Renown sportswriter Brice Cherry wrote about Kim Mulkey departing Baylor for LSU as head women's basketball coach. The caption of his article was "Mulkey warrants gratitude, not attitude, from Baylor fans" and I agree. Should a coach be criticized for leaving an institution on their own free will?
Coaches are either fired or they leave on their own. Kim was fortunate enough to say goodbye to Baylor when she decided. This has infuriated some Baylor fans.
People do not consider what happens when a successful coach is ousted by their current employer. How many times have we witnessed a coach removed from their position because the institution hired a new president, athletic director, superintendent of schools and so on? Over and over, I have witnessed superintendents and college athletic directors removing a longtime successful coach because of jealousy. They spin the reasoning to persuade the public.

When a coach leaves on their own free will though, administration tries to make it appear something was wrong. They do not say specifics but infer questionable reasons. This way they are not held accountable for innuendos.
Fans are angry because they feel betrayed when their successful coach departs for another institution. These folks believed in the coach and followed the team religiously. They feel like they are a part of the program and do not understand everything involved in making the decision.
When I coached at Louisiana Tech, I witnessed the powerful program the Lady Techsters had underneath head coach Leon Barmore. During Kim's 15-year tenure as assistant and associate head coach underneath Barmore, Tech posted a 43068 record and advanced to seven Final Fours and won the 1988 NCAA National Championship.

Many people believed La Tech would hire Kim as head coach after Barmore retired. It did not happen. Tech wanted change and that is their right. Tech did what they felt like would be best for the institution.
I have left institutions and desired the administration continue the program with our assistants. Because of love for the program, players, and community a departing successful head coach desires to see the program keep rolling. This is not the coach's decision though. The administration must make that call. Therefore, fans do not understand the flip side when a coach makes decisions of what is best for them.
I remember when Baylor and Texas made changes of football leadership removing Grant Teaff and Mack Brown. What happened to both of those programs after the change? What happened at La Tech when they did not hire Kim and went in another direction? Did the program match the success of Barmore? La Tech and Texas never have returned to those levels of success.
I do not blame Kim for accepting an eight-year deal paying her at least $22.5 million before incentives. Now, I am interested to see how Baylor replaces her. Were they pleased with the program underneath her tutelage? If so, would it be prudent to hire from within?
Thought for the week, "Success isn't something that just happens. Success is learned, success is practiced, and then it is shared." Sparky Anderson

by Jack Welch, from "The Bleachers" --The Miami County Republic @ May 8, 2021 Issue

It's not a matter of being angry. I'm grateful for all that Kim did but perplexed that despite all the great perks BU have her, she left us. Second highest salary, perhaps biggest budget, but she walked on us. Loyalty should be a two way street. Kim asked for loyalty, but did not return it.

fredbear said:

---

It's not a matter of being angry. I'm grateful for all that Kim did but perplexed that despite all the great perks BU have her, she left us. Second highest salary, perhaps biggest budget, but she walked on us. Loyalty should be a two way street. Kim asked for loyalty, but did not return it.

---

Some people should do their homework before they speak. Kim Mulkey defended Baylor for 21 years. And not one time was it because of a failure of Kim's program, her integrity or her kids. She was always picking up someone else's garbage. But she stood in the door for Baylor University every time. What do you want? Blood? Here's just one dose of her loyalty. Take a watch and listen.

For sure, until a bigger check comes along. Lol. But remember, "It's not about the money." Which, of course, means it is all about ego and money. I'm entitled to my interpretation even if it is not the same as yours.

Caddywampus said:

---

fredbear said:

---

It's not a matter of being angry. I'm grateful for all that Kim did but perplexed that despite all the great perks BU have her, she left us. Second highest salary, perhaps biggest budget, but she walked on us. Loyalty should be a two way street. Kim asked for loyalty, but did not return it.

---

Some people should do their homework before they speak. Kim Mulkey defended Baylor for 21 years. And not one time was it because of a failure of Kim's program, her integrity or her kids. She was always picking up someone else's garbage. But she stood in the door for Baylor University every time. What do you want? Blood? Here's just one dose of her loyalty. Take a watch and listen.

