Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 4094788, member: 40"] If that doesn't unintentionally epitomize how unqualified a candidate he would be, I'm not sure what to say. As for the rest of that rationalized post, it reads like a mad lib. I could substitute Mike Hopkins in for GMac, and that message could have been written 5 years ago, with all of the same wrong evaluative criteria prioritized for why Hop would make a great hire: [I]...He bleeds orange... ...He lives and dies for Syracuse... ...The area is unique and he loves it... ...He can recruit and will recruit better when hes in charge...[/I] Good grief. Here's some perspective. Mike Hopkins -- an exponentially more qualified candidate who satisified all of the above "nice to have" criteria, but who similarly had no head coaching experience -- flopped when he left the nest and took over a P5 program. That should be an object lesson for our fanbase about the dangers of promoting a [U]completely unproven[/U] candidate to lead a high major program, on the [U]lone basis of them having historical ties to our program[/U]. But as your post indicates, this lesson hasn't sunk in. The other thing I have difficulty wrapping my head around is how a significant portion of the fanbase's expectations have been set so low. For 30 years, we were a perennial top 25 program. 10 years ago, we earned two #1 seeds in a three-year span. Now we want to make a continuity hire when we're losing double digit games every year, are a national punchline for always being "Bubblecuse," and recruiting has dipped? Makes no sense. We're in the ACC. We have the biggest arena in college basketball. We are top 5 in all-time wins. We should aim higher than giving a guy a shot for a couple of years to see if he doesn't fail. We should bring in someone with a proven track record, who can best utilize those advantages to get our program back to where it needs to be, and fast. We don't need to settle for a candidate who doesn't have a proven track record as a head coach -- there's absolutely no reason to delimit our options that way. This isn't a program where we should tolerate someone who needs on-the-job training. Hire the best, most qualified candidate you can. Period. Don't over-emphasize nonsense criteria that aren't critical to job performance. And if that candidate happens to be in-house, great. But let's not pretend that the two guys that are in house are the best, most qualified candidates out there, if the AD performs due diligence. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?