Could Manuel find himself in a recruiting battle over Ollie next spring if he decides to keep him?

[Mr. Wonderful]

The semantic masturbation is reaching x-rated levels.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I'm beginning to see the genius in this plan. Maybe if we don't mention the post-season ban people won't notice that we're not, you know, playing this post-season.

And, come to think of it, your sentiment would make the perfect marketing pitch to any potential recruit: Come to UConn, where you can play for Kevin Ollie--or somebody obviously better!

Sheesh. Can't believe I didn't see that angle before. I mean, it's not like these kids really care who their coach is going to be, right? Kevin is their coach, period. Well, except for the fact that he's not. I'm sure that's easily lost on them. Especially the ones who've said they want to play for him.

Thanks for setting me straight. If only there was a Facebook-like way for me to pay extra to have your posts displayed most prominently every time I log on. I would gladly pony up for faster and more efficient access to your wisdom and insights.

I feel the same way about your brilliant insights. I *like* Kevin Ollie. I think he may be a great coach someday. But the overreaction to the one year contract is unbelievable. Our prior coach had cancer three times. We also damn near lost him to South Carolina. It didn't kill the program or even dent it. Neither will this. The administration had to balance a tiny possible impact on recruiting with the risk the KO will prove unable to do the job. I think they struck a fair balance.

There was no coach available to them that they could have confidence was a long term solution. So rather than give an interim contract to Hobbs or Blaney, with an announced search in the spring (talk about a hit to recruiting) they decided to hire KO who has the potential to be the solution. Giving him a long term deal would be overweighting the recruiting hit against the the risk that he fails.

The decision is made. Let's stop this nonsense of arguing about it and get behind the team.

 

[8893]

I feel the same way about your brilliant insights. I *like* Kevin Ollie. I think he may be a great coach someday. But the overreaction to the one year contract is unbelievable. Our prior coach had cancer three times. We also damn near lost him to South Carolina. It didn't kill the program or even dent it. Neither will this. The administration had to balance a tiny possible impact on recruiting with the risk the KO will prove unable to do the job. I think they struck a fair balance.

There was no coach available to them that they could have confidence was a long term solution. So rather than give an interim contract to Hobbs or Blaney, with an announced search in the spring (talk about a hit to recruiting) they decided to hire KO who has the potential to be the solution. Giving him a long term deal would be overweighting the recruiting hit against the the risk that he fails.

The decision is made. Let's stop this nonsense of arguing about it and get behind the team.

Do you consider a two-year contract a long term deal?

Do you not understand why every player and professional who have spoken about the seven-month, interim position have considered it a challenge for Kevin?

I could not be clearer that I am behind Kevin and the team. It's been depressing to me to see how few here appear to be.

 

[jleves]

Just because some of us do not care to rant about the contract does not mean we are not behind Kevin and the team. I get that your passionate about it and that's fine. But others can still be fans and behind the program without having the same reaction you have.

 

[8893]

Just because some of us do not care to rant about the contract does not mean we are not behind Kevin and the team. I get that your passionate about it and that's fine. But others can still be fans and behind the program without having the same reaction you have.

I get it. Everybody wants to win. I'm just surprised at the tepid response to Kevin and the lack of enthusiasm for him. As I've said, it's contagious either way. I was psyched initially, but if the level of support he gets here is any indication, I'm starting to feel like he's dead man walking already and that bums me out.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I get it. Everybody wants to win. I'm just surprised at the tepid response to Kevin and the lack of enthusiasm for him. As I've said, it's contagious either way. I was psyched initially, but if the level of support he gets here is any indication, I'm starting to feel like he's dead man walking already and that bums me out.

Honestly, I would have liked a search, interviews and the usual process. I feel like the university owes it to itself and the fans to get this right. There should have been competition.

I can imagine that those of you who always wanted KO to get the job can't understand why there is so little commitment. But imagine you didn't think he was the best choice. Imagine you could think of 2-3 others you'd prefer who might be available. Then how would you feel? I suspect that's how the administration feels.

Is it fair to Kevin? He is getting a shot to earn the job without facing competition for it. That's more than he could reasonably expect. He's a bright, engaging guy and a great story. We all hope he has what it takes and is here a long time.

 

[nomar]

Manuel and the administration don't like Ollie. If he doesn't have a huge season and get a top recruit (Vonleh), he's gone come spring time.

