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

[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.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Guess we're going to have to disagree about what 'legit' means, and Warde is looking out for himself, which I have no problem with.

But where's Parker's accountability? Warde makes a good hire, he boosts his own stock, the value of his relationship with Parker goes up and Parker cashes in when Warde goes for his next job. Warde makes a bad hire, gets canned here, and Parker still ahead money-wise even after Warde's value goes down, because they got paid for 'helping' with this search.

One perspective. On the other hand, bet Warde wouldn't volunteer to take a $50-$100K pay cut.

Does anyone really believe that a fee of $50 - 100K is going to influence a search firm's handling of a future placement that may or may not involve WM? If WM proves to be a "Rock Star," at UCONN, he'll be known by every relevant search firm. The same will be true if he "bombs." My sense of things is that any job WM might covet will come from a job market characterized by everyone knowing everyone else. Search firms are paid for stealth.

Finally, search firms don't pick the winner. They work with a client to whittle things down to a manageable list of "finalist." Anything else would be political suicide. Once the client and consultant have agreed on pros and cons, the client is left with the final decision. Recently, some Corporations have augmented the process with separate, independent background/security checks.

$50 - 100K is not enough to influence the search/hiring of very senior people.

 

[Northbound]

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.

You need a some remedial reading comprehension classes chief. Where did I say that? I didn't, I said nobody hits 100% and they don't and it's unrealistic to expect it, please quote how many successful hires they've had and then we can have an honest dialogue, you're only showing the data that suits your argument, which is convenient. They help assess fit, they provide a data point, they don't make the final call, god is that so difficult to understand.

If the guy in charge is comfortable with hiring X for assisting in the process why are you bitching about it? Because YOU know better than him? Please you haven't a clue. How much experience do you have being recruited for or hiring a CEO, which is what Warde's hiring? It's not just a coach and anyone that thinks it differently is beyond naive, the guys is a CEO of a company that essentially reports to another company (think Football:University is to ESPN: Disney). Why do you want to have a guy start the process from ground zero when he doesn't have to is beyond me. He's got a relationship with them that pre-dates UCONN, so what?

 

[whaler11]

You need a some remedial reading comprehension classes chief. Where did I say that? I didn't, I said nobody hits 100% and they don't and it's unrealistic to expect it, please quote how many successful hires they've had and then we can have an honest dialogue, you're only showing the data that suits your argument, which is convenient. They help assess fit, they provide a data point, they don't make the final call, god is that so difficult to understand.

If the guy in charge is comfortable with hiring X for assisting in the process why are you bitching about it? Because YOU know better than him? Please you haven't a clue. How much experience do you have being recruited for or hiring a CEO, which is what Warde's hiring? It's not just a coach and anyone that thinks it differently is beyond naive, the guys is a CEO of a company that essentially reports to another company (think Football:University is to ESPN: Disney). Why do you want to have a guy start the process from ground zero when he doesn't have to is beyond me. He's got a relationship with them that pre-dates UCONN, so what?

Sorry I didn't realize that Warde Manuel is infallible and his motivation where there is an obvious conflict of interest can't be questioned.

I understand exactly what they claim to do. I don't think they provide value and the fact that you and Warde Manuel do doesn't change my opinion.

As far as retaining Paul Pasqualoni for the 2013 season I did know better than him. So I've got that datapoint going for me.

 

[ruskin]

The one defense for the search firm that is beginning to grate is the "it's only $5o-100K" defense.

It's thinking like that has driven the cost of college to what it is -- way, way out of whack. 50K here, 100K there and pretty soon it adds up to real money -- and anyone paying off a college loan, paying for someone's college now, or saving for college knows that very well. And at UConn, student activity fees cover a pretty big part of the athletic budget, enough to put UConn among the national leaders in that category.

It's the donors, ticket buyers -- and fee-paying students -- who are subsidizing this search. I don't have a problem with UConn's activity fee, but I think Warde has an extra-special responsibility to spend responsibly given how much students are underwriting his budget. Vet his top candidates, responsible. This other "opening doors, reaching out, keeping stuff below the radar" stuff, not so much.

