IF you adopt the consumptive ideology that 'winning is everything', then the guy is a good hire. his antics recruiting aren't dirty because he wants them to be- he is obviously deficient in that regard else he wouldn't have to cheat- his ability to coach offense is as good as just about anyone's anywhere. He's at least as good (if not better) as a Chip Kelly or a Lame Kitten.
if we had access to the data from the old CFN boards, you'd find that everyone in the SEC board realized he was cheating long before there was a shred of evidence. you simply don't bring the players he was bringing w/o shenanigans- not from the start, anyway. yeah, piling up some 3 stars and an occasional 4 isn't huge, and then migrating to mostly three stars, dashes of 4 stars, and sprinkles of 5 stars after program accreditation (wins) is conceivable, but NOT the way it was happening- it HAD to be something nefarious.
now back to reality: I DON'T adopt 'winning is everything' where the wins are recorded on a scoreboard. I damn sure like to win, but it should be a measure of cohesiveness and team effort, which if present the wins come along- if not, it's a struggle. like most of y'all here i want to see it happen within the confines of both rules and integrity- and like the position most of y'all seem to have taken, in my opinion that excludes Hugh Freeze from ever setting foot near a program i'd feel good about supporting.