---

You're insinuating that you can only be on one side on this. That's very Mulkey. But I see issues on both sides, including hers. I'm extremely grateful for everything, but that doesn't erase her flaws, of which she had more than a few. It's done. She's gone. She chose not to be here, so we need to stop standing on her front lawn blaring "In Your Eyes."

Caddywampus said:

---

fredbear said:

---

It's not a matter of being angry. I'm grateful for all that Kim did but perplexed that despite all the great perks BU have her, she left us. Second highest salary, perhaps biggest budget, but she walked on us. Loyalty should be a two way street. Kim asked for loyalty, but did not return it.

---

Some people should do their homework before they speak. Kim Mulkey defended Baylor for 21 years. And not one time was it because of a failure of Kim's program, her integrity or her kids. She was always picking up someone else's garbage. But she stood in the door for Baylor University every time. What do you want? Blood? Here's just one dose of her loyalty. Take a watch and listen.

---

No homework necessary. Kim left Baylor. Her choice. Loved when she was here, but I am rooting for Baylor regardless of who our coach is.

Yep! Moving on.

Brice is a small town, homer sports hack. Move on is right........

Caddy thinks if someone disagrees with him/her then that person doesn't have the facts. He/she has never thought that someone else may have the same facts or even more facts and interpret them differently than Caddy has interpreted them. It is a liberating moment when you acknowledge there are other, even valid viewpoints.

fredbear said:

---

Caddy thinks if someone disagrees with him/her then that person doesn't have the facts. He/she has never thought that someone else may have the same facts or even more facts and interpret them differently than Caddy has interpreted them. It is a liberating moment when you acknowledge there are other, even valid viewpoints.

---

Kim made a decision to leave Baylor for LSU and that is her choice. She had an incredible 21 years here! She achieved a level of greatness that will go down in the history of LadyBear basketball. Sometimes it's just time for a change. There are many reasons that most of the fan base aren't really aware of that could make that change desirable by both Kim and/or Baylor. It's time to embrace Coach Collen and our current LadyBears and let's keep the winning tradition going. All the best to Kim at LSU! Sic'em!

fredbear said:

---

For sure, until a bigger check comes along. Lol. But remember, "It's not about the money." Which, of course, means it is all about ego and money. I'm entitled to my interpretation even if it is not the same as yours.

---

I don't think it was about money. I think it was about fit. Kim was no longer a good fit here. Part of that was ego. Part of that was the environment changing around her. There were a lot of pieces to that - some good, some up to your interpretation.

Just a point here -- La. Tech offered Kim the job. She turned it down and left. It was her decision then just like it was this time.

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just a point here -- La. Tech offered Kim the job. She turned it down and left. It was her decision then just like it was this time.

---

She told them her term (5 years), they chose not to meet it.

57Bear said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just a point here -- La. Tech offered Kim the job. She turned it down and left. It was her decision then just like it was this time.

---

She told them her term (5 years), they chose not to meet it.

---

They offered her the job. And, frankly, offered her all they could at the time. She chose to go elsewhere for what she thought was better terms. They didn't choose not to offer -- which is what he implies.

Brian Ethridge said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

57Bear said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just a point here -- La. Tech offered Kim the job. She turned it down and left. It was her decision then just like it was this time.

---

She told them her term (5 years), they chose not to meet it.

---

They offered her the job. And, frankly, offered her all they could at the time. She chose to go elsewhere for what she thought was better terms. They didn't choose not to offer -- which is what he implies.

---

Correct.

The narrative of she wasn't wanted at LaTech is false.

---

How many years had she been at LaTech? She walked away from her professed "dream job" over a difference of one year...ONE year. A seemingly extreme reaction to what appears a minor issue. Call that stubbornness or sticking to principles...or anything else you choose. Is it any wonder that she chose to leave BU where she built her legacy...over what? Believe whatever you want. Her making the decision she did may be shocking, but shouldn't be surprising.

BUatbirth said:

---

Brian Ethridge said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

57Bear said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just a point here -- La. Tech offered Kim the job. She turned it down and left. It was her decision then just like it was this time.

