The firing of a coach has nothing to do with the failure or success of his successor. Nothing whatsoever. And the reasoning for firing the previous coach shouldn't be rationalized or condemned based on the next coach. I'm sorry but that is flawed thinking. Whether Shaka turned out to be a beast of a coach or a bum, that has nothing to do with the fact the Barnes needed to be let go. Not because he (Barnes) wasn't a good coach, but because his message at Texas had gotten stale, he was no longer effective in his position, and he was no longer getting the results that the job required. He started getting lazy. I went to many games towards the end of Barne's tenure at Texas where he didn't even get off the bench to coach. His apathy was evident. He grew too complacent. He needed a change of scenery and Texas Basketball needed a new captain. Period. The exact same thing could be said for Mack Brown. Unfortunately the Texas admins initially hired the wrong guys to replace Barnes and Mack. But in my opinion, both Barnes and Mack needed to go. Just because Texas botched the hiring of their successors doesn't mean they should have kept Barnes or Mack. The firing of Barnes and Mack, and the hiring of Shaka and Strong are all separate singular events.
When you fire an employee for poor performance, and his/her replacement ends up being a disappointment as well, do you actually have the desire to hire back the previous poorly performing employee?
-
Like x 2
Last edited: Mar 16, 2018