As far as rules etc. are concerned, Bruce Pearl definitely didn't keep things kosher. However, he was a great, positive influence on his players. Every time I talk to Ed McCants (btw Ed you can join this conversation at any time) he always mentions how much of a positive influence Bruce was on his life.
Some NCAA rules make sense. A lot don't. The only time I'm really concerned with the rules is if it has a real negative influence on the athletes, or if it will get the program in trouble. We luckily avoided any real trouble when Pearl was here, partly because he was only here briefly. If another coach of Pearl's ilk comes in and takes on a 3-4 year ride before moving up, I'm fine with it if the players still mature into young men we will be proud of.
This might be part of the problem of bringing in an assistant that hasn't run a program. It took Jeter's staff a few years to figure it out for most kids, but once they did this program started churning out the kind of 22 and 23-year old men that I'd let marry my daughter one day.
If the S&SC believes the hire will be a positive influence on these young men, I'm good. I'm certain that David Pate can be trusted to find a group of finalists that are good men.
On this we totally agree. I do not want Milwaukee to become UNLV circa 1990 or Miami (football) circa 1981....although until the hammer dropped it HAD to be fun to be fans of those programs....sigh.
I have confidence in the people listed, and hope they are overcoming some of the obstacles that may exist.
Class of 1998
Lubar School of Business - BBA Management Information Systems
Formerly known as Nighthawk
The Dark Hawk arose in a time of great turmoil to fight for truth, justice and the Panther way.
It's very hard to avoid "quick hits" at the mid-major level. We were blessed to have a long run. I understand many people thought it was stale. I didn't think it was long enough. I'm old school and strongly believe in the model of having a guy who can be a Bob McKilllop or Ray Meyer especially at a mid-major. AB is not old school -- she clearly fired to hire, and I'm sure the corollary is that she is also hiring to fire. Our new guy will have to deliver in four years or be gone, if she's being honest about the standards she applied to Rob. And if he does "deliver" in four years, he will almost certainly be be gone regardless, unless he is a crazy person unable to learn from history.
Questions for some of you more deeply educated on these things.
Is it odd that AB is NOT the chair of this committee? Is there anything to be gleaned from this?
I can see two possible reasons. 1) She is not at all in a good place with the University, and while still nominally in charge, she really isn't, and her time may be shorter than anyone thinks, or 2) They are insulating her from further criticism and setting up a situation where it can accurately be said that the next coach was not her hire, and therefore poor results cannot be laid at her feet alone.
#1 means that there may be even more change coming and the administration wants to make a hire before any other change occurs. Perhaps to prevent the position from being even harder to fill than it is now, or just for PR purposes.
#2 means that the next coach could be hired even over her objections (again, not sure how such committees work from first hand experience) and then she has some of the same animus to the new coach that she had to the old one.
Am I on the right track, or am I just way overthinking all of this?
Class of 1998
Lubar School of Business - BBA Management Information Systems
Formerly known as Nighthawk
The Dark Hawk arose in a time of great turmoil to fight for truth, justice and the Panther way.
Perfectly stated.Originally Posted by TheDarkHawkReturns
Or totally wrong. One or the other. I think you know where I stand.
Fair enough 😄Or totally wrong. One or the other. I think you know where I stand.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote