Trying to be realistic about the Barnhart hatred

[Catatonic]

It is less that, than the fact that "head football coach" is a highly speculative deal. Qualified candidates more often than not fail. When they fail, does that mean the hiring official did something wrong and should be let go?

For me, it's more a matter of how that official deals with failure and responds.

In all fairness to MB he has tried a few different approaches. Almost none of them have worked out, but imho it's not for a lack of trying.

[Joneslab]

Hiring coaches is speculative, but it's not magic. Some ADs do it (much) better than others.

But the hiring part is not the biggest deal with Barnhart. The buyout has become the true albatross.

[Old School]

It is less that, than the fact that "head football coach" is a highly speculative deal. Qualified candidates more often than not fail. When they fail, does that mean the hiring official did something wrong and should be let go?

"Qualified candidates more often than not fail." - I disagree.

Second part: yes, particularly when it is repeated.

Is there any more important part of Barnhart's job than hiring good coaches for the two programs that matter? In comparison, most other parts of his job are mundane. Operating the irrelevant sports: not a big deal and doesn't really matter. Keeping the books clean: anyone, anywhere should be able to do that or shouldn't be anywhere near management. Etc. He has two decisions that really, really matter and that size up his performance as AD: hiring a men's basketball coach, and hiring a football coach. His track record is atrocious. It's time to bring in someone who can do better.

On top of that, as Will mentions, the enormous, one-sided buyout for a coach with a .333 career winning percentage is indefensible and has huge, long term, negative impacts on the university. That was a blunder of colossal proportions. It was an inexcusably foolish mistake, and is proof positive that he's in over his head and incapable of being a decent steward of the program.

[Spiritof96]

"Qualified candidates more often than not fail." - I disagree.

Second part: yes, particularly when it is repeated.

Is there any more important part of Barnhart's job than hiring good coaches for the two programs that matter? In comparison, most other parts of his job are mundane. Operating the irrelevant sports: not a big deal and doesn't really matter. Keeping the books clean: anyone, anywhere should be able to do that or shouldn't be anywhere near management. Etc. He has two decisions that really, really matter and that size up his performance as AD: hiring a men's basketball coach, and hiring a football coach. His track record is atrocious. It's time to bring in someone who can do better.

On top of that, as Will mentions, the enormous, one-sided buyout for a coach with a .333 career winning percentage is indefensible and has huge, long term, negative impacts on the university. That was a blunder of colossal proportions. It was an inexcusably foolish mistake, and is proof positive that he's in over his head and incapable of being a decent steward of the program.

I was arguing the general intellectual conceit of your post about "new coke and thalidomide" rather than Barnhart's specific circumstances.

As to the "qualified candidates more often than not fail" google it, they do. Qualified doesn't mean good HC or successful HC. It means qualified HC.

Stoops was qualified and his hiring seemed like a stroke of genius at the time. It isn't playing out that way.

[Old School]

I was arguing the general intellectual conceit of your post about "new coke and thalidomide" rather than Barnhart's specific circumstances.

As to the "qualified candidates more often than not fail" google it, they do. Qualified doesn't mean good HC or successful HC. It means qualified HC.

Stoops was qualified and his hiring seemed like a stroke of genius at the time. It isn't playing out that way.

There's no conceit there. CEOs (and Barney is one) who screw up royally (like he has) should be dismissed. That is a simple and accurate proposition. Deciding to entrust the UK basketball program to Billy Gillispie, deciding to entrust the Coca-Cola brand to a disliked, sudden, new formulation - both were really stupid decisions by people who were in over their heads.

If you're going to say that anyone who has been a P5 OC or DC, or some other blanket categorization, is a "qualified" candidate to be a P5 head coach, then it's a pretty meaningless categorization, as there's no distinction between who is likely to succeed and who isn't. Same for someone who was an OC or DC at a program that did well while they were there: that doesn't at all mean they're qualified to be a head coach. Some of them just can't do it. Being an HC requires a completely different set of skills and management abilities, PR smarts, ability to recruit, ability to delegate, ability to oversee, etc. UK has fallen for unqualified coordinators before, as have other schools. If an AD can't make better distinctions than that ("oh, right there, it says he was a coordinator...he's qualified to be our head coach!"), then that AD has no business being an AD or hiring coaches. Would you hire CEOs the same way, or lawyers, or architects, or anyone else? "Hey, he has an MBA. Let's trust him with the company." "She was a vice president at her last stop. Therefore we should hire her to run the place." "Well, hell, he has a J.D. and a law license; let's entrust him to handle that bond issue, or that criminal trial, or writing your will. He's qualified, after all." "Yep, right there, licenses are in order. Sign him up to design [insert structure here]." It doesn't work that way.

[Spiritof96]

There's no conceit there. CEOs (and Barney is one) who screw up royally (like he has) should be dismissed. That is a simple and accurate proposition. Deciding to entrust the UK basketball program to Billy Gillispie, deciding to entrust the Coca-Cola brand to a disliked, sudden, new formulation - both were really stupid decisions by people who were in over their heads.

If you're going to say that anyone who has been a P5 OC or DC, or some other blanket categorization, is a "qualified" candidate to be a P5 head coach, then it's a pretty meaningless categorization, as there's no distinction between who is likely to succeed and who isn't. Same for someone who was an OC or DC at a program that did well while they were there: that doesn't at all mean they're qualified to be a head coach. Some of them just can't do it. Being an HC requires a completely different set of skills and management abilities, PR smarts, ability to recruit, ability to delegate, ability to oversee, etc. UK has fallen for unqualified coordinators before, as have other schools. If an AD can't make better distinctions than that ("oh, right there, it says he was a coordinator...he's qualified to be our head coach!"), then that AD has no business being an AD or hiring coaches. Would you hire CEOs the same way, or lawyers, or architects, or anyone else? "Hey, he has an MBA. Let's trust him with the company." "She was a vice president at her last stop. Therefore we should hire her to run the place." "Well, hell, he has a J.D. and a law license; let's entrust him to handle that bond issue, or that criminal trial, or writing your will. He's qualified, after all." "Yep, right there, licenses are in order. Sign him up to design [insert structure here]." It doesn't work that way.

