STrib: Thoughts on Illinois' AD search, and what Minnesota can learn

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
62,407
Reaction score
19,249
Points
113
per Joe:

Now that the University of Minnesota's AD search has officially begun -- with the search committee being formed, and the process for hiring the search firm under way -- it's instructive to look at the recently completed AD search at Illinois.

Illinois hired 37-year-old Josh Whitman to be its new AD last week, completing a rocky three-month process. Whitman is a former Illini tight end who earned his law degree at Illinois before serving as the AD for two Division-III departments, UW-La Crosse and Washington University in St. Louis.

Interviews: According to the Chicago Tribune, "Illinois tried to entice Colorado AD Rick George and Tennis Australia CEO Craig Tiley, but both declined, according to sources. George, a former Illinois football player, stated early in the process that he was content at Colorado. Northern Illinois AD Sean Frazier declined to move forward in the process after an initial interview, sources said. Illinois also interviewed Eastern Illinois AD Tom Michael, Central Michigan AD Dave Heeke and Maryland deputy AD Kelly Mehrtens."

http://www.startribune.com/thoughts-on-illinois-ad-search-and-what-minnesota-can-learn/369689321/

Go Gophers!!
 



I don't get the Search Firm and Search committee approach. A search firm goes out and lines up candidates. then, apparently, the search committee will review the work of the search firm. And then, someone (Kaler?) will review the findings of the search committee and make a final decision. Unless they decide to run it by the board of Regents, and maybe a faculty committee, and a group of Sid's close personal friends.

Too much freakin' bureaucracy. I maintain that, if you're hiring a search firm, there is no need for a search committee - unless you don't trust the search firm.

I am not filled with confidence that the U will end up making a good decision.
 

Search Firm: Does the actual 'search'. Makes it possible to be in contact with candidates that don't want their name out publicly. Find candidates that may not have been thought of locally.

Search Committee: Gets names from search firm(maybe other locals) and then list the pros and cons of each candidate. Will make recommendations if wanted. May 'whittle down' list using a local perspective. Search Committee should maybe called Hiring Committee or Discussion Committee.

President Kaler: Will make final decision.

Actually not the complicated.
 



station19 said:
Search Firm: Does the actual 'search'. Makes it possible to be in contact with candidates that don't want their name out publicly. Find candidates that may not have been thought of locally.

Search Committee: Gets names from search firm(maybe other locals) and then list the pros and cons of each candidate. Will make recommendations if wanted. May 'whittle down' list using a local perspective. Search Committee should maybe called Hiring Committee or Discussion Committee.

President Kaler: Will make final decision.

Actually not the complicated.
Click to expand...

Interesting reasoning, since high profile superstars usually use rumors of a wandering eye to garner contract extensions and wages. If an AD is a superstar, they know they have leverage. If they're not, do we want them?

ADs at lower levels will obviously be looking for greener pastures at all times. If a school thinks otherwise and doesnt have a list of plan Bs, who is the fool?
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I don't get the Search Firm and Search committee approach. A search firm goes out and lines up candidates. then, apparently, the search committee will review the work of the search firm. And then, someone (Kaler?) will review the findings of the search committee and make a final decision. Unless they decide to run it by the board of Regents, and maybe a faculty committee, and a group of Sid's close personal friends.

Too much freakin' bureaucracy. I maintain that, if you're hiring a search firm, there is no need for a search committee - unless you don't trust the search firm.

I am not filled with confidence that the U will end up making a good decision.
Click to expand...

We had a list developed by Gopherholers in less than a day that will likely have better candidates than the uninterested search firm. It is ridiculous to assume ADs across the country are unaware a high profile power 5 program is looking, and wouldn't be interested in contacting the search committee.

I also think it is one layer too many, but the reasons for this recent movement towards search firms have already been explained in other threads. Spread the responsibility and "everyone's doing it" at least over the last decade or so.

I'm very afraid we will end up with a bottom line-focused pets.com CEO-type candidate like Dave Brandon at Michigan.
 

station19 said:
Search Firm: Does the actual 'search'. Makes it possible to be in contact with candidates that don't want their name out publicly. Find candidates that may not have been thought of locally.

Search Committee: Gets names from search firm(maybe other locals) and then list the pros and cons of each candidate. Will make recommendations if wanted. May 'whittle down' list using a local perspective. Search Committee should maybe called Hiring Committee or Discussion Committee.

President Kaler: Will make final decision.

Actually not the complicated.
Click to expand...

I'm still confused. What do Kill and Mason do?
 



I also think it's an end-run of the public reporting process. When you have to declare the finalists for the job, get around it by only naming one finalist.
 

Seems like Illinois should have learned something from us: don't hire drunken womanizers as the head of the athletic department.

By the way, who hires the search firm? Did we need to hire search firm to decide on the search firm?
 

Dr.Don said:
Coin flips solve so many problems.
Click to expand...

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/xDQ3Oql1BN54c" width="480" height="332" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/dog-confused-i-have-no-idea-what-im-doing-xDQ3Oql1BN54c">via GIPHY</a></p>
 




They have to have search committees with participants who look out for the interests of every special interest group in the athletic dept, except revenue sports. How else do you wind up with "everybody's equal" Joel Maturi?" Norwood Teague who almost no one actually liked?
If the people on the committee had any idea of what a good athletic director looked like, it might work. They have never seen one here in my life time, so they don't know.
 


corcoran1 said:
How else do you wind up with "everybody's equal" Joel Maturi?"
Click to expand...

A Minnesota native with Big Ten experience and two successful tenures at Division I schools being hired to merge separate men's and women's athletic departments with powerful boosters on both sides (at least the women's side) in an era of no conference tv networks, social media, massive practice facilities, realignment? Yeah, how did that happen?
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Seems like Illinois should have learned something from us: don't hire drunken womanizers as the head of the athletic department.
Click to expand...

Clearly, what the U of M should've done is invest in better crystal ball technology so they could've foreseen that a person with no documented history of either of those things would turn out to be both. It's obvious.
 


dpodoll68 said:
Clearly, what the U of M should've done is invest in better crystal ball technology so they could've foreseen that a person with no documented history of either of those things would turn out to be both. It's obvious.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is. Speaking of personality red flags....
 


A P5 superstar AD is hard to come by... Look at the wasteland they have to navigate.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom