299
2021: #286
2022: #351
2023: #341
2024: #235
Columbia median without Smith: #267
Columbia median under Smith: #165/#184
San Francisco ranks pre-Smith, with Smith (2017-2019), and post-Smith:
2002: #156
2003: #118
2004: #174
2005: #125
2006: #152
2007: #157
2008: #254
2009: #244
2010: #204
2011: #148
2012: #145
2013: #134
2014: #88
2015: #144
2016: #205
2017: #111
2018: #158
2019: #67
2020: #74
2021: #93
2022: #23 (tournament)
2023: #101
2024: #70
San Francisco median without Smith: #144/#145
San Francisco median under Smith: #111
Washington State ranks pre-Smith and with Smith (2020-2024):
2002: #216
2003: #208
2004: #126
2005: #79
2006: #99
2007: #27 (tournament)
2008: #10 (tournament)
2009: #49
2010: #115
2011: #60
2012: #99
2013: #90
2014: #190
2015: #186
2016: #186
2017: #193
2018: #186
2019: #207
2020: #127
2021: #78
2022: #44
2023: #67
2024: #39 (tournament)
Washington State median without Smith: #115/#126
Washington State median under Smith: #67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right way to think about this is that Smith always coaches at places that face tough rows to hoe and, so far, he has always coached them far better than their norm.
Now he is coming to Stanford, a program qualitatively different than he's ever experienced in terms of ceiling. This century, the three programs Smith has coached have combined to make four NCAA tournaments and one Sweet Sixteen. In that span, Stanford alone, despite a lost last eight years, has made eight NCAA tournaments and three Sweet Sixteens. Smith is coming to a totally different level of program than he's ever coached at. The optimistic way to look at it is that he showed what he could do at deeply limited programs and now will have a much higher ceiling at a program with much greater advantages. The pessimistic way to look at it is that he's moving a step up in expectations and at some point some coaches find their level and can't keep leveling up. I think there may be something to both but I think there is more reason to be optimistic about Smith than practically any coach we've hired in a major sport in my lifetime, which is 40 years and counting. (Yes, Bob, Montgomery and Harbaugh turned out great, but at time of hire they were not even remotely close to as accomplished and obviously qualified as Smith is)
P.S. For perspective, Stanford's median is #66.
In 14 years, he's made the tournament once. That's the baseline we're working off of here. The men's team is in a dark spot, but if improvement entails just being slightly better in rank while making the tournament just once or none during an 8 year tenure - it will be a bad hire.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - Spiny_Norman - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 08:27 PM)norcard10 Wrote: In 14 years, he's made the tournament once. That's the baseline we're working off of here. The men's team is in a dark spot, but if improvement entails just being slightly better in rank while making the tournament just once or none during an 8 year tenure - it will be a bad hire.
Given the weak institutional support for men's basketball, this seems like the type of hire Stanford could expect. I think anyone commenting here on the Cardboard cares more about men's basketball than any indifferent student or administrator. My expectations for Smith are low because the program he is taking over is in such a deep hole.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - Mick - 03-25-2024
We also need to remember that Smith's teams generally improved over time. His first Columbia team was 6-8 in conference and 15-13 in league. His last Columbia team was 25-10 overall and 10-4 in league. His first WSU team was 16-16 and 6-12. His last WSU team was 25-10 and 14-6 in league.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - BillBradley - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 05:58 PM)msqueri Wrote:Appreciate all the context surrounding the programs Kyle Smith has coached at along with the extra math. I understand what you're saying, but after reading everything I still think he's simply a solid coach who will do a nice job. We totally landed a coach who's proven he can do more with less, which is what we need. But we didn't land a coach who has shown that he can recruit top talent, has won conference titles, has taken teams deep in the tourney, etc. My guess is in 4 or 5 years we will be around .500 in the ACC (assuming there still is an ACC), and that will be a nice accomplishment given where the program is now.(03-25-2024, 03:29 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Let me be clear: I am thrilled that Kyle Smith is our coach. BUT, he's basically just a solid coach. At USF he was 28-24 in the WCC and at WSU he was 49-48. His past performance isn't really much to brag about.
