Yeah, who knows. On the one hand he made a lot of sense at the time, coming off the D-Wade led Final Four at a then-CUSA Marquette. His stock had somewhat cooled or maybe stabilized is the better word when he took the Indiana job several years later.
But on the other hand I think there was something to the notion that RG was single-mindedly focused on someone who had "won't jump ship" vibes about them. Weber, Altman and Judson fit that bill, Crean doesn't.
Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but I always found our obsession with "getting someone here for the long haul" really weird and depressing. I personally don't view Self leaving us for his dream job as any more of an indication that we were a "stepping stone job" than Roy leaving KU for UNC would signify that Kansas is a "stepping stone job." JMO and all, but I think it's extremely rare for a coach to either (A) be dead-set on retiring at Illinois the second he walks in the door or (B) dead-set on using us as a springboard to a so-called "better job." The vast majority will fall in the middle, IMO, realizing it COULD be a destination or it COULD be a "stepping stone" depending on a ton of factors. In other words, a very good job inherently but not a forever job inherently (if the latter even exists).
Now we are just totally into my personal opinion of jobs here, but I don't think there are that many tiers.
(1) Truly Elite
(2) Very Good/The "Next Level Down" Jobs
(3) The Vast Majority
(4) Disadvantaged Jobs
Truly Elite: Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas
In an even a way that Duke and UCLA have not, these schools have proven to have unrivaled success under multiple coaches, incredible facilities, intense fan support/donors willing to step up and a nationwide spotlight that never seems to fade even when they're bad. I think these are probably the only schools that could reasonably look at a head coach at an Arizona, a Michigan, a UConn, etc. and think they have a good shot of swiping their coaches from them.
Very Good/The "Next Level Down" Jobs
This covers a very wide range of programs that I would roughly put in the following sub-categories:
(A) Historically elite programs that aren't quite in Tier 1 to programs (
e.g., Indiana or UCLA). For example, UCLA has an insanely impressive history, but a coach who views himself as earning "Blue Blood" opportunities might get annoyed at the total lack of fan support compared to "pier programs" Kentucky/Kansas or the relative lack of national spotlight UCLA receives on the West Coast vs. North Carolina/Duke on the East Coast. On the flipside, a coach might get shivers looking up at Indiana's five NC banners in their nostalgic gym but be spooked off by their fans' unrealistic expectations and generally delusional attitudes - why not go have just as much of a chance at winning big at Ohio State with far less pressure to deliver immediately from fans?
(B) Somewhat lacking in "built-in advantages" but have a great history of winning (
e.g., Arkansas or Kansas State). On one hand, this type of program has proven you can win big there, and they mostly have great fan support. On the other, the right coach can win anywhere, and is past success necessarily indicative of future success? Using those two as an example, you have fans that expect quite a lot but the instate talent you have access to is pretty weak.
(C) Great-but-not-elite history of winning but have some REALLY great "built-in advantages" (
e.g., Illinois or Maryland). The fact these schools don't have even more historical success is arguably IN SPITE of how good the job is, not because it's lacking. Stocked with instate talent (where even getting your third and fourth choices is a huge win), proof of success under multiple coaches in recent history, a large/passionate fan base that will still give you more patience than the Indianas of the world and facilities as good as almost anywhere else.
(D) Schools who lack the historic success of others in this Tier but have a potentially VERY bright future (
e.g., Texas or Florida). Whether it's bad luck or just a historical lack of resources channeled to hoops, these schools have way more potential than they've ever realized - even more than the (C) group above. I know some will take issue with Florida on here, but they really only ever carried any sort of "elite" run while one player was there. They've been a great program (as has Texas, to a lesser extent), but they have the resources and built-in advantages to be as elite as anyone in the country over the next several decades. Sometimes this type of job might be the biggest no-brainer on this list, as you'd have the resources necessary to outperform anyone in the country, but you would be doing it for a much more appreciative fan base.
The Vast Majority
This literally covers all of the "Power Five" jobs from Iowa to Auburn to Oregon to Creighton. These are fine jobs, and you can win games there if you're the "right guy." However, each is lacking something that could push it up a Tier.
Disadvantaged Jobs
This is a small list of schools where you could reasonably say it's "hard to win here." Northwestern immediately comes to mind - strict academic standards, a small/relatively apathetic alumni base, VERY few fans outside of that alumni base and a complete lack of historic success. Others could be Georgia Tech or Boston College.
