Warde's long, strong ties to Parker Exec. Search

[whaler11]

Would you agree that those type of coaches still need to exercise discretion and that is where a outside firm comes into play?

I have found that most head hunters/consulting firms are incestuous in nature...

If you are Texas and are interviewing head coaches from other major schools I guess that could be an argument - if you are UConn and interviewing MAC head coaches and P5 coordinators... It's not exactly a secret those coaches are looking to quadruple their salary.

The whole thing is overblown anyway. Reasonable people understand that people talk about job opportunities. Fans certainly forget - does anyone even remember Jim Calhoun and South Carolina?

Everyone at Ball State knows Lembo is going somewhere at some point - what are they going to do - fire him for interviewing with UConn? They would be thrilled to keep him another year.

 

[whaler11]

Okay thanks, I was just asking to understand the argument. At the end of the day, I just want UCONN to make a good hire. I don't have strong enough feelings one way or the other to fervently debate this topic and was curious what reasons there were to debate it.

Collegiate sports are very shady and secretive, as a whole. Conference realignment, coaching carousels, recruiting promises, empowered boosters, and governing entities that pick and choose who to punish (UCONN) and who to ignore (UNC). I've never really given it much thought before but it seems like these firms follow those same shady methods that all of the NCAA follows. I guess it's a larger sphere argument: keep up with the Jonses or take a stand?

Give me Pat Narduzzi, Dan Mullen or Pete Lembo on December 6 and I'll be a happy man regardless of how he got here.

This specific firm is in so deep with the NCAA it's actually humorous. Who do you think helps hire all the super effective NCAA executives?

 

[formerlurker]

OP is right. It's a total and complete scam.

Caught herself a whale.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Whaler is 100% correct.

You hire a search firm to find candidates. In this case, Warde could find all the candidates he wants in a day or two of surfing the web. There is no reason to pay this firm $100k.

 

[Colt house75]

Whaler is 100% correct.

You hire a search firm to find candidates. In this case, Warde could find all the candidates he wants in a day or two of surfing the web. There is no reason to pay this firm $100k.

Perhaps, just a thought.....but between agents and search firms...you are able to indirectly get to Mullen, Lembo etc and vet out so that when their respective regular season's end, by 11/30 (for Lembo)..direct conversations can begin and by 12/6 at THE LATEST, we have our new head coach, it is $$$ well spent. Recruiting starts earlier than expected, and we get a jump ....from a $$$$ perspective, it is monies well spent when you consider attendance at the RENT just shrunk from 40K plus to 27K plus at average ticket price spread over 7 home games is $2,000,000 and rising in lost gate revenue if you don't get the right guy...plus all the other negatives of not getting somebody in right away.

 

[J187Money]

Whaler is 100% correct.

You hire a search firm to find candidates. In this case, Warde could find all the candidates he wants in a day or two of surfing the web. There is no reason to pay this firm $100k.

That's only part of what a search firm does. In the case of major college football jobs, probably the least important part.

I marvel at all of the people here who think Warde is a dope, but at the same time he and his staff should be able to not only pick a coach but handle the pr/negotiations and close someone without any help. He is either a dope or he isn't. But he can't be both.

It seems like people want him to fail. It can't possibly be relevant to anyone here whether money is spent on a search firm or not.

 

[ZooCougar]

Part of this is also about coughing up a schilling. But it definitely simplifies issues like access. We're competing for a new coach, no selecting one.

If you think this is about actually searching for a coach and that Google is just as good then you are completely not getting this,

 

[Husky25]

Hey. Listings change all the time on Monster.com and careerbuilder. Slim pickings for Head College Football Coach though. Me thinks the money will be a worth while investment at the end of the day.

As has been said before, Mr. Manuel probably has a few names on his list and the search firm will probably recommend a few more in their database based on Mr. Manuel's criteria. The search firm will vet all of the candidates on the list. In the end, the final decision rests with the school, not the consultant.

