Search firm (not Neinas)

[ruskin]

That's not why the money is spent and nobody is saying it. What people are saying is that it's more complex than you seem to be willing to acknowledge.

Strong was Lousiville's first choice and by all accounts that was mutual. Good for them. Our situation is more competitive.

You're just being contrarian now.

On UConn use of search firm in 2011: are we agreed UConn derived no benefit from spending the money to hire one in that case -- almost entirely through Hathaway's incompetence (and McHugh's meddling)?

On Strong hiring scenario at Louisville: He was hired almost four years ago (Dec. 9, 2009). Let's compare U of Ls position of strength then compared to UConn's now. Everything considered (bad conference, good facilities, decent TV market, ability to pay), do you think UConn is so weak now it can't hire its first-choice guy as Louisville did?

 

[ZooCougar]

On UConn use of search firm in 2011: are we agreed UConn derived no benefit from spending the money to hire one in that case -- almost entirely through Hathaway's incompetence (and McHugh's meddling)?

On Strong hiring scenario at Louisville: He was hired almost four years ago (Dec. 9, 2009). Let's compare U of Ls position of strength then compared to UConn's now. Everything considered (bad conference, good facilities, decent TV market, ability to pay), do you think UConn is so weak now it can't hire its first-choice guy as Louisville did?

On your last point, that seems self evident doesn't it? But really you're just a quibbling contrarian at this point.

 

[ruskin]

On your last point, that seems self evident doesn't it? But really you're just a quibbling contrarian at this point.

I'll assume you agree UConn derived no value from paying 50K or whatever it was for the last search since you skipped over that one. Money wasted.

I'm also going to assume you believe UConn is in a much weaker position in December 2013 than Louisville was in Dec. 2009. I don't think it's as "self-evident" as you proclaim. I say slightly weakerh. If Warde finds his version of Charlie Strong or has him in mind already there's no reason why he needs a search firm to help him. Spending an extra 50-100K in that scenario is wasteful. Whatever the fee is for a thorough vetting, that's cool with me.

 

[ZooCougar]

It doesn't matter if it was wasted or not... It actually bears no relevance to this situation simply because we have a different AD.

And I don't see how you have indicated anything that proves that it will be a waste of money this time. The AD is the executive and he has decided that it is necessary.

 

[uconnbill]

Then rest easy, he's not paying them to come up with the names. There is soooo much more going on than just sourcing the names here.

Agreed this is about background checks and looking at how these would be coaches work under difficult situations. They don't want to make the same mistake they did three years ago, this time around.

 

[junglehusky]

Are we really arguing about dropping $50k (or being generous, even $100k) in terms of a multimillion dollar operation? When the right hire could maybe (maaaaaybe) help UConn get into a P5 conference and many millions more in TV revenue???

 

[CTMike]

Ruskin would say that the sun isn't coming up tomorrow because a) the sun isn't up right now, and b) he once woke up when it was still dark.

Not even worth trying to convince him that UConn is going about it the right way (they 100% are). He will believe whatever he wants, no matter how illogical.

 

[TRest]

I'll assume you agree UConn derived no value from paying 50K or whatever it was for the last search since you skipped over that one. Money wasted.

I'm also going to assume you believe UConn is in a much weaker position in December 2013 than Louisville was in Dec. 2009. I don't think it's as "self-evident" as you proclaim. I say slightly weakerh. If Warde finds his version of Charlie Strong or has him in mind already there's no reason why he needs a search firm to help him. Spending an extra 50-100K in that scenario is wasteful. Whatever the fee is for a thorough vetting, that's cool with me.

UL was a BCS job in 2009.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Nope. Different guy. Fascinating that you would jump to that.

My sole point is the corporate world and academic world are now dominated by consultants. Its a very powerful psychological phenomena where managers avoid responsibility through reliance on consultants. They want the pay but don't like being held accountable for their decisions. Consultants are necessary for complex or technical areas where specific expertise which is not readily available is needed. I cannot bring myself to the conclusion that hiring a coach where your best guess at the end of the day is a best guess with no guaranteed outcome, requires a consultant.

worked with many consultants. none were paid to make decisions. they were paid to provide valuable information on highly technical or detailed topics where their experience was critical.
they were paid for unbiased and dispassionate input into the decision making process. if i went to my leadership blaming some consultants for a bad decision they would replace me and the consultants.
the notion that todays managers use consultants to prevent accountability is not anything ive experienced in corporate america.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Ruskin would say that the sun isn't coming up tomorrow because a) the sun isn't up right now, and b) he once woke up when it was still dark.

