Jurich hired Strong WITHOUT A SEARCH FIRM. In case you forgot that was the debate. As usual it doesn't take you long to get to the ad hominem . . . . If you're so bored why are you still posting?
Jurich hired Strong WITHOUT A SEARCH FIRM. In case you forgot that was the debate. As usual it doesn't take you long to get to the ad hominem . . . . If you're so bored why are you still posting?
Ad hominem?
Logic is weak: You are using two limited examples to prove your point (which is that search firms or consultants add little value). 1) Jurich hiring Strong without a sirch firm and 2) Hathaway using a firm and coming up with PP.
In the grand scheme of hiring D1 BCS level coaches there are hundreds of successful hires where a search firm was used. In an industry where AD's/University Presidents can choose to use search firms the majority do so. That fact alone suggests the universities find value in the services provided by search firms related to coaching hires. And while you put Jurich on a pedastal for hiring Strong, you completely ignore the previous hire, Kragthorpe. A hire that could have been avoided had it been vetted through a consultant or search firm.
Position is Stupid: You continue to suggest that WM is using a search firm because he doesn't want to take accountability for the decision, nor does he have a list of candidates. Show me where WM is giving up the decision to a search firm. Also, show me where WM has suggested he does or doesn't have a list of candidates he wants to consider. This is made up garbage in your head that you are throwing out as if it's fact.
Your Obstinence is boring: For 4 pages it is you (and Blue Dog) touting Jurich and Strong, Hathaway and PP as the logical support of your position. yet everyone here, people who work with consultants everyday (myself included), have suggested that consultants aren't typically hired to make decisions. they are paid to provide facts, insight, and opinion so that their client can make an informed decision. The argument isn't whether a search firm is good use of money, but rather did Uconn hire the right consultant or search firm. As with anything else, some are better than others. But instead, you've take up 4 pages blathering about made up facts, using your Blue Dog id as a convenient ally, and preventing a real discussion from happening.
Just to complete the lesson, Ad Hominem would have been:
You are an obstinate, pompous and therefore you are just wrong. While true, it simply uses your character
flaws to counter your argument. As outlined above, I attacked your logic and position and then simply stated that your obstinance is boring
