Lesson Learned: Pay Attention to the Mods

[4Q Basket Case]

Share
 

In the recent coaching search, my first choice had been Mike Anderson. During the several weeks leading up to Grant's coming on board, several TF moderators alluded to shortcomings in Anderson's off-court record. They said in effect, no way, no how is that going to happen.

Of course, it didn't, and we now have one of the best up-and-coming young coaches in the country. So much for my own thought processes.

But here was the telling point to me: Anderson went on to interview with Georgia. He was making about $850K at Missouri, and the Georgia job pays roughly double that. Anderson's camp makes it sound like he was offered the Georgia job, but turned it down in favor of loyalty to Missouri. Plus, there was a nice bump in pay, but still not to the level Georgia was reported to be prepared to pay.

Last year, Anderson was on the hot seat, and was underpaid versus coaches at other similarly-situated programs. He had a good run in the Big 12 this year, and had a lot of buzz built on one regular season, plus one game in the NCAA tournament -- the Sweet Sixteen win that put him in the Elite Eight. That's not a recipe for coach loyalty, and there's no way any coach in the world leaves that much money on the table when there are no emotional ties to the current employer.

Here's what I think happened: The mods were right. There is something in Anderson's off-court background that is lacking. Alabama was not interested. At all. No way, no how.

Anderson thought he was going to go to Georgia. Otherwise, he would never have let the fact that he was interviewing become public. Whatever the shortcoming is, I think Georgia found out about it after the interview, and either never made the offer or rescinded it. If they had known before the interview, it would never have gotten that far.

Lesson: When the mods post a take on the thinking of the true decision-makers in Tuscaloosa, pay attention. They're almost always right.

[TIDE-HSV]

We can rarely post all that we know. I'll just say that the PTB, or at least, enough of them, had evidence which they believed and which indicated that CMA had not really reformed his attitude towards off-court background and behavior and towards academics. Anyway, Grant was the sole focus from very early, with the rest being far behind. I got mixed reads on whether or not, if Grant fell through, CMA would come back into the picture. As I said before, I believe that his contract would have had some very stiff provisions on the two areas of concern. Knowing how strong the objections were of the those who didn't want him, I incline to think that he wouldn't have made the cut, but that's just my semi-educated speculation...

[BAMARICH]

	Quote:	TIDE-HSV
	We can rarely post all that we know. I'll just say that the PTB, or at least, enough of them, had evidence which they believed and which indicated that CMA had not really reformed his attitude towards off-court background and behavior and towards academics. Anyway, Grant was the sole focus from very early, with the rest being far behind. I got mixed reads on whether or not, if Grant fell through, CMA would come back into the picture. As I said before, I believe that his contract would have had some very stiff provisions on the two areas of concern. Knowing how strong the objections were of the those who didn't want him, I incline to think that he wouldn't have made the cut, but that's just my semi-educated speculation...

From what I had been hearing, the academic issue was going to be there at the first and the last. While reforming certain things was possible, I think the only thing that may have changed minds in that area was a track record to show the emphasis had changed. As Earle alluded to, many cannot freely post all the information known to them until well after the fact... and often not then.