With the several active threads flying around this forum addressing who should take Holly's place, I thought I'd interject a little common sense.
When my car (that is especially dear to me) has a problem I take it to someone I can trust, someone with a proven track record - not just someone that was really good at driving a car. I want someone who I know is good at fixing them.
My wife needed a knee replacement. We didn't go to a runner. We found a doctor who had real experience and good outcomes.
Why is there the assumption because "X" was an outstanding basketball player that they will make an outstanding coach. This is the Peter Principle in action. While there certainly are examples of good basketball players becoming good head coaches it certainly isn't a prerequisite.
We have an exceptional program here. We should be able to attract an exceptional coach.
When my car (that is especially dear to me) has a problem I take it to someone I can trust, someone with a proven track record - not just someone that was really good at driving a car. I want someone who I know is good at fixing them.
My wife needed a knee replacement. We didn't go to a runner. We found a doctor who had real experience and good outcomes.
Why is there the assumption because "X" was an outstanding basketball player that they will make an outstanding coach. This is the Peter Principle in action. While there certainly are examples of good basketball players becoming good head coaches it certainly isn't a prerequisite.
We have an exceptional program here. We should be able to attract an exceptional coach.