My response is simply that I don't have enough information about that situation to determine whether offering this kid is a good decision or a bad one. So why would I assume it was a bad one?

As a follow up - would you prefer that others who aren't privy to all of the information you have when you are making decisions simply assumed that every decision you made was a bad one?

On the one hand you accuse me of blind trust. My response is twofold.

First - ultimately there are consequences for failure. If Bronco isn't doing his job well, he'll be gone. If Holmoe doesn't do his job well in overseeing Bronco, he'll be gone too. Wins and losses is the biggest measuring stick, but I know other things are taken into about. It isn't my job to oversee everything Bronco does - so it seems silly to say I'm going with blind trust. Of course I am! So are most fans! We aren't there to see everything Bronco does or doesn't do - so we have to trust the school, athletic department, etc.

Second - there is an opposite side to this. You seem to be saying that it is wrong to assume the best of people until proven otherwise. I would ask, why do you think the appropriate approach is to assume the worst? And why is that a better approach to the situation?