 

[whaler11]

That's only part of what a search firm does. In the case of major college football jobs, probably the least important part.

I marvel at all of the people here who think Warde is a dope, but at the same time he and his staff should be able to not only pick a coach but handle the pr/negotiations and close someone without any help. He is either a dope or he isn't. But he can't be both.

It seems like people want him to fail. It can't possibly be relevant to anyone here whether money is spent on a search firm or not.

I fully understand why they do it. I don't really care if they do it. I commented earlier I was involved in the exact same type of transaction earlier this week.

I'm merely commenting on the fact at the end of the day the $100k+ spent benefits Warde and Parker and not the University. The outcomes are no better with Parker and let's not pretend that Warde isn't the biggest beneficiary of the expense.

If Warde isn't up to the challenge without a crutch like Parker maybe he's not the rock star he's been described as.

 

[ZooCougar]

Whaler is 100% correct.

You hire a search firm to find candidates. In this case, Warde could find all the candidates he wants in a day or two of surfing the web. There is no reason to pay this firm $100k.

That's actually not why you hire a search firm.

If Warde had the balls referenced in this thread... this thread would have happened last December.

True, and I would be willing to bet that he regrets not making that decision.

 

[J187Money]

I fully understand why they do it. I don't really care if they do it. I commented earlier I was involved in the exact same type of transaction earlier this week.

I'm merely commenting on the fact at the end of the day the $100k+ spent benefits Warde and Parker and not the University. The outcomes are no better with Parker and let's not pretend that Warde isn't the biggest beneficiary of the expense.

If Warde isn't up to the challenge without a crutch like Parker maybe he's not the rock star he's been described as.

Of course the outcomes aren't any better in terms of wins/losses with or without Parker. Parker doesn't make the decision and doesn't coach the team. But, for example, if you were able to get access to a Smart because Parker has a great relationship with Smart's agent, who might have not even returned a call from Warde himself, it is hard to say the school doesn't benefit. Smart could also come here and flame out even though he would cost a ton. That wouldn't be Parker's fault.

And I'm on record saying that this ABSOLUTELY benefits Warde. But that's fine with me. All I want is that Warde "gets to" EVERY person on his list and then makes a great decision. If paying Parker gets us better access, then great. I believe that it will.

 

[Husky25]

Of course the outcomes aren't any better in terms of wins/losses with or without Parker. Parker doesn't make the decision and doesn't coach the team. But, for example, if you were able to get access to a Smart because Parker has a great relationship with Smart's agent, who might have not even returned a call from Warde himself, it is hard to say the school doesn't benefit. Smart could also come here and flame out even though he would cost a ton. That wouldn't be Parker's fault.

And I'm on record saying that this ABSOLUTELY benefits Warde. But that's fine with me. All I want is that Warde "gets to" EVERY person on his list and then makes a great decision. If paying Parker gets us better access, then great. I believe that it will.

One other advantage of a search firm that is completely lost on people is that they are advocates for the position.

If Manuel calls Narduzzi (or his reps), for example, there is a chance that Narduzzi dismisses the opportunity out of hand and may not answer or call back, merely based on preconceived biases against the school/program/position. They've all been mentioned here before, smallish off campus stadium, Northeast program, non-"power" conference, constant complaints on some fan page, etc.

The "search" firm not only breaks through the receptionist barrier, but they also can sell the position (Stadium is expandable, passionate fan base, growing academia aiming for higher affiliations, salary, ridiculous level of state support from a state that is not bankrupt...like Michigan).

Edit: expanded = expandable.

 

[J187Money]

One other advantage of a search firm that is completely lost on people is that they are advocates for the position.

If Manuel calls Narduzzi (or his reps), for example, there is a chance that Narduzzi dismisses the opportunity out of hand and may not answer or call back, merely based on preconceived biases against the school/program/position. They've all been mentioned here before, smallish off campus stadium, Northeast program, non-"power" conference, constant complaints on some fan page, etc.

