I think you missed the point. Kellie had no control over Fulmer's decision to offer the job to her. Once offered, she took it. Can't blame her for that. If you have a beef with her hiring, it's irrational and unfair to take it out on her by unfair expectations of her recruiting and attacks on her resume, such as snide remarks about mid-majors. Take it out on whoever hired her if you're so inclined.
As to the article, my beef with the author's antics is different from my beef with you - which is that you glommed on to it asap because it supports your narrative that Harper should have never been offered. What's bizaare to me is although the author attacks Fulmer, you protect him, even though he is the one who offered Harper. For some reason, you choose to blame "the girls" as if they held a gun to Fulmer's head. I don't get that.
As for the author of the piece, it's just a gratuitous attack on Fulmer under false or unverified premises: 1) Fulmer could have hired Mulkey or someone like Mulkey if he hadn't let "the girls" talk him out of it, and 2) that Harper's hire proves Fulmer didn't care about LV basketball championships. He's attacking Fulmer to get street cred with his sportswriter peers that he isn't a homer. These guys write their articles for each other rather than their readers. I hold no brief for Fulmer, but it's cowardly and smarmy of this writer to spit on him like this over the Harper hire two years after the fact. But then he's a sportswriter at a big daily paper, so what's new. He doesn't attack Harper directly, but treats her with undeserved disrespect, like you often do.