San Francisco Dons (West Coast Conference) (2016–2019)
2016–17 San Francisco 20–13 10–8 T–4th CBI First Round
2017–18 San Francisco 22–17 9–9 T–4th CBI Runner-Up
2018–19 San Francisco 21–10 9–7 4th
San Francisco: 63–40 (.612) 28–24 (.538)
Washington State Cougars (Pac-12 Conference) (2019–2024)
2019–20 Washington State 16–16 6–12 11th
2020–21 Washington State 14–13 7–12 10th
2021–22 Washington State 22–15 11–9 T–5th NIT Semifinals
2022–23 Washington State 17–17 11–9 T–5th NIT First Round
2023–24 Washington State 25–10 14–6 2nd NCAA Division I Round of 32
Washington State: 94–71 (.570) 49–48 (.505)
This is a misleading way to look at it. Smith has coached at schools that have historically had a lot of trouble stringing together wins. A better way to look at it:
Columbia ranks pre-Smith, with Smith (2011-2016), and post-Smith:
2002: #239
2003: #316
2004: #267
2005: #250
2006: #297
2007: #206
2008: #262
2009: #280
2010: #297
2011: #214
2012: #184
2013: #196
2014: #119
2015: #165
2016: #113
2017: #235
2018: #231
2019: #215
2020: #299
2021: #286
2022: #351
2023: #341
2024: #235
Columbia median without Smith: #267
Columbia median under Smith: #165/#184
San Francisco ranks pre-Smith, with Smith (2017-2019), and post-Smith:
2002: #156
2003: #118
2004: #174
2005: #125
2006: #152
2007: #157
2008: #254
2009: #244
2010: #204
2011: #148
2012: #145
2013: #134
2014: #88
2015: #144
2016: #205
2017: #111
2018: #158
2019: #67
2020: #74
2021: #93
2022: #23 (tournament)
2023: #101
2024: #70
San Francisco median without Smith: #144/#145
San Francisco median under Smith: #111
Washington State ranks pre-Smith and with Smith (2020-2024):
2002: #216
2003: #208
2004: #126
2005: #79
2006: #99
2007: #27 (tournament)
2008: #10 (tournament)
2009: #49
2010: #115
2011: #60
2012: #99
2013: #90
2014: #190
2015: #186
2016: #186
2017: #193
2018: #186
2019: #207
2020: #127
2021: #78
2022: #44
2023: #67
2024: #39 (tournament)
Washington State median without Smith: #115/#126
Washington State median under Smith: #67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right way to think about this is that Smith always coaches at places that face tough rows to hoe and, so far, he has always coached them far better than their norm.
Now he is coming to Stanford, a program qualitatively different than he's ever experienced in terms of ceiling. This century, the three programs Smith has coached have combined to make four NCAA tournaments and one Sweet Sixteen. In that span, Stanford alone, despite a lost last eight years, has made eight NCAA tournaments and three Sweet Sixteens. Smith is coming to a totally different level of program than he's ever coached at. The optimistic way to look at it is that he showed what he could do at deeply limited programs and now will have a much higher ceiling at a program with much greater advantages. The pessimistic way to look at it is that he's moving a step up in expectations and at some point some coaches find their level and can't keep leveling up. I think there may be something to both but I think there is more reason to be optimistic about Smith than practically any coach we've hired in a major sport in my lifetime, which is 40 years and counting. (Yes, Bob, Montgomery and Harbaugh turned out great, but at time of hire they were not even remotely close to as accomplished and obviously qualified as Smith is)
P.S. For perspective, Stanford's median is #66.
