Wichita State gets a pass, as does South Alabama. Both those schools lost coaches this week. So if they need more time to find a replacement, I understand.
As for the rest of you, get it done already!
|
|
| Everybody knows the drawbacks to employing Bob Huggins, but he will build you a winner. (AP) |
It's insane (Hawaii, not Britney).
So I'm moving on without Hawaii and the rest of the stragglers. We'll deal with them later. For now, here's a (somewhat) final look at the good, bad and ugly of the coaching carousel that is nearing its final turn of the year, thank heavens.
Best hire: You can question Bob Huggins' motives and actions and all sorts of things. But it's stupid to question the man as a basketball coach. He gets players and wins with them. So if it's possible to build a national power at West Virginia, Huggins will do it, and quickly.
Worst hire: I'm not certain Kansas State made a mistake in promoting Frank Martin, but history suggests hiring an unproven commodity just to keep a team together doesn't typically work. Granted, Martin might be the exception, and we'll know soon enough. But there is no debating the odds are against him, and if he doesn't win with Bill Walker and Michael Beasley next season, KSU fans will want to pull a quick trigger.
Most bang for the buck: Michigan hired one of the best coaches in the country for $1.3 million per year, a bargain given the state of escalating salaries. Even better, the school didn't have to pay John Beilein's $2.5 million buyout to West Virginia (he's handling it himself, one way or another), so this was by far the steal of the offseason.
Least bang for the buck: Minnesota's Tubby Smith is a wonderful coach, one of the best in the business. But paying $1.8 million per year for a guy who was having trouble at Kentucky seems steep. If Smith was struggling luring elite players to Rupp Arena, can he really lure them to The Barn?
Best executed search: Give Mitch Barnhart credit for knowing exactly what he was doing once Billy Donovan passed on Kentucky. The UK athletic director made phone calls, stated his case and had Billy Gillispie on board less than 12 hours after Donovan declined. That's solid, and a job well done.
Worst executed search: Remember how Kentucky had a clearly defined path? Arkansas didn't, and that's why its search turned into a national punch line. The Hogs were rejected directly or indirectly by Gillispie, Bill Self, Tim Floyd, John Calipari and Dana Altman. Finally, they got John Pelphrey. But it cost the school a $900,000 buyout to Stan Heath plus an additional $90,000 to Dan Parker for running the latter part of the search, meaning for nearly a million dollars in expenses Arkansas ridded itself of Heath and landed a coach from South Alabama coming off an NIT. Trust me, that wasn't the plan.
Most predictable hire: Jeff Bzdelik to Colorado was out there for so long, word is Bzdelik was upset with CU officials for essentially bragging to industry people in early March that they had the Air Force coach locked up. Naturally, Bzdelik tried to make things interesting, telling his players the night before he accepted the Colorado job he still had no idea what he was going to do. But everybody else had a good idea what he was going to do, leaving Bzdelik as the only surprised soul among us.
Least predictable hire: On the night before Tubby Smith was hired at Minnesota, I was sitting at a bar in St. Louis with five other writers, talking about what Minnesota was going to do. We had heard through normal channels a hire was coming in 24 hours, and we were collectively throwing out names -- Sean Miller? Tony Bennett? John Wooden? -- we thought might be introduced. We must have had a dozen people as viable candidates, but Smith wasn't one of them, meaning this was the most under-the-radar hire in history. Seriously, go back and look. Nobody was mentioning Smith to Minnesota as a possibility until the day it was done.
Final thought: The three biggest remaining jobs are Air Force, Wichita State and South Alabama. The belief is that each would like to hire someone with head coaching experience, but any athletic director limiting his candidates based on such criteria isn't worth the courtesy car he drives.
Make no mistake, if you can find a good head coach, get him. I'm fine with that. But some of the experienced head coaches circulating as candidates are merely guys who have failed or are failing in that role, leaving me to wonder: What's so attractive about that sort of résumé?
Billy Donovan was an assistant before Marshall.
He has done OK.
Reggie Theus was an assistant before New Mexico State.
He has done OK.
John Calipari was an assistant before UMass.
He has done OK.
Tom Crean was an assistant before Marquette.
He has done OK.
So if I'm an athletic director at a non-BCS school I'm trying to find the next Donovan/Theus/Calipari/Crean and avoiding some experienced head coach mostly experienced in losing. Have some vision. Take a chance. The worst that can happen is you might hire someone who develops into a loser. But that sure beats hiring somebody who is already a documented loser with a career in decline, best I can tell.
Why not get somebody on the way up instead of on the way down?
