ok, i realize that at this moment i'm high asf from Eau De Tang, but like, serious multi-part question:
1. Does Tang legit have a path to success at k-state? As in like, "realistically competing for a natty" level success. I think last night in football it was abundantly clear what it looks like when you have such a disparity in talent, and realistically for any team that will be in the Big12 in the year 2025 that could legit be a 10-15 year process in order to meaningfully close that gap (if it can even be done). But i don't think that disparity exists in college basketball. I don't think teams like Butler make it to the FF in back to back years if that's the case. If it were always chalk then i think it would be a lot more common for the FF to have nothing wlower than a 2 or 3 seed.
2. If Tang DOES have a legit path to success here, and we can pay him a fair wage as compared to his peers and provide him with all the support he believes is necessary to be successful (i.e. well paid assistants, facility upgrades on a reasonable schedule, etc.) then wouldn't it make sense for him to want to stay?
Like idk, maybe this is just chip-on-my-shoulder syndrome, but I would argue that the success of a coach like LHOFHC Liam Synder is more impressive than like, Gene Chizik, for example, even though Chizik has more national titles but he also walked into a well oiled machine.
Maybe that is an incredibly stupid way to think about it. Maybe any coach with half a brain would gladly suck off a homeless drifter if it meant getting the opportunity to coach at a place like UT and the like. But i dunno. I could see the point of view of a coach taking pride in the fact that they can actually hit a home run instead of getting to start on 3rd base. Not to mention you don't have all the political landmines like big swingin weiner donors who have their own ideas about how things should be done.