Again, I emphasize I am not down on him at all. He was the best available in my opinion and I'm thrilled we got him.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - 2006alum - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 10:13 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Appreciate all the context surrounding the programs Kyle Smith has coached at along with the extra math. I understand what you're saying, but after reading everything I still think he's simply a solid coach who will do a nice job. We totally landed a coach who's proven he can do more with less, which is what we need. But we didn't land a coach who has shown that he can recruit top talent, has won conference titles, has taken teams deep in the tourney, etc. My guess is in 4 or 5 years we will be around .500 in the ACC (assuming there still is an ACC), and that will be a nice accomplishment given where the program is now.
Again, I emphasize I am not down on him at all. He was the best available in my opinion and I'm thrilled we got him.
See bolded. WHO is that person, who would take the job at Stanford? For years our dream hires have been Jay Wright and Tony Bennett - well, one retired already, and the other's about to, because they're both done with NIL/transfer portal/recruiting carousel nonsense. Even just watch how our women's team's recruiting has tapered off as NIL and transfer portal has become a thing - that mode of recruiting and retaining players is fundamentally anti-Stanford, but it's become the prevailing model. I don't think we'd have landed the 2024 recruiting class Haley Jones.
I'm excited about this hire because Stanford (for which I'm grateful) is never going to fully bend to the corrupt, pay-to-play model that is today's college sports environment. But if it's not, we need a coach is excels at doing less with more. And Kyle Smith does seem to have quite a track record of doing that.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - BillBradley - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 10:19 PM)2006alum Wrote:Yes, agree. Saying the same thing. He does do less with more. He's a great hire. But he's not Jay Wright.(03-25-2024, 10:13 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Appreciate all the context surrounding the programs Kyle Smith has coached at along with the extra math. I understand what you're saying, but after reading everything I still think he's simply a solid coach who will do a nice job. We totally landed a coach who's proven he can do more with less, which is what we need. But we didn't land a coach who has shown that he can recruit top talent, has won conference titles, has taken teams deep in the tourney, etc. My guess is in 4 or 5 years we will be around .500 in the ACC (assuming there still is an ACC), and that will be a nice accomplishment given where the program is now.
Again, I emphasize I am not down on him at all. He was the best available in my opinion and I'm thrilled we got him.
See bolded. WHO is that person, who would take the job at Stanford? For years our dream hires have been Jay Wright and Tony Bennett - well, one retired already, and the other's about to, because they're both done with NIL/transfer portal/recruiting carousel nonsense. Even just watch how our women's team's recruiting has tapered off as NIL and transfer portal has become a thing - that mode of recruiting and retaining players is fundamentally anti-Stanford, but it's become the prevailing model. I don't think we'd have landed the 2024 recruiting class Haley Jones.
I'm excited about this hire because Stanford (for which I'm grateful) is never going to fully bend to the corrupt, pay-to-play model that is today's college sports environment. But if it's not, we need a coach is excels at doing less with more. And Kyle Smith does seem to have quite a track record of doing that.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - 2006alum - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 10:22 PM)BillBradley Wrote:Yeah, fair. I think I responding more to the vibe of the board as a whole rather than your post in particular. And the problem is there will be fewer and fewer Jay Wrights, because cultivating players for four years is out, and payoffs are in. Even Calipari was openly questioning whether his model of recruiting freshman made sense anymore...(03-25-2024, 10:19 PM)2006alum Wrote:Yes, agree. Saying the same thing. He does do less with more. He's a great hire. But he's not Jay Wright.(03-25-2024, 10:13 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Appreciate all the context surrounding the programs Kyle Smith has coached at along with the extra math. I understand what you're saying, but after reading everything I still think he's simply a solid coach who will do a nice job. We totally landed a coach who's proven he can do more with less, which is what we need. But we didn't land a coach who has shown that he can recruit top talent, has won conference titles, has taken teams deep in the tourney, etc. My guess is in 4 or 5 years we will be around .500 in the ACC (assuming there still is an ACC), and that will be a nice accomplishment given where the program is now.
Again, I emphasize I am not down on him at all. He was the best available in my opinion and I'm thrilled we got him.
