Normally, yes. But this is a naive take in today’s climate. There are many factors beyond the court to consider. Perception is everything and directives are coming from the very top. If two candidates are relatively close in Hurley’s eyes, it’s not unfathomable to consider that he was asked to “take one for the team” when deciding between the two. I was originally just speculating, but where there’s smoke...
I had two thoughts when I read your posts on this:
First, "take one for the team"? To what end? The only thing I can think of would be he's limited to his current budget and to give Kimani a promotion and raise he had to save money on this hire in order to do so.
Secondly, as to the influence from above, do you really believe a highly competitive, highly successful, highly paid, individual with a proven track record in a position that has great impact on revenues earned by a financially struggling organization would roll over on an important hire?
A "rain maker"? Someone who can help reduce the $40 Million deficit.
Someone with a guaranteed, seven year, contract paying $21 Million?
Someone who has turned his part of that organization around both financially and operationally?
Someone who sees a clear path to a National Championship with the right staff on board?
Someone who could leave on a moment's notice when some Power 5 school gets tired of losing?
Lastly, why would the President of the university, who's got to be yearning to return to his former job as a result of all the issues he's having to deal with now, even give a thought to interfering with a guy who's shown great success throughout his career and has increased ticket sale revenue enormously in only two years? And, why would the AD, who's job depends on making good hires and made a great one two years ago, interfere in the hiring decision of his star coach who is the most committed and successful coach he could have hired?