The "search" firm not only breaks through the receptionist barrier, but they also can sell the position (Stadium is expanded, passionate fan base, growing academia aiming for higher affiliations, salary, ridiculous level of state support from a state that is not bankrupt...like Michigan)

Exactly. They can do the "sales" job that people here crucified Warde for NOT doing when the ACC process was going on.

 

[Waquoit]

Exactly. They can do the "sales" job that people here crucified Warde for NOT doing when the ACC process was going on.

What are we paying Warde for again?

 

[huskymedic]

What are we paying Warde for again?

a. To utilize all available options and tools to position the athletic department for continued success?

b. Be better at his job than Jeff Hathaway?

c. A and B.

 

[whaler11]

a. To utilize all available options and tools to position the athletic department for continued success?

b. Be better at his job than Jeff Hathaway?

c. A and B.

Hopefully the criteria for football coach isn't:

A: throw money at your cronies to better position yourself in the future

B: be better than Paul Pasqualoni

 

[Northbound]

This is a serious question, are people really questioning what a search firm does and the reasons for retaining one? Has nobody on this site ever been recruited by or used a search firm? It's not necessarily the finding of most qualified candidates, it's the vetting of the list, sussing out interest of the the names on the list, checking the closet for skeletons, it's a way to negotiate without having ill will from the jump about salary, benefits, ancillary revenue streams, bonuses, etc. It gives the university an honest out when someone in the press asks have you talked to X early in the process and the answer is no publicly, but yes in reality because the search firm has made the initial overture and temperature check of a potential candidate. Even is the aforementioned wasn't true, which it is, the money is almost inconsequential because it's such a small amount relative to the budget. I have a feeling that those that are fretting about the money allocated to this would book a full fare first class airfare to Paris and then would be paralyzed on whether to give the dude that helps with your bags $1 or $2.

 

[huskymedic]

Hopefully the criteria for football coach isn't:

A: throw money at your cronies to better position yourself in the future

B: be better than Paul Pasqualoni

I can care less about A as long as we absolutely get B!

No different than using lobbyists... whatever provides the desired outcome.

 

[freescooter]

I can care less about A as long as we absolutely get B!

No different than using lobbyists... whatever provides the desired outcome.

Well, someone is setting the bar pretty low...you could pick someone at random off the street and have a better than 50-50 chance of getting B I think.

 

[huskymedic]

Well, someone is setting the bar pretty low...you could pick someone at random off the street and have a better than 50-50 chance of getting B I think.

Touché

 

[Husky25]

This is a serious question, are people really questioning what a search firm does and the reasons for retaining one? Has nobody on this site ever been recruited by or used a search firm? It's not necessarily the finding of most qualified candidates, it's the vetting of the list, sussing out interest of the the names on the list, checking the closet for skeletons, it's a way to negotiate without having ill will from the jump about salary, benefits, ancillary revenue streams, bonuses, etc. It gives the university an honest out when someone in the press asks have you talked to X early in the process and the answer is no publicly, but yes in reality because the search firm has made the initial overture and temperature check of a potential candidate. Even is the aforementioned wasn't true, which it is, the money is almost inconsequential because it's such a small amount relative to the budget. I have a feeling that those that are fretting about the money allocated to this would book a full fare first class airfare to Paris and then would be paralyzed on whether to give the dude that helps with your bags $1 or $2.

No I think many here know exactly what a search firm does. There are only a few who are questioning either 1) Mr. Manuel's use of one, or 2) his use of this particular firm.

 

[whaler11]

Well, someone is setting the bar pretty low...you could pick someone at random off the street and have a better than 50-50 chance of getting B I think.

That was my point.

 

[Northbound]

No I think many here know exactly what a search firm does. There are only a few who are questioning either 1) Mr. Manuel's use of one, or 2) his use of this particular firm.

Those might be some of the dumbest questions I've seen posted on this board in a very long time. I was a long time lurker before joining and only rarely participate in the conversation and I've seen some question that make me wonder what world people live in. This is one of those questions/threads.

