Originally Posted by ud2
Thee are few examples like McDermott. Who else can you cite?
|
In two seconds - Alford. If I cared to look there could well be more.
I would suggest you aren't paying close enough attention to Butler or
Xavier's schemes if you don't think there have been changes in how they play. Being in the program and knowing how athletics, the school and the moneyed fans work together is an advantage for an assistant.
I have no objections to hiring an assistant, if one is the right choice. The fact that none of the UD staff had ever been close to getting a significant head coaching job is a big factor in my mind. Maybe if they were young in their career or Archie had only been at UD four years, it might be different. But that's not the case. Maybe none of them ever will get a significant HC job.
This is turning into the 15/15 thread where everyone just says the same thing over and over again. We get it, you would have preferred an assistant to be hired. Many others like Grant over any of the assistants. And most of us recognize we will never be close enough to the situation to know why the choice was made, but that each have about an equal chance of working or failing. And of course those on the camp of either choice are going to say I told you so if it works out the way they thought, without having any idea how the other direction would have worked.