It's amazing how absolutely certain one can appear to be about something he knows absolutely nothing about. Rank speculation.

 

[nomar]

I get it. Everybody wants to win. I'm just surprised at the tepid response to Kevin and the lack of enthusiasm for him. As I've said, it's contagious either way. I was psyched initially, but if the level of support he gets here is any indication, I'm starting to feel like he's dead man walking already and that bums me out.

Really? Honestly, 8893, you're one of my favorite posters here, but I think on this issue you've created a false conflict between supporting Ollie and not being sufficiently angry at Manuel.

I think the support for KO on this site and in general has been overwhelmingly positive. Personally, I've been a pro-KO guy since the moment he stepped back on campus and was thrilled when he got the job. But I'm also not going to go overboard in criticizing WM. Like many others, I wish he had given KO a 2- or 3-year deal with a low buyout. But I do understand his perspective even if I don't agree with it. But just like you want WM to give Ollie a real chance, I think we should give WM a real chance and not assume that he's lying when he says he wants KO to succeed.

As for the effect of the 1-year deal on the recruiting trail, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think it's totally overblown. A coach can always be fired, with a 1-year deal or a 5-year deal. KO has to convince players to believe in a guy with no head coaching experience; if they choose to believe in him, then they will believe that he will succeed. We managed to get recruits to come with JC wavering for the last 2 years. KO can get recruits to come by looking them in the eyes and saying, "I'll be here." Yes, of course other coaches will point out that KO can get fired. Leonard Hamilton certainly knows what it's like to be on the hot seat.

 

[tzznandrew]

This whole thread is among the most insane in recent memory. Kevin Ollie, a man who is vastly underqualified for the position he now holds, and who wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from the likes of U Hartford, let alone outside of Connecticut, where nobody has ever even heard of the guy, is suddently such a hot commodity that UConn will lose him? Please. There's not another major program that would have given him even this one year deal. If he hadn't been a UConn player...would you want him? If he was a little known scrappy PG who played at Michigan State, had a long but undistinguinshed career as an NBA backup and was a second level assistant for Izzo for three years? He'd be at the top you your list? Really?

I think there's a good chance that Calhoun is right, that KO is the real deal and that we will have made a great transition from the legend. If so, we'll see it within a few months and he'll be extended. But there is certainly a chance he will not be the answer, and we'll see that too. We won' extend him and he won't get any other offers either, except maybe as an assistant in the NBA.

I think this part is right.

I do think he should have gotten a longer contract, and that some will use it against him. It's up to him to push through and convince them its not a short term thing. But it's wrong to think he wasn't handicapped. It's not because the administration doesn't like him, or are actively trying to sabotage him--but instead, they are motivated by your points here. The problem is that, in this scenario, intent hardly matters: the effects are the same...uncertainty and more fire power for negative recruiting that was already going to be there (due to the inexperience).

 

[upstater]

Really? Honestly, 8893, you're one of my favorite posters here, but I think on this issue you've created a false conflict between supporting Ollie and not being sufficiently angry at Manuel.

I think the support for KO on this site and in general has been overwhelmingly positive. Personally, I've been a pro-KO guy since the moment he stepped back on campus and was thrilled when he got the job. But I'm also not going to go overboard in criticizing WM. Like many others, I wish he had given KO a 2- or 3-year deal with a low buyout. But I do understand his perspective even if I don't agree with it. But just like you want WM to give Ollie a real chance, I think we should give WM a real chance and not assume that he's lying when he says he wants KO to succeed.

As for the effect of the 1-year deal on the recruiting trail, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think it's totally overblown. A coach can always be fired, with a 1-year deal or a 5-year deal. KO has to convince players to believe in a guy with no head coaching experience; if they choose to believe in him, then they will believe that he will succeed. We managed to get recruits to come with JC wavering for the last 2 years. KO can get recruits to come by looking them in the eyes and saying, "I'll be here." Yes, of course other coaches will point out that KO can get fired. Leonard Hamilton certainly knows what it's like to be on the hot seat.

I don't think it's that overblown. When someone points out that a coach may be fired, that kind of critique can be reversed easily on the one who utters it unless they are Roy Williams or Tom Izzo, etc. It's quite another to, say, replay the Ollie press conference with careful attention to Manuel's presentation.

