I guess I just don’t get the logic.
You cannot take Texas tech to an overtime away from a national title, and follow that up with an earshot to another final four, if you’re not proving you belong in the elite class. Then he’s offered Texas, so I mean, does he really need a national title, 2 title games, 4 elite eights and more to be considered good enough for UK? He was a winner at a loser program. He needs Calipari’s 20 year resume to be considered?
Cal had 2 stripped final fours and many NIT appearances before landing the UK job. It is very arguable that what he’s done at Tech is as good or better than Cal before he arrived. Cal was begging for jobs when he returned to college and looking for guy like Larry Brown to open doors for him. Beard is about where he can hand pick his programs.
Tubby had never advanced past the sweet 16 before the UK job. Wouldn’t you say a title game (overtime from a title) and an elite 8 is better than that? Why play word games with it, it’s clearly better and he’s clearly more qualified for this job.
I’m okay with seeing how Beard does at Texas, we can’t predict the future after all. But if you read through this thread, some of it is absolutely ridiculous. Beard would be a fantastic hire for UK today, and I think you also think that deep down. Whether or not it would work doesn’t mean it would be a fantastic hire in this moment.
If your point was valid, you wouldn't have to pull the "vacated final fours" card. You know damn well Chris Beard isn't more proven than John Calipari was in 2009. It isn't arguable. Stop.
He's a fine coach. He's around the top of the list to keep an eye on. He's at a place where we're going to find out how good he is or isn't. We don't need to hire him today, and you don't need to oversell him.
I'm sure there's some idiocy in this thread but I'm trying to do better about ignoring it because you can't change their minds. Maybe tomorrow I'll have less restraint and you can tag me in.