Not even worth trying to convince him that UConn is going about it the right way (they 100% are). He will believe whatever he wants, no matter how illogical.

he and blue dog...

 

[ruskin]

UL was a BCS job in 2009.

BYU isn't a BCS job, Tuberville knew Cincy wasn't going to be a BCS job. This is one of the few good non-BCS jobs. As bad as this particular team is this particular year, the job is a lot better than a lot of people here are making it out to be.

 

[Marty Jackson]

On UConn use of search firm in 2011: are we agreed UConn derived no benefit from spending the money to hire one in that case -- almost entirely through Hathaway's incompetence (and McHugh's meddling)?

On Strong hiring scenario at Louisville: He was hired almost four years ago (Dec. 9, 2009). Let's compare U of Ls position of strength then compared to UConn's now. Everything considered (bad conference, good facilities, decent TV market, ability to pay), do you think UConn is so weak now it can't hire its first-choice guy as Louisville did?

are you serious?
you are making an argument based on two very limited examples.

ok genius... how about a third case. who hired kragthorpe?

 

[ruskin]

Ruskin would say that the sun isn't coming up tomorrow because a) the sun isn't up right now, and b) he once woke up when it was still dark.

Not even worth trying to convince him that UConn is going about it the right way (they 100% are). He will believe whatever he wants, no matter how illogical.

Screw it, you guys are right. Let's just send Neinas or Parker the $100K check right now so we can say it was done the right way. Just like two years ago, they don't need to do any verifiable work.

The best AD in the country hired a very good coach without a search firm four years ago (when UConn and UL were comparable football programs), then two years after that we got P after a long-gone idiot wrote a search firm a check because "that's what everyone does" and the University got nothing in return for that money (although I don't put it past JH to have collected a little kickba--... . . 'honorarium'). Yet most of you all are expecting a different result this time from the wizards of football smart.

If Warde was making $150K a year I could see this slavish reliance to consultants headhunters gypsies tramps and thieves. At almost $500K plus perks? Let Warde find his man on his own THEN hire somebody to give the preferred candidate the rectal vetting exam

 

[bobbyinaz]

are you serious?
you are making an argument based on two very limited examples.

ok genius... how about a third case. who hired kragthorpe?

Also, Babcock the Cincy AD was an Asst AD at Auburn whn Tuberville was there so they have a previous relationship so it's really only one example

 

[ruskin]

are you serious?
you are making an argument based on two very limited examples.

ok genius... how about a third case. who hired kragthorpe?

Same genius who hired Petrino and Charlie Strong and got Louisville into the ACC.

 

[CTMike]

Same genius who hired Petrino and Charlie Strong and got Louisville into the ACC.

Then why did you conveniently leave Kragthorpe out when you were citing his decisive genius-ness?

 

[J187Money]

Screw it, you guys are right. Let's just send Neinas or Parker the $100K check right now so we can say it was done the right way. Just like two years ago, they don't need to do any verifiable work.

The best AD in the country hired a very good coach without a search firm four years ago (when UConn and UL were comparable football programs), then two years after that we got P after a long-gone idiot wrote a search firm a check because "that's what everyone does" and the University got nothing in return for that money (although I don't put it past JH to have collected a little kickba--... . . 'honorarium'). Yet most of you all are expecting a different result this time from the wizards of football smart.

If Warde was making $150K a year I could see this slavish reliance to consultants headhunters gypsies tramps and thieves. At almost $500K plus perks? Let Warde find his man on his own THEN hire somebody to give the preferred candidate the rectal vetting exam

This is a really strange fixation. As someone that has used retained search firms, contingency firms, and personal connections to hire people I will tell you that it is not a good use of an executive's time to call up strangers to see if they are interested in applying for a job. He would just look foolish.

When I know specifically who I want to hire and I have a connection to them I just hire them. When I have an idea of what I want but have no idea of what the interest level might be and I'm chasing people that are under contract I use retained search firms. If I'm just looking for a body I use contingency search firms.