If I were a recruit, I would have concerns about Manuel's tepid support of Ollie (and no I don't believe Ollie is not liked). But I would not have those same concerns with, say, Cooley at Providence. Both are relatively new coaches, but...

 

[8893]

I can imagine that those of you who always wanted KO to get the job can't understand why there is so little commitment. But imagine you didn't think he was the best choice. Imagine you could think of 2-3 others you'd prefer who might be available. Then how would you feel? I suspect that's how the administration feels.

Just to be clear: I was not one "who always wanted KO to get the job." My only issue is that, once it was decided that he would get it, I do not believe that the seven-month contract gives him the best chance for success, which should have been the common goal from that point forward. I believe it is more than a slight hindrance to recruiting. And I do not believe a long-term contract was required; just two seasons, with a less-expensive buy-out after one if he has a Bobby-V-in-Beantown type first season. That would have eliminated the issue for someone like, say, Parker, who I gather only expects to stay for one season. And I'm not saying we would have gotten Parker or XRM in any event; but the speed with which we were dropped from consideration by both suggests, to me, that the lack of any assurance that KO will still be here is an issue. Nothing else changed in the meantime; unless we conclude that KO did not impress during the in-home visit.

Otherwise I agree with the part of your post that I quoted. I believe that is how the AD feels, because that's what a seven-month contract indicates imo.

 

[upstater]

I think this part is right.

I do think he should have gotten a longer contract, and that some will use it against him. It's up to him to push through and convince them its not a short term thing. But it's wrong to think he wasn't handicapped. It's not because the administration doesn't like him, or are actively trying to sabotage him--but instead, they are motivated by your points here. The problem is that, in this scenario, intent hardly matters: the effects are the same...uncertainty and more fire power for negative recruiting that was already going to be there (due to the inexperience).

Well, I thought that was hyperbolic. Especially this: He wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from the likes of U Hartford, let alone outside of Connecticut, where nobody has ever even heard of the guy.

We've seen that many people were interested in his services, esp. the NBA. Wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from U. Hartford? Really? Maybe the NBA people are all liars. Maybe Larry Brown's advice to Ollie was a lie to.

But, regardless, as has been stated multiple times, the main concern is recruiting for this year.

 

[8893]

Really? Honestly, 8893, you're one of my favorite posters here, but I think on this issue you've created a false conflict between supporting Ollie and not being sufficiently angry at Manuel.

No, it's not just that most here are happy with the seven-month contract and don't believe Kevin, or anyone in his position, would be handicapped by it.

There are plenty of other tea leaves to be read here. That's all I'm doing, but I'm going to stop now. Suffice to say that I think there can be a self-fulfilling power of belief; and that the opposite can be true, too.

 

[tzznandrew]

Well, I thought that was hyperbolic. Especially this: He wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from the likes of U Hartford, let alone outside of Connecticut, where nobody has ever even heard of the guy.

We've seen that many people were interested in his services, esp. the NBA. Wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from U. Hartford? Really? Maybe the NBA people are all liars. Maybe Larry Brown's advice to Ollie was a lie to.

But, regardless, as has been stated multiple times, the main concern is recruiting for this year.

Is it hyperbolic? Yeah, but even UHart's coach spent two years as UHart's Associate Head Coach from 2006-2008, and then two more years as UPenn's Associate Head Coach (under Miller), before he became head coach there. Now, if Kevin Ollie had been from UHart, I think he would have a great chance. He's just not a big name.

I don't think the NBA people are liars. I think he will likely be a good head coach (here or elsewhere...hopefully here), and I think they were sincere. But it is still difficult to be hired by people without any track record.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Well, I thought that was hyperbolic. Especially this: He wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from the likes of U Hartford, let alone outside of Connecticut, where nobody has ever even heard of the guy.

We've seen that many people were interested in his services, esp. the NBA. Wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from U. Hartford? Really? Maybe the NBA people are all liars. Maybe Larry Brown's advice to Ollie was a lie to.

But, regardless, as has been stated multiple times, the main concern is recruiting for this year.

Well that was in response to the insane assertion in the beginning of this thread that somehow he's a hot commodity and will leave even if UConn wants to retain his services. There is zero chance of that. I did mention later that his other options were as an assistant in the NBA, not as a HC in the college game. We know OKC was talking to him about an assistant role. I think his rep is much higher in the NBA than in the college game, where I don't think he is well known yet.

