Barnhart discussion

[KentuckyStout]

There is not a single poster - not one - that has proven the rumor that MB did not hire John Calipari or that he was opposed and had to be overruled.

Sick of hearing it, prove it or shut up about it.

 

[dgtatu01]

BCG was an extremely hot commodity when hired, it was seen at the time as a good hire. Now, I'll agree about the background check.

Joker was seen by everyone on here and in general as a good hire. It kept continuity in what Brooks had started. I believe it's the same thing Oregon did when Brooks went to the NFL and it's worked gangbusters there.

You have to look into a guy with 2 DUI's a little harder. It's fine if you think he is a good coach, but you need to do a little snooping around in his personal life and around the office. I had heard through influential alumni and donors that he was being an obnoxious drunk all over Lexington 2 months before he had even coached a game. I am sure someone in College Station would have been able to tell Mitch the exact same thing.

As for Joker, just because it works in one place doesn't mean it will work in another. You have to gauge the pulse of your program before making a coaching hire. Heck we had Sanders on staff, if Joker left and went somewhere like Marshall or something and we promoted Sanders to OC for Brooks last 2 years we would have no problem grabbing Joker for head coach after Brooks quit.

As far as Stoops go I don't blame With for hiring him, but it was real stupid to make it extremely expensive to fire him when he had not proven anything and he wasn't going anywhere.

 

[Blue Decade]

MB and Sandy Bell were opposed to hiring Cal and MB and wanted Billy Donavon the
first time.
MB was still opposed to Cal the second time but Lee Todd took Mike Pratt's
recommendation along with others.
MB kept Tubby too long and wanted to keep Joker another year but the 49-0
loss to Vandy left BM no choice but to fire him.

LOL! Hindsight is 20 20. People opposed to Barnhart have a practiced set of talking points. Let's drill down. Barnhart wanted Joker to succeed. As he should. But Joker failed. Barnhart fired him after 3 seasons. Even Captain Obvious would know that the loss to Vandy helped to force Barnhart's hand. Joker's failures WERE what forced Barnhart to fire him. That's how it works. Barnhart inherited Tubby Smith. Speaking for myself, I was tired of Tubby's act. But Tubby had won a national championship. At the time, complicated financial and social issues were involved. My understanding is that Barnhart moved aggressively to get Tubby out. It's true that Billy Donovan was the administration's top choice to replace Tubby, so you have that part right. It is naive to believe Mike Pratt could have been involved without Barnhart's support and approval. I heard Pratt was comfortable with Donovan. It might be true that Sandy Bell was not thrilled about Calipari, but Sandy was not given veto power in the search. Under the athletics director's supervision, his consultants go through the selection process. Then the athletics director makes a formal hiring recommendation to the Board. Barnhart was Lee Todd's handpicked athletics director. President Todd was invested in Barnhart, and went to very great lengths to keep Barnhart happy, secure, and well compensated here. Capilouto has done exactly the same. The notion that President Todd and Mike Pratt walked over Barnhart to hire Calipari is a silly fable from boosters opposed to Barnhart's hiring from the beginning. It's the kind of stuff we hear on chat boards. Many boosters didn't want a football guy, and Barnhart had a reputation on the west coast as a football guy. Todd never undercut Barnhart. Todd carefully protected Barnhart, even giving him another lucrative contract extension shortly before Todd's retirement. If Stoops fails, it would be fair to criticize Barnhart within the context of actual facts of that situation. But making stuff up is goofy.

 

[Bill Derington]

You have to look into a guy with 2 DUI's a little harder. It's fine if you think he is a good coach, but you need to do a little snooping around in his personal life and around the office. I had heard through influential alumni and donors that he was being an obnoxious drunk all over Lexington 2 months before he had even coached a game. I am sure someone in College Station would have been able to tell Mitch the exact same thing.

As for Joker, just because it works in one place doesn't mean it will work in another. You have to gauge the pulse of your program before making a coaching hire. Heck we had Sanders on staff, if Joker left and went somewhere like Marshall or something and we promoted Sanders to OC for Brooks last 2 years we would have no problem grabbing Joker for head coach after Brooks quit.

As far as Stoops go I don't blame With for hiring him, but it was real stupid to make it extremely expensive to fire him when he had not proven anything and he wasn't going anywhere.

I agree about BCG, there should've been an extensive check, my guess is Barnhart knew A&M's AD and simply took his blessing. My argument was the fact that BCG was an accomplished coach when hired.

