KFDM COOP Posted April 13, 2007 Report Posted April 13, 2007 Coaching LoyaltyAn interesting take from Jay Bilas on coaching loyalty...it talks specifically about Bob Huggins and K-State, but I think it can be applied to all jobs...per ESPN Insider:I have grown a bit weary of one-way loyalty expectations. Now that Bob Huggins has left Kansas State for his alma mater, West Virginia, some people are losing their minds over his lack of "loyalty." Huggins was hired last year to take over at Kansas State after being fired at Cincinnati, and signed a multiyear contract to coach the Wildcats. After just one year, Huggins is leaving Kansas State to take over at West Virginia, which opened up after Michigan hired John Beilein, who also had a multiyear contract to coach at West Virginia. With the way that coaches get fired these days, usually without being allowed to finish their contracts, it is not at all unusual or unreasonable for a coach to leave for a better opportunity. In fact, it is almost necessary. Leaving firings and forced resignations aside, why is it OK for Roy Williams to go to North Carolina, but not for Huggins to go to West Virginia? Both are home-state and alma mater jobs that had great pull for the individual. Is there some time limit before one can break a contract and move on? And if it is so distasteful for a coach to leave a program with a multiyear contract, isn't it similarly distasteful for college presidents to allow their institutions to pursue coaches that are under contract with another school? Why do we consider the coaches unethical or disloyal when rival colleges dangle the offer in front of a coach they know is under contract? Coaches are always going to leave players who have relied upon them in recruiting, no matter how many years they have been at a school. That is just the way it is. Everyone expects loyalty when their own interests are at stake, but not when another party's are. When a program wants a coach, its fans and administrators show loyalty. When they grow tired of a coach, they do not show any such loyalty, they just want change. No one at Kansas State complained when Huggins hired Dalonte Hill away from Charlotte, and took with him a committed recruit in Michael Beasley. That was just recruiting. Now that Beasley may want to follow Huggins to West Virginia, Kansas State is having an attack of morality and saying that it will hold Beasley to his national letter of intent until a new coach is in place and he can make the decision. Why is it OK for Beasley to renege on a commitment to Charlotte in favor of Kansas State, but it is not OK for Beasley to follow Huggins to West Virginia or to go elsewhere? Kansas State hired Huggins assistant Frank Martin, partly on the promise that Martin can keep the recruits that Huggins brought in, arguably putting talent retention over long-term coaching ability and fit. One could argue that Kansas State may have situational ethics, and one's word or commitment only counts when it is made to Kansas State, not to anyone else. What did Kansas State expect when it hired Huggins? Did it expect him to end his career there? If the school did, why didn't Kansas State insist upon language guaranteeing that in the contract or insist upon a restrictive buyout? The free market works pretty well with regard to contracts, and the two sides are perfectly able to fully and fairly bargain an appropriate agreement. The truth is, if Kansas State were to insist upon locking up Huggins, he probably would not have agreed to it. Remember, when the West Virginia job came around the first time, before John Beilein took it, Huggins turned it down to stay at Cincinnati. Huggins was loyal to Cincinnati then, and the school fired him a couple of years later. Nice reward for Huggins' loyalty, huh?
Recommended Posts