yes, the worst! except, about a year ago, his own peers voted him AD of the Year.
how to reconcile this seemingly impossibly set of facts?
edit: before you give in to your worst impulses and call me an idiot - I am not - let me go ahead and address this further by pasting my response to someone yesterday. speaks for itself:
For the record, I've said MB has proved himself incapable of fixing football (had several bites at the apple, no progress), it's time for him to leave and give someone else a shot, and if he stays I'm not sure how much sense it makes to get rid of Stoops as I have no faith Barnhart can identify and get the right guy to replace him.
Having said that, basketball is in really good shape, the Olympic sports are in really good shape, all the athletes and employees in the athletics office seem to really like him, we've had no scandals under his watch, no NCAA issues, administratively he seems to run things well, and some big time schools keep hiring his assistants (Miss State, Arizona, Oregon, Sryacuse, Florida, etc), which tells me he must be respected.
I know most posters on the football board don't care about any of that.
But, there's a difference between saying,
"I don't care that Barnhart is good about all that other stuff. He sucks regarding football, which is what I do care about."
vs.
"Barnhart is a moron, one of the worst ADs in the country, no other SEC school would keep him. I heard he won't hire anyone who's not an ordained minister. And he had something to do with 9/11."