There is all kinds of value provided by the search firm, in terms of negotiating terms, understanding motivations, assessing fit. You can have honest conversations that you can't have face to face with a candidate. If you haven't done this I can understand why you might feel this is foolish but it isn't.

 

[CTMike]

Screw it, you guys are right. Let's just send Neinas or Parker the $100K check right now so we can say it was done the right way. Just like two years ago, they don't need to do any verifiable work.

The best AD in the country hired a very good coach without a search firm four years ago (when UConn and UL were comparable football programs), then two years after that we got P after a long-gone idiot wrote a search firm a check because "that's what everyone does" and the University got nothing in return for that money (although I don't put it past JH to have collected a little kickba--... . . 'honorarium'). Yet most of you all are expecting a different result this time from the wizards of football smart.

If Warde was making $150K a year I could see this slavish reliance to consultants headhunters gypsies tramps and thieves. At almost $500K plus perks? Let Warde find his man on his own THEN hire somebody to give the preferred candidate the rectal vetting exam

Your entire premise is based on things you make up, such as
-these firms not needing to do any verifiable work
-the P debacle is somehow a search firm's fault
-equating search firms (however misnamed they may be) with certain disaster, because our last hire was bad
- WM being forced to choose from a list of candidates only provided by the firm, when you have no evidence of this
-lumping consultants in with gypsies tramps and thieves because... all consultants are bad? add no value?

Medic and others have cited exactly the value that these types of firms bring, and you just dismiss it, because it doesn't fit your narrowminded view of the world. Consultants bad! Dismiss all evidence to the contrary! For your whole premise to be true, you have to believe that :
- you are smarter than nearly every AD in this situation
- every AD is dumb enough to willingly throwing away limited funds on firms of no value (as if they wouldn't rather spend that money elsewhere)

I won't go in to detail, there is no need. The firms provide access to superior information, networking, discretion, and simple manpower - all of which have distinct value in this process no matter how much you protest otherwise. What the school's choose to do with all that information at that point is on them.


-Mike
Consultant/Gypsy/Tramp/Thief

 

[ruskin]

Then why did you conveniently leave Kragthorpe out when you were citing his decisive genius-ness?

I didn't "conveniently leave" him out. This part of the discussion began when I looked into how Jurich hired Strong and people started vetting Jurich's record. As if we wouldn't hire him in about .00001 seconds.

Everyone should read this from SI last spring. As has been the point from my first post in this thread, the search firm business in college sports is crony capitalism at its finest. A business that overpromises and underdelivers. I hope Warde has taken note of the fact of the lack of minority representation in the search firm business. It's an extension of the old-boy network. Who'd a thunk it?

 

[Marty Jackson]

Screw it, you guys are right. Let's just send Neinas or Parker the $100K check right now so we can say it was done the right way. Just like two years ago, they don't need to do any verifiable work.

The best AD in the country hired a very good coach without a search firm four years ago (when UConn and UL were comparable football programs), then two years after that we got P after a long-gone idiot wrote a search firm a check because "that's what everyone does" and the University got nothing in return for that money (although I don't put it past JH to have collected a little kickba--... . . 'honorarium'). Yet most of you all are expecting a different result this time from the wizards of football smart.

If Warde was making $150K a year I could see this slavish reliance to consultants headhunters gypsies tramps and thieves. At almost $500K plus perks? Let Warde find his man on his own THEN hire somebody to give the preferred candidate the rectal vetting exam

yes jurich hired strong... great.
by your brilliant logic, my street is flat. therefore the world is flat.
your logic is weak, your position is stupid, and your obstinance is boring.

 

[ruskin]

This is a really strange fixation. As someone that has used retained search firms, contingency firms, and personal connections to hire people I will tell you that it is not a good use of an executive's time to call up strangers to see if they are interested in applying for a job. He would just look foolish.

When I know specifically who I want to hire and I have a connection to them I just hire them. When I have an idea of what I want but have no idea of what the interest level might be and I'm chasing people that are under contract I use retained search firms. If I'm just looking for a body I use contingency search firms.

There is all kinds of value provided by the search firm, in terms of negotiating terms, understanding motivations, assessing fit. You can have honest conversations that you can't have face to face with a candidate. If you haven't done this I can understand why you might feel this is foolish but it isn't.

