suttree
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 758
- Like
- 2,307
I'm not the first person to say it, but replacing JB with a man who's been with the program so long might not be the public message one wants to send during the pendency of an NCAA appeal and/or lawsuit. I'd personally have no problem with it, and I feel pretty confident that there's a continuity message coded into communications with recruits--but I can easily see the appeal of a strategy whereunder we don't openly anoint Hop three years ahead of time.You're correct in saying I assumed disrespect. I'm probably a little annoyed he hasn't been shown more love publicly. Hope all things good are going on behind closed doors. The first order of businesses for the new AD should be to reaffirm Hop's HCIW title.
2 questions; Is it safe to assume that it is not written into his contract that he will be next HC (wouldn't that have been said by now)? What would the Chancellor not be able to say because of the appeal that pertains to Hop?
I don't know what Hop's contract says, nor do I know whether there's a written promise out there (though I doubt it). Again, as others around here have already said multiple times, there's a process. The new chancellor has made some bold moves and statements since the sanctions were announced, and he's got to acquire a new AD in the very near future. That AD probably needs to be on board, and involved, before anyone makes a decision about the next men's basketball head coach. I don't see the net upside (sorry, SWC) of the school presenting the new AD with a fait accompli on that front.