I think we've beat this one to death. I think a two year contract with a low buyout would have been fine, but would have been subject to spin in recruiting the same as the 7 month deal. I think three years with no buyout would have been irresponsible. We can all differ on where to draw the middle ground, but no matter what, the situation was going to be problematic because of the timing. That's the one irrefutable point. There was no easy or clear decision to be made.

 

[freescooter]

the idea of the opening post, could UConn find itself in a bidding war for Ollie's services next Spring if they don't sign him now is just beyond crazy...I guess if UConn finishes the year unbeaten or pretty darned close to it, others might have some interest, but if this team meets expectations or exceeds them by just a little, there isn't going to be a line of suitors for a coach who hasn't really proven anything. If he takes a 17 win team and wins 18 games, Louisville isn't firing Pitino to hire Ollie...a much more likely scenario, I think is that Ollie wins 15 with a 17 win team and decides to go to the NBA as an assistant rather than "apply" for the job going forward. And for what its worth, I think 17 wins is about what I expect this year, so anything above that and he's extended, anything under that and it is dependent on lots of factors, but under 15 wins and there needs to be major extenuating circumstances for him to be here next year.

 

[selles]

I think the support for KO on this site and in general has been overwhelmingly positive. Personally, I've been a pro-KO guy since the moment he stepped back on campus and was thrilled when he got the job. But I'm also not going to go overboard in criticizing WM. Like many others, I wish he had given KO a 2- or 3-year deal with a low buyout. But I do understand his perspective even if I don't agree with it. But just like you want WM to give Ollie a real chance, I think we should give WM a real chance and not assume that he's lying when he says he wants KO to succeed.

This, a thousand times this. Well said. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether the 1 year deal was the optimal approach, but it was clearly a rational approach given KO's experience. I just don't see the basis for extrapolating from it that WM has it in for KO or wants him to fail.

If KO does a great job this year and doesn't get extended, then I'll get my pitchfork and join you guys. But there's no basis for it right now. WM deserves his chance too.

 

[upstater]

Is it hyperbolic? Yeah, but even UHart's coach spent two years as UHart's Associate Head Coach from 2006-2008, and then two more years as UPenn's Associate Head Coach (under Miller), before he became head coach there. Now, if Kevin Ollie had been from UHart, I think he would have a great chance. He's just not a big name.

I don't think the NBA people are liars. I think he will likely be a good head coach (here or elsewhere...hopefully here), and I think they were sincere. But it is still difficult to be hired by people without any track record.

I was actually referring to the NBA people who wanted to hire him (as an assistant, at least, if not a higher up position).

 

[upstater]

WM deserves his chance too.

He does? His chance at what?

 

[nomar]

He does? His chance at what?

He was responding to my post. Our point is that people should not assume that Manuel does not like Ollie and does not want him to succeed simply because Calhoun forced his hand. You (not talking to you personally) can either take him at his word, which I do, or you can choose not to. I don't understand the rationale behind not taking him at his word. Protecting yourself against potential disappointment? Looking "in the know"? I don't really understand the point of getting worked up without any evidence other than the length of the contract. IMO, people don't know enough about Manuel's character to conclude that he wants Ollie to fail. On the other hand, you don't need to know anything about Manuel to know that if Ollie succeeds, Manuel succeeds.

EDIT: I just re-read Selles's post and I'm at a loss to understand why you required any explanation. But I've written this post, so I'll leave it notwithstanding its superfluousness.

 

[Huskymaniac]

He does? His chance at what?

Doing his job maybe? You may not agree with his decisions but it is difficult to argue that his decisions, up to this point are illogical, irrational or show incompetence. CT, like every other state, is struggling financially. Any kind of a buyout on a multi-year contract, aside from an insultingly low one, would have been irresponsible give Ollie's lack of head coaching experience. You may disagree with that last statement all you want but many people in the state would have been pissed had Ollie been given such a contract and then fired due to lack of performance relative to the high expectations of this position. The number of people who would agree in the state far outnumber the number of fans, former players and other friends of Ollie who disagree.

But, again, the real issue here is the public complaining about the situation which will not be altered by said complaining. No good can come of continuing to publicly make assumptions about Manuel's lack of confidence in Ollie and/or his intentions of not giving him a real chance. But some bad can.........