As far as Joker, Barnhart was trying to continue what Brooks had started, Brooks was for it too. Now, it may have been a year or 2 before Brooks was ready,IDK. I don't question the Joker hire as much as the BCG hire. Like you wrote, there should've been some serious background checks on him.

Hindsight is always 20/20

 

[BlueVelvetFog]

Mitch killed a man in a board meeting once.

Just to see how it felt.

He's been treated with kid's gloves ever since. No one wants to cross the "Butcher" Barnhart.

I think he wrestled in the South under that name.

 

[bthaunert]

Mitch did hire Calipari, the internet rumor that "the board made Mitch hire him" is laughable - even Mike Pratt laughed at this, as he helped initiate the UK/Cal interest and was at the Chicago hotel with Mitch interviewing Cal. People really need to research facts and lay off the internet rumors, as these grow to legendary status.

This one always kills me too. No matter how many times you post an article that quotes Lee Todd as saying he did not allow the hiring of Cal the first time around and had to be convinced the second time around, people always say it was Mitch.

 

[fuzz77]

Mitch messed up giving that contract extension to Stoops. Agree that he has done some good things, but he has made some mistakes to. He bought into the hype like some of us do as fans, and as an athletic director you can't do that. Recruiting improved but as far as rankings go we are not doing well in our conference. Some of the big name players he recruited didn't work out or are still on the team and were vastly overrated. We haven't been to a bowl game and that should have been a factor in Mitch's decision on Stoops contract. I agree with you on the facilities getting better, but Mitch let it go way to long before updating football facilities. Brooks begged for upgrades and it didn't happen. Not everything Mitch has done has been bad by any means, but his handling of the football program is the same as others that have held his position before him. It stinks.

There is nothing that ADs like to do more than build facilities. Unfortunately, facilities take money and football facilities take a lot of money. Brooks didn't not get facilities because Mitch didn't want them built. He didn't get them because the money wasn't available. The university had undertaken nearly a billion $$ of obligations for the University hospital. They could not get any further funding passed through the legislature...hell, they couldn't even get the BoT to submit the spending requests because they knew it wouldn't be approved. Everything that UK athletics did, they had to pay cash to do. (remember the fallout over updating the video boards?) It would have required a decade of doing nothing to accumulate enough cash to undertake the smallest of football improvements. People don't like to hear it but you can't only spend on one area of your program. Title IX doesn't care that you care more about football or basketball than softball or track or that a sport does or does not create revenue..

 

[Woodrow24]

There is nothing that ADs like to do more than build facilities. Unfortunately, facilities take money and football facilities take a lot of money. Brooks didn't not get facilities because Mitch didn't want them built. He didn't get them because the money wasn't available. The university had undertaken nearly a billion $$ of obligations for the University hospital. They could not get any further funding passed through the legislature...hell, they couldn't even get the BoT to submit the spending requests because they knew it wouldn't be approved. Everything that UK athletics did, they had to pay cash to do. (remember the fallout over updating the video boards?) It would have required a decade of doing nothing to accumulate enough cash to undertake the smallest of football improvements. People don't like to hear it but you can't only spend on one area of your program. Title IX doesn't care that you care more about football or basketball than softball or track or that a sport does or does not create revenue..

Thanks for the info. I had forgot about some of that stuff.

 

[JBHolmesfan]

There is nothing that ADs like to do more than build facilities. Unfortunately, facilities take money and football facilities take a lot of money. Brooks didn't not get facilities because Mitch didn't want them built. He didn't get them because the money wasn't available. The university had undertaken nearly a billion $$ of obligations for the University hospital. They could not get any further funding passed through the legislature...hell, they couldn't even get the BoT to submit the spending requests because they knew it wouldn't be approved. Everything that UK athletics did, they had to pay cash to do. (remember the fallout over updating the video boards?) It would have required a decade of doing nothing to accumulate enough cash to undertake the smallest of football improvements. People don't like to hear it but you can't only spend on one area of your program. Title IX doesn't care that you care more about football or basketball than softball or track or that a sport does or does not create revenue..

Agree completely. I definitely understand why someone may not care how UK's rifle team does, but to use it as a backhanded compliment towards Mitch, as it often is on here, seems silly to me. He's not the Basketball/Football director. He's the athletics director meaning he has to take care of all of the teams. The fact is UK athletics have never been stronger as a whole and it's something Mitch gets 0 credit for from his detractors.