By the way, although I've not been overly impressed through the years with Mark Story, I thought this was good:
"Just after the extension was announced, I wrote that UK’s move reflected the irrational marketplace in which big-time college coaching contracts get done.
I also asked the following question: Was Barnhart more apt to be viciously second-guessed if:
A.) He extended Stoops’ contract prematurely, the coach failed, and the university got stuck with a massive buyout payment?
B.) He didn’t extend the coach, only to watch a successful Stoops bolt for a better deal at a more traditional football school?
At the time, I said “B” was the bigger risk for Barnhart.
Two games into Stoops’ fourth season, “A” seems the scenario UK is more likely to face."
Now, don't misunderstand me - this was a failed move by Barnhart, it's come back to bite him and UK in the azz, and there should be consequences for that. Point blank period. But at the time, UK was 5-3 in Stoops second year, we had a top 20 recruiting class for likely the first time in history, there were lists popping up of the hottest names/most likely to get better jobs and Stoops was on those lists (just like now, only different lists!). As Story says, he thought at the time the bigger risk to Barnhart was losing Stoops to a bigger program after failing to extend him. For those of you who think of Barnhart as a timid bean counter, this was a big, bold move on his part. Only in hindsight does it look particularly stupid.
Like I said, it failed, not defending him, that's the chance he took.......
