I don't buy the "long haul" thing. The best thing for long-term success is short-term success. The more you win games, the better you can attract recruits (Weber's post-2005 results notwithstanding). Hiring a 5 star player's coach to secure his commitment isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not saying we're not on the right track. I do think Underwood and staff are very competent. However, poo-pooing another program's short-term victories is BS. Those short-term victories very often are the stepping stone to bigger, long-term success.
I didn't poo poo it. I said it was a good move for DePaul, given their situation. And you can't set aside Weber's post-2005 recruits, because his staff wasn't set up with recruiters for the long haul. Is Hierman a long term recruiter? Maybe. Is Porter, Sr. a long term recruiter? Maybe. But do you see Missouri set up for the long haul with Cuonzo's track record? Have you seen anything in Leitao's past that shows long haul success? I don't.
Underwood has a short record, so we won't know either. But we've seen the kind of recruits Coach O can bring in, and we've seen Coleman bring in kids to programs that are higher rated than the usual recruits those programs usually get.
Most programs are up and down and don't experience long term success. The blue bloods do. But what happened to Georgetown? Georgia Tech was a powerhouse back in the day. What happened to Wake Forest after Chris Paul left? Texas has struggled. There are more examples of short term success due to a couple of recruits, than there is for long term success.