You really need to read the previous entry from earlier today before reading my comments.
The Atlantic Coast Conference has traditionally had a “gentlemen’s agreement” that league members would not poach coaches from each other’s programs. The conference office has traditionally played a role in maintaining order around this issue. Therefore, SFN can foresee the ACC playing a negative role in NC State’s potential conversations with Burlington native, Frank Haith.
The following are some comments about this:
* While I understand the implications of this old-boy way of doing things, it is time for the Atlantic Coast Conference to enter the modern-ages. The ACC once had seven teams; the conference now has twelve. Things change ;and the “old way of doing things rules” should have evolved with them.
* Any hurdle that the conference office would raise during a potential Frank Haith hiring would be grossly hypocritcal. By expanding in the manner that the conference did a few years ago, the conference implicitly and explicitly admitted that some schools are more “football-centric” and some are more “basketball-centric”. If that wasn’t the case, then why didn’t the ACC try to land Kentucky, Louisville, and Syracuse? (hyperbole folks, you get the picture)
* By their actions and comments, the conference both acknowledges and and has created an obvious caste system amongst its members — some schools are obvious football powers and some schools are obvious basketball powers. The conference’s creation and support of such an imbalance means that they should be very careful with immobilizing coaches who succeed and therefore want to improve their situation.
* Since the ACC acknowledges this, then why would they choose to send such a negative message to the rest of the country regarding future employment in the conference? Limiting coaches’ careers will only serve to HURT the ACC by making jobs like Miami, Clemson, Florida State, and Virginia Tech less attractive to future coaches contemplating a move into the conference . It is called the free market.
* Why would an “up-and-comer” ever choose one of these schools if they may potentially be considered for a job at State, Carolina, Duke or Maryland? Why would the ACC make decisions that would effectively discourage the future migration of great coaches to the lower-tiered basketball schools? How does impairing the ability to attract top talent to the conference (especially to the weaker programs) serve the ACC’s supposed goal to protect its members and act in everyone’s best interest?
* Let’s play a hypothetical game — What if Gregg Marshall at Winthrop knew that he was going to be a candidate for a hypothetical “dream job” at Duke in five years? What if he was on the top of the list at Miami or Clemson or VPI? Why would he want to come to one of those ACC schools to coach if it would impair his ability to better himself? Is the ACC now “better off” by not helping the weaker schools get the best talent that they can get (for whatever time that they can retain them in the free-market?
* Is the ACC not better off because of Frank Haith’s presence at Miami the last couple of years? Would Haith have ever gone to Miami if he had been told that he was going to have the chance to take the NC State job in the future? Again, how is limiting the basic principals of the free market good for the ACC?
* The ACC needs to make sure that all schools have the freedom to hire the best person for the job to support those programs. This is what is best for the conference! Not protectionism that prices the conference out of the free market for talent!!
* Look at how the SEC benefited when Tommy Tuberville made a move from Ole Miss to an obviously stronger football program at Auburn, and when Tubby Smith left Georgia for the national powerhouse of Kentucky. The alternative, of course, would have been for Tuberville and Smith leave the conference. How is that a good thing for the SEC? Would the SEC rather have had Tuberville and Smith LEAVE and therefore not generate the National Championships for the conference that they ultimately won at their NEW programs? What if Tubby had to move on to NC State and Tuberville to Georgia Tech to take the “next steps” in their career? How would the SEC have liked that?
* Ten years ago, Rick Barnes was the head coach of Clemson and wanted the NC State job. Nobody had the guts to stand up and do what was right for NC State. The ACC’s “gentlemen’s agreement” of not poaching ultimately impaired NC State’s ability & willingness to pursue Barnes and impaired Barnes’ ability to improve his career standing. Ultimately, Barnes’ career was limited and he choose to ride out of the conference to another job. How did that work out for everyone? Are you telling me that the ACC is better off without Rick Barnes the last decade? In the end, the conference ultimately lost a rising coaching star while simultaneously dooming NC State to another ten years in the desert. Clemson lost. NC State lost. How was this a good thing for the ACC?
* We hope/expect NC State to respectively tell the ACC to shove it IF Frank Haith is deemed “the guy”. We aren’t endorsing Frank Haith as “the guy”; but if that is who the administration chooses to pursue, then they should be allowed to work in the free market. We will with-hold more comments here until we have to make them.