Billy Clyde

How sweet was it to be a UL fan on Friday. UL puts an absolute beatdown on Arizona (told you they didn't belong in the tournament) in the Sweet Sixteen (for UK fans, that's part of the NCAA tournament) while dysfunctional UK is firing their coach after only two years which means paying some cash to two guys. I'm not sure that Gillispie was that good of a coach. His decision making seemed flawed. Recruiting an eighth grader makes me wonder where he got his rep for recruiting. But who knows. Most people don't think two years is enough for a coach to be given a chance. I'm not in that group because of a certain football coach who just finished his second year up the road and should have been fired. Who knew Edgar Sosa missing a shot would be so bad for UK. If he hits a three to beat Texas A&M two years ago, the Aggies don't go to the Sweet Sixteen and I bet UK doesn't hire Gillispie. Now, I'm sure UK will continue the mantra that the firing was not about his record as coach. While I'm sure that's part of it to an extent, does anyone believe that if UK had made the NCAA tournament that I'd be discussing the firing of Billy Gillispie right now? He had real poor timing to miss the NCAA at the same time that their in-state rival is a #1 seed.

You know, I'm not sure that emphasizing the outside aspects of the UK job is such a good idea now that you're hiring. Good, ambitious coaches don't think they're going to lose. But they may not want a job where they get fired for being snotty to boosters. I always thought a John Calipari would want to go to UK because he loves the limelight, but he makes about as much at Memphis and doesn't have reporters stalking him. It makes a guy like Tom Izzo even less likely to go there. Why would an established head coach want to leave a program that is in better shape than UK's to take a job that also requires you to be a secular pope? Rick Pitino loves attention so he didn't mind. Not sure how many coaches are like that? I think Tubby Smith even hated that part which is why he left. Of course, he won enough to stay.

I also don't think it's helping that Mitch Barnhart is saying that he doesn't plan on paying out the buyout that's in Gillispie's Memorandum of Understanding because it isn't a contract. Good luck with that. You signed it, Mitch. It doesn't have to have "CONTRACT" stamped at the top to be considered a contract. How are you going to go into litigation on that point when Barnhart himself has essentially called it a contract in the past. That's the problem for UK. Both sides have treated the MOU as a contract. You might notice that the Herald-Leader checked with attorneys who don't actually work for the University of Kentucky and they say it's a contract. It's obvious why UK is doing it. First, they hope Gillispie does settle for less to avoid litigation. Second, the fan base won't be happy giving a mediocre coach that much money not to coach. If they can at least put off the payment until later, it may not be as noticable until then. However, would a big name coach take a step back if offered if they thought their contract wouldn't be honored?

And this part of the story is why Barnhart should get fired too. How incompetant is he? It was a panic hire after Billy Donovan turned the job down. Is he aware that he held the leverage in this case? Gillispie wanted to be here (or thought he did at the time). He wasn't going to turn down the job. Why include such a ridiculously high buyout for a relatively unproven quantity? Really, what has Barnhart done? Hired Rich Brooks and stay with him through the down years? Big deal. That's all relative. Yes, they've won three straight bowl games but they were minor ones that included a win over an FSU team missing half the team. His win record the past three years have consisted mainly of beating a weak non-conference schedule (aided the past two by one Steve Kragthrope) and just enough SEC teams to get enough wins for a bowl game. Think of it this way, in six years at UK, Brooks has one win (GA 2006) against an SEC East team not named Vanderbilt. And believe it or not, this isn't a knock against UK. I think UK has enough going for it (fan support, facilities, etc) that a lot of coaches could have a few years in a row with 8 or fewer wins. It doesn't mean Barnhart is some AD savant. Yet, he gets to hire the next coach.

Which brings us to my favorite part. Who will be the next coach? Well, I'll tell you who it won't be. That Mike K guy at Duke and Bob Knight. I don't hear their names from delusional fans like I did two years ago, but I thought I'd mention it. They would not leave their teams for this job. But Lute Olsen is available. Roy Williams isn't. They also aren't getting Rick Pitino. I said it last year and those same issues (age, malicious rumors spread about him spread by UK fans etc) are still there. Plus, he's one win away from a Final Four at UL and they're building him a new arena.

