The most interesting team to make it to the most recent Final Four held in Minneapolis was Texas Tech, a middling football school that had hired a fascinating character named Chris Beard as basketball coach.
Texas Tech lost in overtime to Virginia in the national championship game at U.S. Bank Stadium. Beard took the team to within a point of winning a title it was never considered a contender for.
In the weeks leading up to that game, Beard discussed how he elevated the Tech program, and the most interesting thing he said was that he knew he couldn't beat programs like Kansas by recruiting better high school prospects, or by playing a wide-open offensive style. Kansas would win those battles every time.
So he built a program that could compete on its own terms, with its own talent level. That meant emphasizing fanatical defense, recruiting players who could and would defend anyone, and aiming to frustrate superior offensive teams. This approach meant that Beard could lose recruiting battles yet win campaigns.
Could Richard Pitino, in his own way, be devising a strategy that could allow Minnesota to compete with better Big Ten programs?
Pitino, like Beard, isn't going to outrecruit the best programs in the country. He, like Beard, might be able to keep certain local players at home — Beard kept Jarrett Culver in Lubbock, and Pitino kept Daniel Oturu in Minnesota — but can't bank on recruiting talent superior to Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Indiana, among others.
What Pitino may be able to do is offer an ideal landing spot for veteran transfers, players who will enable him to field an experienced team that could give him an advantage over, or at least a fighting chance against, teams relying on talented youngsters.
Here's his problem: Pitino is dependent on the NCAA making a decision that benefits student-athletes. That rarely happens without lengthy litigation.