I want to be clear that I think Kentucky is clearly the best job in the nation, and a coach with a competitive fire/dreams of a championship is likely to jump at the opportunity to coach there (almost) no matter where he is currently employed. However, just for discussion, I do have to wonder if the modern era has SOMEWHAT diluted the appeal of the "elite programs" to coaches. This likely affects those jobs just under the "UK Tier", but just as an example, imagine these two jobs, one with elite tradition and the other with "good" tradition:
Indiana: 5 National Titles, 8 Final Fours, 11 Elite Eights, 23 Sweet Sixteens, 39 NCAAT Appearances, .645 All-Time Winning Pctg., 560 Weeks in AP Poll All-Time
Texas: 0 National Titles, 3 Final Fours, 7 Elite Eights, 13 Sweet Sixteens, 35 NCAAT Appearances, .623 All-Time Winning Pctg., 269 Weeks in AP Poll All-Time
You won't find a ranking of all-time programs that puts IU outside of the top 7, and you likely also will not find one with Texas inside the top 20. However, I take that Texas job every day of the week. They have plenty of money, their instate talent is better than Indiana's, their conference has fewer historical powers to get past in ascending the ladder, their facilities are better and their fans won't turn on you during the middle of a rebuild because you haven't brought them back to the promised land yet. That's just one example, but I do kind of wonder if your "sleeping giant"-type programs have become a lot more attractive to prospective coaches now a days than some of the traditional powerhouses. Again, this likely doesn't apply to UK, UNC, Duke, UCLA or KU, who will always be elite jobs. But IU? Louisville? Syracuse? These jobs are all EXCEPTIONAL jobs, but they would have been no-brainers over Texas 30 years ago (IMO), but now I would honestly prefer Texas.
