FreddyBrown
Moderator
This week I've seen confirmation from the media of two things I had suspected about Lickliter from early on.
First, there was the CRG piece about how ill-prepared the staff was about recruiting at this level, the strange attitude and the failure to reach out to AAU programs even within the state.
Second, this morning I heard Jon say that he has it from multiple sources that Coach doesn't have much of a relationship with his players.
Folks, these things are part of what an AD should absolutely identify in his due diligence about a coaching candidate. The more I see and hear the more I think Barta's due diligence on Lickliter primarily consisted of these elements:
1. Coach of the Year.
2. Seemed like a nice guy and interviewed well.
3. Said the right things about concern for academics and winning the right way.
4. No one volunteered anything bad about him.
5. Available relatively cheap.
6. Everyone said he really knows basketball.
7. Coach of the Year.
Items one and seven provided "cover" to our AD for hiring a guy who, without that accolade, would not have had a lot going for him. However, the due diligence was either superficial for failing to identify the significant problems described above (and others), or Barta just overlooked some of the key elements in determining whether this was a good candidate for a Big Ten coaching job.
That's why I am very concerned about what will happen the next time the same guy goes shopping for a head coach.
First, there was the CRG piece about how ill-prepared the staff was about recruiting at this level, the strange attitude and the failure to reach out to AAU programs even within the state.
Second, this morning I heard Jon say that he has it from multiple sources that Coach doesn't have much of a relationship with his players.
Folks, these things are part of what an AD should absolutely identify in his due diligence about a coaching candidate. The more I see and hear the more I think Barta's due diligence on Lickliter primarily consisted of these elements:
1. Coach of the Year.
2. Seemed like a nice guy and interviewed well.
3. Said the right things about concern for academics and winning the right way.
4. No one volunteered anything bad about him.
5. Available relatively cheap.
6. Everyone said he really knows basketball.
7. Coach of the Year.
Items one and seven provided "cover" to our AD for hiring a guy who, without that accolade, would not have had a lot going for him. However, the due diligence was either superficial for failing to identify the significant problems described above (and others), or Barta just overlooked some of the key elements in determining whether this was a good candidate for a Big Ten coaching job.
That's why I am very concerned about what will happen the next time the same guy goes shopping for a head coach.
Last edited: