Musketeer1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:32 am
Could someone who is supportive of Steele allay my concern that his hiring would only maintain the vicious cycle of promising assistants who experience an amount of success at X sufficient to permit them to leave? I do not post much, but read often and value the opinions of many posters. I am not posting to challenge or argue - life's too short, especially with like minded fans. The problem with Steele, it seems to me, is that incremental improvements achieved by promoted assistants have been just enticing enough to render a relationship that is flawed from the start, appear worthy of repetition. Some toxic long-term relationships become so in part because they yield an enticing amount of good along with bad. I do not dislike Coach Steele. I do however, believe we know the following: (1) This would be Steele's first HC job; (2) Successful, driven folks are loathe to believe that their first job is their last or ideal job; (3) Steele studied at the feet of CM who just left his hometown and Alma mater for a perceived bigger and better deal; and (4) with all of the obvious x's and o's issues we saw from NYC onward, why are some so confident that the Assistant HC also presiding over those events with CM knows what he is doing?
1) You are correct, this will be Steele's first HC job
2) You are correct. To avoid this, hire someone who is not successful, and not driven
3) You are correct. To avoid this, stipulate that the new hire must (per a contract clause) never leave XU, unless they die. For some reason, I think this will limit your pool of candidates
4) This last point. You might have stumbled upon something. Then again, I don't think they instructed Tre to stumble in the lane and vomit the ball into the air in the last minute vs FSU. He did that on his own. I guess if you find a coach that no one has ever questioned any move they have made, you would have a phenomenal coach that XU could not afford.
