Originally posted by shu09:
You love to make business analogies, so I'll play along. What you fail to recognize is that buying out Willard and making a good new hire is an investment in the future of the program. The long term potential is greater than any short term pain. Businesses do this all the time when the leader just isn't getting the job done. Rolling the dice, as you said in your post, is NOT a good business strategy.
If he comes back for a sixth year, the costs to the program (not just monetary), will be greater. Recruiting will be hamstrung and the long term prospects for the program will be grim. A new coach who knows what he's doing can invigorate the program, attract recruits and actually implement a style of play that is efficient on the court. There are plenty of good coaches out there to choose from.
Instead of looking at a short term cost, look at the long term potential that making a change would bring. You love to use that "top 20 team" five weeks ago talking point, but it's totally baseless. You sound like a political operative trying to defend the indefensible. Teams move in and out of the top 25 all year long. The programs with good roots, good leadership and a good system stay there. We certainly aren't one of them.
