I really don't understand so many posters bringing up Wade Houston, Buzz Ball, etc as if that somehow means Barnes has a lower ceiling. Those coaches have been gone for close to 20 and 30 years. What possible influence do they have on the current state of the program?
Over the past 15 or so years, we have had 3 totally different coaches, with totally different styles and systems get to the Sweet 16 and have varying levels of success. Wouldn't that show a pretty good infrastructure in place to have a high level basketball program? To these high school kids, UT has been a pretty successful program for the bulk of their lives. I bet they don't even know who Wade Houston and Buzz Peterson are.
At what point is a program allowed to alter its expectations? Why do the Barnes acolytes act like this is a bad job and act that due to previous coaches failures, this is the best we should ever expect? Is there a time limit on these things? If this program is destined for futility with no chance of being better, then why pay a coach top 5 money if the coach is essentially irrelevant to the results of the program overall? That is basically the argument you are making.
I mean if that's the case, lets just go cheap and fund the more historically successful programs like football and women's basketball around here. Should we hold Kellie Harper to the same standard's as Pat Summitt? Pat was coaching here and winning a national title about 11 years or so ago, so if we are using Wade and Buzz, we have to expect a final four from our women's program about 60% of the time right? As soon as Coach K leaves Duke after this year, do you think they will drop all expectations since they were irrelevant before him? Mark Few made Gonzaga a household name. Do you think them having FF and national title aspirations is too much since 40 years ago their program was irrelevant?