1) You use any tool you have available if you think it will help you. I'd rather have him use all the tools in the available tool kit, there is no excuses at that point. Does that mean the hire is guaranteed to succeed, good god no, who the hell thinks that? The list of failures that I've seen listed here affiliated with Parker is comical. Who's got a 100% success rate with hires (If you do, I'd suggest that your hires have to fit into a pretty tightly confined box and that's always good for original thinking)? Sometimes things don't work out, regardless of all the due diligence, it happens, life is imperfect.

2) You work with people you know, respect, trust and have a rapport with that also have the skill set needed to get the job done. This allows you to forgo any of the beginning stage of a relationship where each party is sorting out working and communication style, culture, etc. so everyone can be candid and hit the ground running. As someone pointed out earlier do you want this guy to disavow all his previous relationships and not use those relationship to benefit the University because at some point those relationships might be beneficial to him personally? Do people really not understanding of the benefit of having relationships within your chosen field to help get things accomplished.

 

[whaler11]

Those might be some of the dumbest questions I've seen posted on this board in a very long time. I was a long time lurker before joining and only rarely participate in the conversation and I've seen some question that make me wonder what world people live in. This is one of those questions/threads.

1) You use any tool you have available if you think it will help you. I'd rather have him use all the tools in the available tool kit, there is no excuses at that point. Does that mean the hire is guaranteed to succeed, good god no, who the hell thinks that? The list of failures that I've seen listed here affiliated with Parker is comical. Who's got a 100% success rate with hires (If you do, I'd suggest that your hires have to fit into a pretty tightly confined box and that's always good for original thinking)? Sometimes things don't work out, regardless of all the due diligence, it happens, life is imperfect.

2) You work with people you know, respect, trust and have a rapport with that also have the skill set needed to get the job done. This allows you to forgo any of the beginning stage of a relationship where each party is sorting out working and communication style, culture, etc. so everyone can be candid and hit the ground running. As someone pointed out earlier do you want this guy to disavow all his previous relationships and not use those relationship to benefit the University because at some point those relationships might be beneficial to him personally? Do people really not understanding of the benefit of having relationships within your chosen field to help get things accomplished.

They aren't dumb questions. They are completely legitimate questions.

The idea that Parker's record of highly compensated busts shouldn't be part of the conversation is idiotic. If a coach is hired within their process - of course they bear some responsibility for the outcome. They help assess fit? Well Billy Gillespie got fired in two seasons - the stated reason being he was a bad fit.

It's like trying to judge Pasqualoni by only looking at his 10 wins and ignoring his 18 losses.

 

[Husky25]

Those might be some of the dumbest questions I've seen posted on this board in a very long time. I was a long time lurker before joining and only rarely participate in the conversation and I've seen some question that make me wonder what world people live in. This is one of those questions/threads.

1) You use any tool you have available if you think it will help you. I'd rather have him use all the tools in the available tool kit, there is no excuses at that point. Does that mean the hire is guaranteed to succeed, good god no, who the hell thinks that? The list of failures that I've seen listed here affiliated with Parker is comical. Who's got a 100% success rate with hires (If you do, I'd suggest that your hires have to fit into a pretty tightly confined box and that's always good for original thinking)? Sometimes things don't work out, regardless of all the due diligence, it happens, life is imperfect.

2) You work with people you know, respect, trust and have a rapport with that also have the skill set needed to get the job done. This allows you to forgo any of the beginning stage of a relationship where each party is sorting out working and communication style, culture, etc. so everyone can be candid and hit the ground running. As someone pointed out earlier do you want this guy to disavow all his previous relationships and not use those relationship to benefit the University because at some point those relationships might be beneficial to him personally? Do people really not understanding of the benefit of having relationships within your chosen field to help get things accomplished.

Be that as it may, those are the questions being asked by the skeptics. Do you think I am one? Maybe you should read my thoughts on the subject.