Harve made an important point that provides a subtext for all this Board activity: if Barnes does not make a good hire, it will be bad for all of us. Thousands of fans have to live with this move, and that is why we cannot just put it all behind us. We will be second-guessing how this came down for quite a while.
From the little Barnes and Dixon have said, it is clear that the situation did not develop overnight. The portrayal of the relationship by Barnes supporters as one of boss and employee seems simplistic. A university is not a top-down organization but rather is a collection of departments and schools that function with a degree of autonomous control. To me this departure looks like something that happens when a new officer on a Board of Directors makes a power show (or makes a splash, to use a certain phrase) against an ED or CEO.
With regard to the imagery that has been attached to the search, such as hitting a home run or pulling a rabbit out of a hat, and so on, the way Dixon's departure came down is also relevant, as noted in other threads, because Dixon is so well-known nationally for doing things the right way. He has a reputation as a straight shooter and a hard worker, and he is respected both for his coaching success and for his commitment to his players' success on and off the court.
Potential candidates are not going to ask who is Dixon but rather will ask who is Barnes. There is now an additional element of risk attached to the Pitt coaching job. Many candidates who look at the situation are certainly going to be hesitant to step into Dixon's shoes. To me, that means Pitt is more likely to attract a lower-level and strong-headed coach who is willing to take a career chance to move up despite the potential encumbrances of an egotistical AD. There are guys out there like that. But again, the way this situation came down will continue to be relevant, and possibly volatile, not only because Pitt now has to get one here, but also because Pitt has to keep him here.
