I don't get the criticism of Herbst. I mean, what President -- hired months before Syracuse's and Pitt's departure -- had experience in this type of conference realignment nonsense, and would you ever base a hire of a President of your flagship University on how well she sells snake oil?
Objectively, it's problematic to think that a President -- who has to manage a large University of disparate parts -- should spend any significant time on this concept.
This is all the AD's job. When the chips are down, and the final results are in, we should grade Manuel on whether or not he delivered the results we want. Herbst's only role should be as a closer, and her credit or blame in this mess should be based on her hire of Manuel.
Finally, I'm starting to wonder whose side the Courant is really on. Can you imagine the Courier-Journal undermining Louisville, or the Star-Ledger throwing Rutgers under the bus, through this whole process? Of course not. Those papers have been the biggest cheerleaders of their schools' efforts to jump to new leagues so far. At the Courant, however, they can't denigrate us enough. Given a choice between Susan Herbst as my school's President, or Christopher Keating running my local paper's political bureau, I pick Herbst six days a week and twice on Sundays. He can go take a hike.
