Personally, I'd be fine with Tennessee hiring a man if they have done their very best to give a woman the opportunity first. I would PREFER the next coach to be a woman because, IMO, one of Pat Summitt's most important, most enduring legacies is all the effort she gave to empower young women. She would scoff at the idea of coaching men -- though she very well could have been successful doing so -- because, primarily, she didn't want anyone to disrespect women with the implication that coaching men is the REAL triumph, and that coaching women is just... a fun little thing to do while you hope to get something better.
Pat was a leader for women in the Title IX fight, and made it pretty much her life's work to empower, to enrich, to teach and encourage young girls to grow into strong WOMEN.
So, to me, it seems like giving one of the most coveted jobs in all of women's college athletics to a man if there's a strong woman out there to give it to, would kinda feel like a wasted opportunity to reward a strong woman -- something Pat would have very likely appreciated.
Now, don't get me wrong. Pat's ultimate goal was for her SON to take the reins one day, and, obviously, he's not a woman. But I fully believe that, now that he's out of the picture, that in her heart of hearts Pat would want a woman to continue to build on her legacy of Strong Women Helping Build Future Strong Women.
And with ALLLLLLL that said, I'm also fairly certain that Pat wouldn't be so stubborn about it that she would have an absolute moratorium on hiring a man. I think she'd be just fine with it and supportive of whomever he was -- as long as everyone had given women a fair shake first.
And you might be thinking, "Phil should hire the BEST CANDIDATE AVAILABLE, regardless of gender!" And I'd agree. But I'd also remind everyone that "best candidate available" is a highly subjective term, and, being that, makes it easy for some people to inadvertently allow personal biases into their thought processes. I say this because I personally know a couple of budding misogynists who would rather be poked in the eye with a sharp, flaming stick than admit that there could even remotely be a qualified female candidate out there.
My bottom line? Make a strong effort to hire a woman. But if a man rises so high above the female candidates in his list of qualifications, then hire the man. I'm just excited to see what ANYONE else will do next with the talent she/he will have available!