"Intellectual conceit" is a turn of phrase using alternative definitions of the word conceit.

Conceit:
1. n conceit- the trait of being unduly vain and conceited; false pride
2. n conceit- an artistic device or effect "the architect's brilliant conceit was to build the house around the tree"
3. n conceit- a witty or ingenious turn of phrase "he could always come up with some inspired off-the-wall conceit"
4. n conceit- an elaborate poetic image or a far-fetched comparison of very dissimilar things
5. n conceit- feelings of excessive pride


As I said, qualified coaches fail; however there remains in that definition a distinction between someone likely to fail and who isn't... those who have never been a power 5 coordinator or above. You seem to think only those who have been successful head coaches are qualified. Fine, I would point out that in my lifetime the MOST qualified (by your standard) HC to come to Kentucky was an abject failure.

[40bill]

Playing hard and winning cures all, and turns halfway decent coaches to geniuses. Les Miles. Tennessee fans were calling for their coach's head at halftime last week.
If in someway this UK team turns a corner, Stoops will be a fantastic hire.
Sure is a big corner to go around right now.

[justford]

I do not know how this works but from what I have read, MB was the only UK person involved in the buyout clause and had the authority to agree to it?? If this is the way it works, that is way to much authority for one person to have.

[Matt Dillon]

I do not know how this works but from what I have read, MB was the only UK person involved in the buyout clause and had the authority to agree to it?? If this is the way it works, that is way to much authority for one person to have.

Correct amundo, my friend.

[WIZARD]

I don't hate Barnhart. But I don't respect him, either. He is not capable of doing his job in even mediocre fashion. He is paid an obscene amount for such deficient results.

This is his report card so far:

B Brooks hire
F Gillispie hire
A Calipari hire*
F Phillips hire
I Stoops hire

*retook course after earning an F the first time

His transcript also has a P for the pass/fail freshman bunny zero level course all ADs have to take, for no course credit, called Non Revenue Sports or Irrelevant Teams or something like that.

1.75 GPA

1.40 GPA if his final grade with the Stoops hire is an F

Neither is good enough to remain in good standing. Students paying tuition who do that poorly are asked to leave. Someone making $600K+ a year who does that poorly should also be shown the door.

and don't forget all that money he wasted on updating commonwealth and the new practice/training football building. and didn't the craft center, and the coal lodge happen on his watch also? boy, look at all that money he wasted that could have been thrown at a coach. Gillispie was the hottest name in college basketball at the time of his hiring.

Barnhart is here, Stoops is here, Calipari is here, if you don't like it, there is a school a few miles up the street that doesn't care about rules, and would welcome you on the bandwagon. don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[surveyor]

Updating Commonwealth and adding the new practice/training facility was not money wasted. It's money that had to be spent whether Stoops is here or Saban is here. Brooks railed about upgrades during the latter half of his tenure.


EDIT: Ah. Re-reading, I get the sense that you were being sarcastic about the facilities.

[KCKUKFan]

and don't forget all that money he wasted on updating commonwealth and the new practice/training football building. and didn't the craft center, and the coal lodge happen on his watch also? boy, look at all that money he wasted that could have been thrown at a coach. Gillispie was the hottest name in college basketball at the time of his hiring.

Barnhart is here, Stoops is here, Calipari is here, if you don't like it, there is a school a few miles up the street that doesn't care about rules, and would welcome you on the bandwagon. don't let the door hit you on the way out.

A) All those pretty buildings don't mean squat if they're being occupied by teams that struggle to beat Sun Belt teams.

B) Billy Gillispie was NOT the hottest name in college basketball at the time of his hiring. He was considered a serious "up and comer," but he was NEVER the hottest name in college basketball. Cut the revisionist history.

C) Those buildings would have been built whether Saban was coaching or Stoops. It was happening (and long past due).

D) Don't give him too much credit for Cal. If he wanted him that badly, he would've hired him the first time. Not to mention, anybody who knows will tell you that Cal and Barnhart have next to nothing to do with one another.

E) You can love Kentucky and be critical of the athletic department's management. I don't understand this idea that some of our fanbase has that just because you're a Kentucky fan you can't criticize the direction of the program. We are the ones paying hard-earned money for tickets and merchandise. Don't we deserve better?

[boomdaddy]

and don't forget all that money he wasted on updating commonwealth and the new practice/training football building. and didn't the craft center, and the coal lodge happen on his watch also? boy, look at all that money he wasted that could have been thrown at a coach. Gillispie was the hottest name in college basketball at the time of his hiring.

Barnhart is here, Stoops is here, Calipari is here, if you don't like it, there is a school a few miles up the street that doesn't care about rules, and would welcome you on the bandwagon. don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You think putting money into the largest cash cow that UK has is a waste? Kentucky football has been the red headed step child since the Bear Bryant days. Those in power that run things are responsible for not tapping in to what it could have become and settling for only wanting to have a prominent basketball program.

Kentucky finally has football facilities that it can be proud of. Kudos to those in charge for finally making it happen, even if it is 60 years late.

Giving an unproven coach guaranteed money with the majority of it that is paid, regardless if he wins or not, is the fault of the administration. Now that they have the facilities, they can get a better coach. Except, they have a huge buyout that will be due if they fire the current guy. I am not a highly paid DI athletic director, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but even I can see that the deal between the football coach and UK seems heavily weighted in the coach's favor.