So, who is out there? Surprisingly, most of the same names as last time because it's only been two years. Maybe that Gillispie guy who did wonders with the Aggies. Word is Billy Donovan and John Calipari have indicated they don't want it, but that means nothing. I'm still not sure Donovan is all that. He caught lightning in a bottle for two years, but he's only had one other good year. As a UL fan, I don't want UK hiring Calipari. At all. As for others, I didn't realize that Jay Wright and Rick Barnes told UK "no" (under the table two years ago). Considering he's got Villanova in the Final Four as we speak, I don't see Wright changing his mind. And Texas may look the same now, but UK looks less desirable so they may have to spend to get Barnes. I still think Izzo won't leave, but that's just a gut feeling. I still think Thad Matta would. Though I have to question why so many Ohio State players go one-and-done, though. It was one thing when your one year wonders get you to the finals, but when you lose as an 8 seed and someone goes pro, it's a little different. I still think Barnhart won't look at Bruce Pearl.

New names to consider are Darrin Horn, Jamie Dixon, Mike Anderson and Jeff Capel. The last two are black so even hiring them as your second black head coach won't save you from being called racist by Merlene Davis of the Herald-Leader if they leave. But in a couple of years, there may not be a Herald-Leader, so no worries. However, there is a real problem with them. At least for UK fans. Anderson is a Nolan Richardson protege. Jeff Capel played at Duke. That'd be sweet. A Dookie as UK's coach. Horn really only gets mentioned because he's from Lexington. His record isn't far enough along to consider. Well, other than bringing him in lessens the chance of UK losing two to him next year. Dixon has done moderately well. He made the Elite Eight this year, but Pitt was known for blowing it in the Sweet Sixteen before. Plus, if you thought Gillispie's offense was ugly, watch Pitt's grinder offense. If Barnhart wants to go mid-major route, there's Sean Miller at Xavier or Mark Few at Gonzaga, but I'm guessing Barnhart will want someone from a bigger program. I'd like Few to get it because I'm in a pool at work on who will be UK's next coach and I pulled his name.

Which brings us to the alumni. How about a UK alum who has been tutored by a national champion coach? Who won a national title and three SEC titles as a player? Even spent a couple of years as a pro? A player that UK fans felt very strongly about? This guy. Okay, the two former UK players talked about for the job are John Pelphrey and Travis Ford. I don't think either would be even remotely considered if they weren't UK grads. Neither has a resume as good as Gillispie did two years ago. When you omit Ford's NAIA record, Gillispie's pre-UK winning percentage was higher than both. He had a better tournament record. Ford didn't even take UMass to the tournament and Eastern Kentucky once. Pelphrey took South Alabama once and Arkansas once. Neither has made it out of the second round. Gillispie only had one losing season while those two had at least four each.

And the people I talk to seem to prefer Pelphrey which doesn't make much sense to me. Most of Ford's losing was at Eastern Kentucky which was a complete joke. Pelphrey's overall record at South Alabama wasn't as good as his predecessor. So, taking four years before your first winning season isn't that swift. And he's now coming off a losing record (with a 2-14 conference mark in a weak SEC) while Ford made the second round in his first year at Ok State. I realize Ford wasn't a beloved Unforgettable, but he actually made the Final Four. I guess some people just can't get over a season 17 years ago which had a moral victory (also known as a loss) as the high point.

So, who should they get? I still think they need to make a run at Calipari. No doesn't mean no forever. After the Gillispie hire, Barnhart thinks that he needs a big splash. If he decides to try Izzo (I'm sure he'll get a big boost among the UK fanbase if he beats Pitino in the Elite Eight), he'll have to offer the job directly. Someone with Izzo's record isn't going to interview as part of a coaching search. I wouldn't put it past him to go back to Donovan either although I'm sure he'll do it less overtly this time around. Wouldn't look good to be turned down twice. I saw a funny comment from a friend of mine who said if Donovan says no again, he better not get a third chance. If he says no again coming off two non-tournament seasons, I think it's pretty obvious that he doesn't want the UK job and won't be bothered if he's not asked again. Unless Barnhart thinks he can shake Pitino loose or Jay Wright wins the title, those three are really the only realistic names that would make a big splash (maybe a decent one if it's Barnes). Ironically, I would take Wright over all of them except Calipari.

So, who will it be? I think Barnhart will screw this up. He tends to overestimate the attractiveness of his positions. Remember, he was talking names like Bill Parcells when he was replacing Guy Morriss. Rich Brooks was hired out of semi-retirement when no big name would even interview. Maybe he learned coaches didn't flock to his last men's basketball opening, but I doubt it. I think he targets a couple of names. Dithers around with them and they decide not to take it. Panics again and Travis Ford is the new head coach because he's the only non-established coach that would mollify the UK fanbase. Which is probably not the best thing. Those types of fans aren't who you should be taking your cues from. In the next-UK-coach pool that I'm in, the guy who drew Jamie Dixon was complaining that he got some guy he'd never heard of? Do you really want to take advice from someone who is so full of basketball knowledge that he never heard of a guy whose team is a 1 seed in the tournament?