See bolded. WHO is that person, who would take the job at Stanford? For years our dream hires have been Jay Wright and Tony Bennett - well, one retired already, and the other's about to, because they're both done with NIL/transfer portal/recruiting carousel nonsense. Even just watch how our women's team's recruiting has tapered off as NIL and transfer portal has become a thing - that mode of recruiting and retaining players is fundamentally anti-Stanford, but it's become the prevailing model. I don't think we'd have landed the 2024 recruiting class Haley Jones.
I'm excited about this hire because Stanford (for which I'm grateful) is never going to fully bend to the corrupt, pay-to-play model that is today's college sports environment. But if it's not, we need a coach is excels at doing less with more. And Kyle Smith does seem to have quite a track record of doing that.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - Giants - 03-25-2024
(03-25-2024, 10:19 PM)2006alum Wrote:(03-25-2024, 10:13 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Appreciate all the context surrounding the programs Kyle Smith has coached at along with the extra math. I understand what you're saying, but after reading everything I still think he's simply a solid coach who will do a nice job. We totally landed a coach who's proven he can do more with less, which is what we need. But we didn't land a coach who has shown that he can recruit top talent, has won conference titles, has taken teams deep in the tourney, etc. My guess is in 4 or 5 years we will be around .500 in the ACC (assuming there still is an ACC), and that will be a nice accomplishment given where the program is now.
Again, I emphasize I am not down on him at all. He was the best available in my opinion and I'm thrilled we got him.
See bolded. WHO is that person, who would take the job at Stanford? For years our dream hires have been Jay Wright and Tony Bennett - well, one retired already, and the other's about to, because they're both done with NIL/transfer portal/recruiting carousel nonsense. Even just watch how our women's team's recruiting has tapered off as NIL and transfer portal has become a thing - that mode of recruiting and retaining players is fundamentally anti-Stanford, but it's become the prevailing model. I don't think we'd have landed the 2024 recruiting class Haley Jones.
I'm excited about this hire because Stanford (for which I'm grateful) is never going to fully bend to the corrupt, pay-to-play model that is today's college sports environment. But if it's not, we need a coach is excels at doing less with more. And Kyle Smith does seem to have quite a track record of doing that.
“… is never going to fully bend to the corrupt, pay-to-play model…” (emphasis added)
I believe that is like saying someone is “just a little pregnant”. Either you are in the NIL game or you aren’t. If Stanford chooses to compete at the highest level, they need to be all-in on NIL. Otherwise, they will not be in a position to play for championships.
Smith is a proven winner but as good a coach as I believe he is, he needs to have a top notch NIL machine functioning in the background.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - calfan - 03-26-2024
Wow, can't believe some of the negative replies I'm reading. Guys, no offense but in no world were you going to land a top-flight coach who's taken teams deep into the tournament or won several conference championships. This was a great hire. I don't think some of the negative repliers understand how terrible some of the programs hes been at are-- Columbia might be one of the worst jobs in the nation. USF isn't easy with Gonzaga and SMC in conference. WSU is one of the toughest jobs in the Pac. Phenomenal hire, will definitely be a polar opposite from Haase in extracting production from players, and he might even bring a couple talented Wazzu guys with him. I really wouldn't hold the lack of conference championships or little tournament success against him- he does a lot with a little and frankly no coach with several conference championships or deep tournament runs would consider y'all, at your current nadir. Congrats on the very strong hire and hope Cal + Stanford come to dominate the ACC!
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - msqueri - 03-26-2024
Yeah, those takes are just really not comprehending the level of programs Smith has coached at and the challenges he’s overcome. This century the three programs have combined for four tournament appearances and one Sweet Sixteen. In that span, Stanford alone, despite the last eight lost years, has made eight tournaments and three Sweet Sixteens. He is coming into a far higher ceiling situation than he has had before.
Smith’s median team in Pullman (#67) is just about exactly the quality of Stanford’s median team historically (#66, KenPom data set since 2002) despite Washington State being a far less successful program. That says a lot to me.