The comparison to using a headhunter in the real business world is false. There's zillions of people floating out there with MBAs where it is entirely reasonable to hire a headhunter to find the right person for VP in charge of logistics or whatever because the talent pool is so vast. There's only 125 FBS head coaching jobs in the country, the talent pool is much, much smaller and it's very easy to identify candidates based on measurables that are very, very widely known. It's not like UConn's next coach is an assistant at Western Montana state.

 

[ruskin]

yes jurich hired strong... great.
by your brilliant logic, my street is flat. therefore the world is flat.
your logic is weak, your position is stupid, and your obstinance is boring.

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?

 

[huskymedic]

Screw it, you guys are right.

Finally - thank Christ!!!

 

[ruskin]

Your entire premise is based on things you make up, such as -these firms not needing to do any verifiable work

Not what I said. I said in the UConn 2011 case there is as yet no public record of what Neinas' company actually did for UConn. Sure there's a binder somewhere. As I said, wonder if P's name in it.

-the P debacle is somehow a search firm's fault

Again a misquote. fairly certain Hathaway/McHugh paid no heed to the binder they paid $50K for

equating search firms (however misnamed they may be) with certain disaster, because our last hire was bad

It doesn't help that we pissed away $50K less than 2 years ago when there's lots of coaches who have been hired without a search firm in the past few years (SI article) linked below

WM being forced to choose from a list of candidates only provided by the firm, when you have no evidence of this

O my god. Never said this. Said if he doesn't have this narrowed to 5-10 candidates by now he's not the right guy for the job. It's the vetting he needs to farm out

Medic and others have cited exactly the value that these types of firms bring, and you just dismiss it, because it doesn't fit your narrowminded view of the world. Consultants bad! Dismiss all evidence to the contrary! For your whole premise to be true, you have to believe that :
- you are smarter than nearly every AD in this situation
- every AD is dumb enough to willingly throwing away limited funds on firms of no value (as if they wouldn't rather spend that money elsewhere)

Apparently Sports Illustrated is stupid too to have come across all this glorious stuff about this business

 

[FfldCntyFan]

On UConn use of search firm in 2011: are we agreed UConn derived no benefit from spending the money to hire one in that case -- almost entirely through Hathaway's incompetence (and McHugh's meddling)?

On Strong hiring scenario at Louisville: He was hired almost four years ago (Dec. 9, 2009). Let's compare U of Ls position of strength then compared to UConn's now. Everything considered (bad conference, good facilities, decent TV market, ability to pay), do you think UConn is so weak now it can't hire its first-choice guy as Louisville did?

How can you use Jurich hiring Strong as support for something without also including Jurich hiring Kragthorpe?

 

[ruskin]

How can you use Jurich hiring Strong as support for something without also including Jurich hiring Kragthorpe?

Midway through this thread just for fun I googled if a search firm was involved in the Strong hire and came across Jurich's quote about not using them. It didn't occur to me I needed to provide Jurich's overall hiring record since I thought (mistakenly) people are savvy enough here to realize Jurich is pretty much the best in the business. People then began vetting Jurich like I hope Manuel's top choice for this football job is.

There's been a bit of a break in the shouting here. Hope folks are checking out the SI link provided

 

[FfldCntyFan]

If one epic fail and one resounding success over his last two hires makes him the best in the business,.... well,..............

 

[ruskin]

If one epic fail and one resounding success over his last two hires makes him the best in the business,.... well,..............

Don't forget Petrino and that small getting U of L into ACC thing

 

[huskymedic]

I hope Warde has taken note of the fact of the lack of minority representation in the search firm business. It's an extension of the old-boy network. Who'd a thunk it?

Say Goodnight Irene:

http://www.westwoodpartners.com/uploads/files/Ted_Gregory.pdf

"His passion and insight for sports has enabled him to successfully place candidates with Associations, Franchises, Universities, and Foundations for positions ranging from Board Members and C-Suite executives to Athletic Directors and Collegiate Coaches. "

You sure you aren't my mother-in-law?

P.S. - have read the SI article a while ago... Pretty balanced. Guess we just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[ruskin]

Not so fast, Irene . . . From SI

There is also a lack of minorities and women in the search-consulting industry, which does little to help the image of college athletics as an old-boy network. "People hire people like them," says Linda Bruno, the former commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference, who now operates a search firm. "I could see where the firms' role would be frustrating for [women and minorities]."