Most major conference hires fall into one of two categories: an experienced guy who has coached at the major college level before and is getting another job (Huggins from Cincinnati to WVU, Dixon from Pitt to TCU, Weber, etc, etc).. When you do that you are just looking at track record, you know the guy won't be awful, maybe he'll be really good.

Or: a young guy who has had success at a lower level and is primed to make the jump to the bigtime. You are trying to pick someone who will be in the next generation of great coaches. This is how Duke found K, how Purdue found Painter, etc. Usually these guys have started at a really low level, then moved up to a slightly higher level, and have had success and gotten known as up and comers. Some, like Odom, have also been an assistant at the highest level.

Most hires in the really big competitive conferences fall into one of those categories.

EDIT: There is a 3rd category, where you hire a longtime assitant at a high level program, like Hopkins in Washignton, or Wojo to Marquette. Doesn't apply here but it is also a common way to fill a top level college vacancy.

Whit made an unusual hire. He took someone who had spent 30 years in a mid major conference and jumped him to the ACC.

Whether it turns out to be a great hire or not, it is DIFFERENT than the vast majority of hires. So it's going to get scrutiny. There was a thread on the subscriber board trying to come up with someone who spent a LONG career at a lower level then made the jump to power conferences after he was 50. The closest anyone could come up with was Larranaga, and he had been to a Final Four with George Mason, who was in a conference better than the Southern Conference.

But it's very rare. That type of hire is going to get scrutiny. I'm sure Babcock must know that.
[Post edited by SteveInBaltimore at 04/10/2019 5:12PM]