If Smith continues the trend of getting more out of his teams than their norm, it will be a lot better than solid, hovering around .500, etc. He may not do it - sometimes past success does not predict future performance, sometimes water finds its level, etc. But if he stays on his trends he is a lot better than the relatively pessimistic voices in this thread are saying.
If you take my math of how Smith has done relative to his program norms and apply that to Stanford’s norm of #66, Smith’s level of overachievement at Columbia would translate to a median team of #42 at Stanford, his level of overachievement at USF would translate to a median team of #50 at Stanford, and his level of overachievement at Washington State would translate to a median team of #36 at Stanford. In other words, his past level of performance predicts that his median teams at Stanford would be tournament bubble teams. I think it is misanthropic to throw cold water on that. This is an extraordinarily exciting hire compared to what we usually hire and there is every reason to think we lucked into, via the implosion of the Pac-12 and consequent relegation of Washington State, a coach we can expect to make us relevant again.
P.S. As if the direction of travel in Smith’s coaching career weren’t remarkable enough, even the relative outlier in terms of degree of overachievement, USF, occurred in only three years. I think it is quite plausible that if he coached there as long as he coached at Columbia or Washington State he would have been even tighter bunched in terms of consistency relative to program norms at the three programs. Based on this history I would expect that in Smith’s first three years he shows he’s better than Haase but it’s really beyond that when one would expect Nerd Ball to really settle in at the level of overachievement Smith consistently delivers, which in our case would mean tournaments more often than not. I will be very happy if the pattern holds.
RE: MBB: Welcome Kyle Smith - GK3 - 03-26-2024
(03-26-2024, 04:07 AM)msqueri Wrote: Yeah, those takes are just really not comprehending the level of programs Smith has coached at and the challenges he’s overcome. This century the three programs have combined for four tournament appearances and one Sweet Sixteen. In that span, Stanford alone, despite the last eight lost years, has made eight tournaments and three Sweet Sixteens. He is coming into a far higher ceiling situation than he has had before.
Smith’s median team in Pullman (#67) is just about exactly the quality of Stanford’s median team historically (#66, KenPom data set since 2002) despite Washington State being a far less successful program. That says a lot to me.
If Smith continues the trend of getting more out of his teams than their norm, it will be a lot better than solid, hovering around .500, etc. He may not do it - sometimes past success does not predict future performance, sometimes water finds its level, etc. But if he stays on his trends he is a lot better than the relatively pessimistic voices in this thread are saying.
If you take my math of how Smith has done relative to his program norms and apply that to Stanford’s norm of #66, Smith’s level of overachievement at Columbia would translate to a median team of #42 at Stanford, his level of overachievement at USF would translate to a median team of #50 at Stanford, and his level of overachievement at Washington State would translate to a median team of #36 at Stanford. In other words, his past level of performance predicts that his median teams at Stanford would be tournament bubble teams. I think it is misanthropic to throw cold water on that. This is an extraordinarily exciting hire compared to what we usually hire and there is every reason to think we lucked into, via the implosion of the Pac-12 and consequent relegation of Washington State, a coach we can expect to make us relevant again.
P.S. As if the direction of travel in Smith’s coaching career weren’t remarkable enough, even the relative outlier in terms of degree of overachievement, USF, occurred in only three years. I think it is quite plausible that if he coached there as long as he coached at Columbia or Washington State he would have been even tighter bunched in terms of consistency relative to program norms at the three programs. Based on this history I would expect that in Smith’s first three years he shows he’s better than Haase but it’s really beyond that when one would expect Nerd Ball to really settle in at the level of overachievement Smith consistently delivers, which in our case would mean tournaments more often than not. I will be very happy if the pattern holds.
Well said and I agree with you. There are those who just won't give him enough credit for what he has done. Now he going to be coaching in the ACC, a top basketball conference and won't have to be selling talented guys on how much fun it will be to play in the Palouse in the Winter. I think better players out of high school want to play in the best conferences. Now that does NOT mean the NIL is unimportant. I hope the Stanford Alumni who are capable of supporting our NIL, do so in spades. I don't like it, but you either jump in with both feet or call it quits.