This isn't a knock on your opinion -- you're entitled to it.
But would it surprise you to know that JW's short list a few years ago was Oats and Hopkins, and that Oats was viewed as the more desirable option? And that was when Hopkins appeared to be slaying it. Neither Red nor Gerry were being considered, and I find it doubtful that they would be now. Wildhack is aiming higher, and neither of them has garnered any consideration outside of our program. Both have a grand total of zero offers to be a head coach at the collegiate level.
Fast forward to now / today -- Oats might be unattainable, and Hopkins may have coached himself out of contention. So I'd expect Wildhack to not be married to internal candidates, just like he wasn't before, and for him to do due diligence to come up with a new list of guys. Might Hopkins be on that list? Sure. But there is no reason whatsoever for the AD to artificially restrict the candidate pool to in-house candidates -- ESPECIALLY given the slippage of the program over the last 7+ years. We need to reverse that trend, and the way to do it isn't to hire less qualified facsimiles of the current head coach, because the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
You want Hop, and you aren't deterred by his performance at UW. I'm concerned that his performance at UW over a multi-year span of decline might be a true indication of his abilities as a head coach.
You say that you prefer a recruiter over an X's and O's guy. I say that's a false dichotomy -- why not get a a coach who can do both?
Instead of hiring a veteran former head coach as an AC to help a head coach who needs that type of support to be successful, why don't we just hire a coach who has a proven track record of success? And while we're at it, maybe get someone who is more in tune with modern trends in college basketball, instead of somebody who will just emulate what we're already doing?
Tell me if i'm off-base here, but i assume this would be true for two primary reasons, neither of which are indications of their potential to be successful head coaches:
1) No (other) AD wants to commit his program to be a zone-exclusive team;
2) When you're part of a staff of all alums at a major program, and where the current head coach is 'old,' the presumption might be that the best candidate from that school might feel he's the presumptive successor. Why make an offer or even shortlist him? Unless there are obvious extenuating circumstances, like with Hopkins and his father/family geography?
But, none of that means our guys won't be great here, and none of that means other ADs don't think very highly of our guys.
I'm not one of those guys clamoring for Mike to return. I think it's a matter of some people believing it's going to be Red or Gerry, and they'd prefer Hopkins instead, because there aren't any other candidates from the outside being mentioned... other than the relative unlikelihood of poaching Oats. So, 'wanting' Hopkins is a mix of actually believing in his potential, given different circumstances, and basically liking him versus a field of un-named. Which is a reasonable line of thinking. Essentially, we had Hopkins, Red, and GMac, and Hopkins was assessed to be the best of them, and now, even without 'success' at UDub, he still has the same mind as the one that was assessed as being better/more ready than Red/GMac, and now he also has experience in the role.
There are two ways to think about it (at least two ways...). Either Hopkins proved that he isn't that good, or he's the same person who was determined to be the right person to hand the keys to and he still has that same potential
in our scenario.
www.mercurynews.com
