No, please, no. I don't want anyone who was fired from a HC job in the SEC. I don't want anyone who has had a losing record in recent years (and especially not someone who had a losing record just last year).
Why do people have to make this complicated? There are loads of guys out there who have won everywhere they've been. Why can't we look at them first? It seems like everyone wants to get into a "well, if we overlook this year" or "well, it was a complicated situation that led to his firing" or "well, if not for this player or this assistant...". It's just like what people were saying three years ago to defend the hiring of a coach coming off a 4-8 season in the WAC. People turn themselves into knots trying to excuse or explain why we should hire a guy. Maybe we should pay more attention to solid, black-and-white evidence, like their win/loss record?