Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
I would mostly agree with that - maybe not should, but at least that it is understandable.

But the bottom line is this - how does a program ever elevate itself if coaches always leave for the 'better' option when it is available? The loyalty of baseball coaches compared to their peers in football in basketball is good for the sport, not bad for it.

We are at an advantage in that we don't have to get as good a coach as some other programs do, and our success is more sustainable from coach to coach. But any program with a truly elite coach will outperform a program with a middling or even just good coach, no matter the other advantages. And that's ok. Because the longer Schlossnagle stays at TCU and McDonnell stays at Louisville, the more those programs become 'blue-bloods'. The more good programs, the better.

It's not fun or interesting if you just get all the best things and have the best success just because of your resources/support. It is fun and interesting to have to fight for what you get. Despite our resources and support, we have to fight for what we get. And that makes it all the sweeter when we get it.
Outstanding post and I think you may be correct.

As to your point of asking how a program can elevate itself if their coach is always moving on, here is something that scares the jabeezus out of me.

What if Orgeron goes 6-6, Moorhead destroys him in Baton Rouge, and LSU comes after Moorhead?

I realize that entire scenario is unlikely, but I'm curious how Commisioner Sankey would handle that? I get letting Mullen go to Florida after being at MSU for 9 years, but a school losing a coach to an inter- conference school two years in a row just wouldn't be right. It's something to contemplate and feeds right into the original question you posed.