It may make people feel better to express their angry among like-minded people but what's the point of doing so if the situation will remain the same after doing so and now you are just pissed off and, maybe, your public outcry has weakened the program?

 

[8893]

We managed to get recruits to come with JC wavering for the last 2 years. KO can get recruits to come by looking them in the eyes and saying, "I'll be here." Yes, of course other coaches will point out that KO can get fired. Leonard Hamilton certainly knows what it's like to be on the hot seat.

Missed this part the first time. Sorry. I know I said I was done, but this part hits so precisely at the problem imo.

If we know anything about KO and his attributes that others (including recruits and their families) regard so highly, it's that honesty and integrity are paramount among them. In this exact situation, these great attributes now operate as KO's greatest weakness. I could not disagree more strongly with the bolded part of your statement. KO cannot say that because it is not true, and I simply don't believe that he lies or even misleads. He doesn't control it, and he has been given no assurance that that's the case. So, when a top recruit and his parents look KO in the eye, trusting him with the biggest decision in their lives to date, I absolutely do not believe that he tells them "I'll be here." And therein lies the problem imo. I'm sure he's got all sorts of other responses, like "I'm acting like I'll be here, because that's what I believe," and other variations on that same theme. But you know as well as I do that one precise question like "What have you been told about whether you will be extended?" or "Do you have any assurance from the administration that you will be extended?" can easily reveal the lack of any assurance whatsoever.

I don't see it as akin to the JC situation at all. JC controlled his own destiny. If he gave a promise to a recruit and his family, you can be damn sure it was because he could deliver on it. And he did. I don't think KO is about to ruin his word to get recruits in the door. He knows he's got a long career ahead of him--here or elsewhere--and he's not about to tarnish his reputation or change who he is at his core. That is what will ultimately serve him well. The question is where.

And to your other points, I don't infer anything evil about Manuel's decision on the seven-month contract. I just think it showed his own inexperience, poor judgment and lack of confidence. As I've said from the start, it was simply bush-league imo, but not motivated by any dislike of Kevin.

 

[nomar]

Well, we'll agree to disagree. We must have watched a different press conference, because the Kevin Ollie I saw will have no problem saying to a recruit: "Together, we will succeed at UConn." (Perhaps "I'll be here" is too strong. I suppose "I believe I will be here" is more what I actually meant.)

I get your point; I just totally disagree that with the notion that KO will be tongue-tied and unable to project confidence in himself, because I don't think he sees the uncertainty that you see. I'm not Kevin Ollie. I didn't claw my way through 13 NBA seasons and I'm not a God-fearing man. So maybe I'd hold back some. KO won't.

 

[8893]

Well, we'll agree to disagree. We must have watched a different press conference, because the Kevin Ollie I saw will have no problem saying to a recruit: "Together, we will succeed at UConn." (Perhaps "I'll be here" is too strong. I suppose "I believe I will be here" is more what I actually meant.)

I get your point; I just totally disagree that with the notion that KO will be tongue-tied and unable to project confidence in himself, because I don't think he sees the uncertainty that you see. I'm not Kevin Ollie. I didn't claw my way through 13 NBA seasons and I'm not a God-fearing man. So maybe I'd hold back some. KO won't.

I saw the same press conference. There is a material difference between what you said the first time and what you meant, and you know it, Nomar. C'mon man, we live on words. They matter.

I don't think it affects Kevin and his confidence in himself. I think it affects recruits and their families. The fact of the uncertainty is unavoidable (yes, everything is uncertain--I get that; having no contract and no assurance makes any statement to the contrary patently false though).

Put yourself in their shoes, or imagine they have come to you for advice. Would you tell them to bet the most important decision in their lives to date on it? Would you tell them that they shouldn't even consider the uncertainty to be a negative factor? Because that's all I'm hearing from everyone here; i.e., that it shouldn't be a factor and KO should be able to overcome it if he's good enough. That's the premise that I reject. It's a significant handicap imo.

 

[nomar]

"There is a material difference between what you said the first time and what you meant, and you know it, Nomar."

I'd actually say it's immaterial, since my clarification (of a guess as to how he might phrase something) didn't affect either of our positions. My point was that he will project confidence that he will be here in the 2013-2014 season.

