Interesting point you're trying to make. Brooks was advising Mitch on the coaching search. Only when Mitch struck out completely, did Brooks offer to coach. Then Mitch refused to improve facilities, which led to Brooks retiring.
I understand that, Mitch had a rough start with the fball side of things, but we should be happy about where we are right now. Could he have done things better at the beginning? Sure, but I for one am glad the admin is now committed to the fball program and for the first time in a long time I am confident that everyone, from the fans to the coaches to the admin dept are all pushing to see fball succeed.
I am a big Mitch supporter and I don't think he is perfect and without failure but I think he gets blamed for too many things that he did not have total control (50 years of football futility) over or that are 100% hindsight that seemed like a good idea at the time. Gillispie and Joker come to mind. And I think too many "fans" take one single issue or "perceived" failure (like downsizing CWS) and magnify it times 1,000,000 and don't or won't look at the bigger picture.
Yea that's a good point, Mitch is not the final authority as to the upgrades and such, I'm guessing there was a lot of red tape and Mitch probably had to do some convincing for spending that much cash. Brooks wasn't a flashy hire, but everyone should agree that he turned out to be a very solid/stable hire. I would say that Brooks showing that it is possible to win here and showing that UK has a fball fanbase(not just bball) helped us to get Stoops.
You are wrong that "Mitch refused to improve the facilities" unless you think that Mitch had it in his power to spend $10's and $100's of millions of dollars without the approval of a) the president of the university, b) the Board of Trust, and c) the state legislature. The simple and indisputable facts are that there were multiple requests made by Mitch for stadium improvements and each were denied by one or more of the aforementioned powers.
I think your point is pretty weak. That is how many jobs are filled. This idea that ADs have this magic list of names and they go out and get their guy is a little like living in a fairy tale. ADs get inquiries all the time from coaches interested in open positions, just like any other job opening. Many times the hire will be because someone contacted them rather than from the original list of candidates the AD thinks might be interested. It's impossible to know everyone that might be interested in a position, so it's impossible to construct a comprehensive list prior to taking into account those that contact the AD for the job. Hiring folks who contact you in no way diminishes the performance of the person doing the hiring.
This was my main beef with Mitch. He poured money into every other program at UK but football on the backs of K-Fund money from our super-loyal football fans. Then had the audacity to say we were a part of a "microwave society", when our football fans hadn't experienced even a winning SEC record in over 35 years, much less a Championship.
Or why didn't we start doing the stuff in 1960, 1970, 1980,1990, or 2000? Funny how Mitch Barnhart gets the blame for destroying UK football when it was a mess long before he ever arrived. Hell, Jerry Claiborne and his losing record are royalty but Barnhart dug some hole for the program. Oh, and there's that whole David Williams thing that always seems to get ignored.
How was it wasted effort? If you were the AD and your superiors would not support the idea of spending millions to upgrade the athletic facilties, what would you do? I have no idea if MB was being stonewalled internally or not, but I suspect he was told the only way he was going to be able to upgrade facilities until the hospital and other on campus projects were built, was by raising the money privately. If that is case, it was a very creative effort to get the job done. Would you rather that he just give up and do nothing at all? Sometimes you have to think out of the box when there is no way to accomplish what you want by conventional means.
Nice try again fuzz but there are some people on this board that simply will not accept the fact that any athletic expenditure requiring any bonding had to first be approved and supported by the University BoT. Furthermore I seem to recall that when the video board improvements were made MB requested the equivalent from "bridge loan" from the BoT with a repayment ROI greater than the what the money was currently earning. BoT said no forcing him to finish the project by withdrawing from the B/W fund (i.e., UKAA's "savings account"). I suppose the BoT thought this might be a slippery slope thing but I know the ULAA has struck similar short term deals with the UofL Foundation, usually to cap off a capital project to make sure it got started on time.
Do you guys every think that maybe he didn't have the financial backing before 2012...Why do you think RB left early...Mark Stoops is getting the things Brooks was promised , but never got ...You realize that the new fb practice facility was almost totally funded by boosters who had never given money to the football program before...go figure...new booster money...new sec and marketing money...See how this goes?
I see this raised a lot but the reason he could do these for other programs is because these were much "smaller" projects and he could do them with donations and the money on hand. It is easier to build a new softball/soccer/track and field than it is to renovate a CWS.
So because a "deal" didn't work out the time & effort put into it was a waste?
That is the fault of Larry Glover and you, not MB or UK. When UK hired him they did not announce him to the world as the savior of UK football. That was something fans and media types tried to play up. It was nothing ever embraced by UK or MB. MB has always said he is the AD for all sports and he will do what is in each sports best interest, within his authority. The label you just placed on him is of your own doing, not his.
I'll also add that Mitch has more money available from the SEC and TV than any of his predecessors by a WHOLE LOT! That 12th game along with MANY more Bowl games now, have made it WAY easier for Mitch than his predecessors.
I think you're inadvertently scoring a point for the other side, JHB. If you have a new AD with that background, who is widely (and correctly IMO) viewed as a "football guy"......and even that guy doesn't succeed at improving the football program......doesn't it argue that the situation is bigger than any one person? That there are institutional reasons why UK football has been moribund for most of its history?
The part you and others don't seem to be able to grasp is that Mitch isn't free to spend any of that money however he feels and he certainly cannot borrow a dime without the approval of the Prez, the BoT and the legislature.
I obviously either know more or at least understand the parameters that govern what department heads at UK are allowed to do.