---

She told them her term (5 years), they chose not to meet it.

---

They offered her the job. And, frankly, offered her all they could at the time. She chose to go elsewhere for what she thought was better terms. They didn't choose not to offer -- which is what he implies.

---

Correct.

The narrative of she wasn't wanted at LaTech is false.

---

How many years had she been at LaTech? She walked away from her professed "dream job" over a difference of one year...ONE year. A seemingly extreme reaction to what appears a minor issue. Call that stubbornness or sticking to principles...or anything else you choose. Is it any wonder that she chose to leave BU where she built her legacy...over what? Believe whatever you want. Her making the decision she did may be shocking, but shouldn't be surprising.

---

some people find consistency of character a good thing...

Who all plans to drive down to College Station and see Kim, Moon, and Gusters play nearby next season?

Eball said:

---

BUatbirth said:

---

Brian Ethridge said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

57Bear said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just a point here -- La. Tech offered Kim the job. She turned it down and left. It was her decision then just like it was this time.

---

She told them her term (5 years), they chose not to meet it.

---

They offered her the job. And, frankly, offered her all they could at the time. She chose to go elsewhere for what she thought was better terms. They didn't choose not to offer -- which is what he implies.

---

Correct.

The narrative of she wasn't wanted at LaTech is false.

---

How many years had she been at LaTech? She walked away from her professed "dream job" over a difference of one year...ONE year. A seemingly extreme reaction to what appears a minor issue. Call that stubbornness or sticking to principles...or anything else you choose. Is it any wonder that she chose to leave BU where she built her legacy...over what? Believe whatever you want. Her making the decision she did may be shocking, but shouldn't be surprising.

---

some people find consistency of character a good thing...

---

Some would say a serial killer exhibits consistency of character, are you applauding that as well?

So you comparing Kim to a serial killer now? Par for the course.

Eball said:

---

So you comparing Kim to a serial killer now? Par for the course.

---

What's par for the course, actually a mulligan, is your context. Your statement was that consistent behavior should be valued and my comparison is that I only value consistency in virtuous characteristics by using an extreme for example. But go ahead, twist and spin it, it's what you are consistent at.

"I only value consistency in virtuous characteristics."

Ok, now watch this.

I will take it for granted you agree with me that honesty is a virtuous characteristic. Therefore you would value a person being consistently honest.

Oh, well, you would obviously want CIA agents to go around telling everyone they meet what other agents are undercover and where. And if anyone ever asks them for classified information, they should provide that information freely. After all, you want them to be consistently honest. DON"T YOU?

That would be an absurd argument for me to make, because I'm twisting it into an extreme application that I pulled from left field. I know that virtually no one would ever take that position, and I'm attributing it to you anyway. That's the same thing you did with the serial killer comparison.

If you want to say that Mulkey's characteristics are not ones you value, fine, say that. What you were doing in no way constitutes a good faith engagement on the topic.

Bone Squad said:

---

"I only value consistency in virtuous characteristics."

Ok, now watch this.

I will take it for granted you agree with me that honesty is a virtuous characteristic. Therefore you would value a person being consistently honest.

Oh, well, you would obviously want CIA agents to go around telling everyone they meet what other agents are undercover and where. And if anyone ever asks them for classified information, they should provide that information freely. After all, you want them to be consistently honest. DON"T YOU?

That would be an absurd argument for me to make, because I'm twisting it into an extreme application that I pulled from left field. I know that virtually no one would ever take that position, and I'm attributing it to you anyway. That's the same thing you did with the serial killer comparison.

If you want to say that Mulkey's characteristics are not ones you value, fine, say that. What you were doing in no way constitutes a good faith engagement on the topic.

---

But saying I compared Mulkey to a serial killer constitutes your version of good faith engagement? Whatever.

I made no judgement on Mulkey's character nor will I, and I was not comparing her to serial killers either. My point was that justification of an action as something that should be valued because it's consistent is weak.

Sounds like you should re-read my post. If you do that and still do not understand what I am saying to you, then I do not know how else to explain it. I will just have to leave it that and wish you a good day.