We are discussing Kentucky Football and you're coming at me with guarantee's. That does not compute, sir.
I apologize, but the "Is that hard to really understand" from the original post appeared to belittle any opposing thought process. Nobody can guarantee a successful approach when hiring a football coach, but there was sufficient data available to come to the conclusion that he would have been the coach who provided UK the highest chance of success. The negatives were obvious with him due to his personal indiscretions, but professionally, he was the best available coach. He has a history of leaving programs in shambles, so he was untouchable for all major programs. This would have provided UK with substantial leverage in contract negotiations and we should have been able to render an agreement similar to what he now has at Louisville with a massive buyout paid to the university if he leaves, and we could have littered the agreement with any possible reason to terminate the contract at any time without having to pay a nickel to him. All the leverage was UK's, and if everything went smoothly (which admittedly could have easily went south) we have a top 10 caliber coach and all the leverage from a contract standpoint. Win, Win.
I should also note that I did appreciate the Mark Stoops hire. It was out of the box thinking by attacking the fertile recruiting grounds of Ohio. High school recruits have traditionally stayed close to home, and Lexington is just that for Ohio, and we have the SEC brand. That's two things nobody else can sell to Ohio recruits as a bundle, other schools can only sell one or the other. These two reasons are why i am still open to the idea of hiring an established Ohio guy at HC (Tressell) and bring in a DC from the area (Pelini). Two proven guys, keep Marrow, Gran, Thomas, (our 3 most valuable coaches IMO) and let them bring in others for the rest of the available positions.