Of course some recruits will be wary. At the end of the day, no matter whether he has a 7-month contract or a 3-year contract, Kevin Ollie is a 39-year-old first-time head coach. Recruits and their families are going to have put faith in him. And I believe that he will convince some of them to do that even with a 7-month (for now) contract. KO's contract status is less of a concern than his inexperience and the program's present state, IMO.

Again, I'll reiterate that I understand where you're coming from. I just see it differently.

 

[huskiesnyc]

KO's dream job is UConn and he has it. He is not going anywhere

 

[upstater]

He was responding to my post. Our point is that people should not assume that Manuel does not like Ollie and does not want him to succeed simply because Calhoun forced his hand. You (not talking to you personally) can either take him at his word, which I do, or you can choose not to. I don't understand the rationale behind not taking him at his word. Protecting yourself against potential disappointment? Looking "in the know"? I don't really understand the point of getting worked up without any evidence other than the length of the contract. IMO, people don't know enough about Manuel's character to conclude that he wants Ollie to fail. On the other hand, you don't need to know anything about Manuel to know that if Ollie succeeds, Manuel succeeds.

EDIT: I just re-read Selles's post and I'm at a loss to understand why you required any explanation. But I've written this post, so I'll leave it notwithstanding its superfluousness.

I already responded above that I think the idea of Manuel wanting him to fail is ludicrous. I've kept to the question of the contract solely from the very beginning. But that includes criticism of Manuel at the PC as well. What I don't understand is this idea that Manuel needs to show that he can run a search. Why? That's why I responded to Selles. At least I think that's what he was referring to. Besides, Manuel is going to show that skill soon with regard to football anyway.

 

[upstater]

Doing his job maybe? You may not agree with his decisions but it is difficult to argue that his decisions, up to this point are illogical, irrational or show incompetence. CT, like every other state, is struggling financially. Any kind of a buyout on a multi-year contract, aside from an insultingly low one, would have been irresponsible give Ollie's lack of head coaching experience. You may disagree with that last statement all you want but many people in the state would have been pissed had Ollie been given such a contract and then fired due to lack of performance relative to the high expectations of this position. The number of people who would agree in the state far outnumber the number of fans, former players and other friends of Ollie who disagree.

But, again, the real issue here is the public complaining about the situation which will not be altered by said complaining. No good can come of continuing to publicly make assumptions about Manuel's lack of confidence in Ollie and/or his intentions of not giving him a real chance. But some bad can.........

It may make people feel better to express their angry among like-minded people but what's the point of doing so if the situation will remain the same after doing so and now you are just pissed off and, maybe, your public outcry has weakened the program?

If people are concerned about money, they should seriously end the programs at UConn. Since when are such decisions made according to the number of people who agree or disagree with a 3 year Ollie contract? I thought UConn sports was a wing of the school meant to market the school. Is that not the case? When you're putting $100 million behind the rent, another $100 million in facilities for bball and football, this is no joke. This is precisely why you try not to be penny-smart and pound-foolish.

 

[nomar]

What I don't understand is this idea that Manuel needs to show that he can run a search. Why? That's why I responded to Selles. At least I think that's what he was referring to. Besides, Manuel is going to show that skill soon with regard to football anyway.

Oh I don't think that's what he meant. And yeah, he is.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If people are concerned about money, they should seriously end the programs at UConn. Since when are such decisions made according to the number of people who agree or disagree with a 3 year Ollie contract? I thought UConn sports was a wing of the school meant to market the school. Is that not the case? When you're putting $100 million behind the rent, another $100 million in facilities for bball and football, this is no joke. This is precisely why you try not to be penny-smart and pound-foolish.

If that's the argument, then they shouldn't have hired him at all. Announce Blaney or Hobbs as interim until the spring and bring in a big name.

It's pretty simple. Because JC retired late, there was no coach the the school could have hired that it would be comfortable hiring on more than a 7 month basis. Nobody. Therefore the recruiting challenge for this next few months is inevitable and unavoidable. A long term contract was not happening. That is Calhoun's fault if anybody's.

So we should ignore the contract and focus on the man they chose. Instead of the wimpy safe play with Hobbs or Blaney, they made the bold choice with the unproven guy with great potential. I applaud the move. It was not certain that they would even do that, especially with the ban.