Unless Bob Burton or somebody similar wants to pony up Parker's fee, maybe Warde ought to skip it this time -- or take a 10-20 percent pay cut this year to cover Parker's fee. (Given his strong relationship with Parker, it seems like he should have no problem making it back down the road).

This whole "we gotta use a search firm" thing is a very small symptom of a much, much larger problem in campus bureaucracies, especially big-time athletic bureaucracies. Spending money with little thought to where it's coming from. Some smart people figured out there was good coin to be made, and something that barely existed 15 years now has been sold to be indispensable. Gotta give that selling job credit, they've certainly swayed a lot of people here.

 

[ZooCougar]

I get the impression that Warde was in front of Ruskin and he took the last three pieces of bacon in the buffet line and Ruskin is still not over it.

 

[ruskin]

I get the impression that Warde was in front of Ruskin and he took the last three pieces of bacon in the buffet line and Ruskin is still not over it.

Nah, I like Warde. I don't think he needs a $50-$100K crutch

 

[J187Money]

Maybe he shouldn't even call anyone. Everyone knows we need to hire a coach. Everyone knows we will pay around $2M / year. Maybe he should just sit back and watch the resumes come in and then pick. Clearly the job sells itself.

Seriously - Ruskin and Whaler - do you think it is the best use of Warde's time to cold call agents, explaining his vision for the program over and over again to people that might not even be interested in talking to us?

It's funny. One of the things I always talk to firms about when I get calls from retained search firms is "What is the environment like there. Who else has he talked to. What's it like working for him." Those sorts of things. Other than the one time I went to go work for a guy I knew I've never not been able to vet my employer through the search firm. Maybe I'm crazy but is find it very odd if I had some unknown CEO call me up and ask me if I was interested in applying to work for him.

I know that everyone just hates that Warde makes more than like $200k a year but I just find this expectation that he should sit there and call people he doesn't know (a skill that very few people have btw) because he makes a lot of money very strange. I've never been on the phone with him. But he might be a disaster. Of course he wasn't hired to be a telemarketer.

I'd indulge one of you to lay out the mechanics of how you think this should work. Soup to nuts. Easy to say don't hire a firm, but it is a ton of work to do a search of this kind. How do you think it works? Who should do what?

 

[ZooCougar]

Warde should do a bad job, because doing a good job would be a conflict of interest because it could lead to him getting another job.

There.

 

[whaler11]

Maybe he shouldn't even call anyone. Everyone knows we need to hire a coach. Everyone knows we will pay around $2M / year. Maybe he should just sit back and watch the resumes come in and then pick. Clearly the job sells itself.

Seriously - Ruskin and Whaler - do you think it is the best use of Warde's time to cold call agents, explaining his vision for the program over and over again to people that might not even be interested in talking to us?

It's funny. One of the things I always talk to firms about when I get calls from retained search firms is "What is the environment like there. Who else has he talked to. What's it like working for him." Those sorts of things. Other than the one time I went to go work for a guy I knew I've never not been able to vet my employer through the search firm. Maybe I'm crazy but is find it very odd if I had some unknown CEO call me up and ask me if I was interested in applying to work for him.

I know that everyone just hates that Warde makes more than like $200k a year but I just find this expectation that he should sit there and call people he doesn't know (a skill that very few people have btw) because he makes a lot of money very strange. I've never been on the phone with him. But he might be a disaster. Of course he wasn't hired to be a telemarketer.

I'd indulge one of you to lay out the mechanics of how you think this should work. Soup to nuts. Easy to say don't hire a firm, but it is a ton of work to do a search of this kind. How do you think it works? Who should do what?

I don't know how one would become an athletic director at a major school without the ability to call someone and sell them. Since it's about the most important skill one would need to be successful in the job - I hope he has it.

We can stop. You and some others think the search firm adds value. I don't think they do. How did the sport ever exist without them?

 

[Husky25]

The one defense for the search firm that is beginning to grate is the "it's only $5o-100K" defense.

It's thinking like that has driven the cost of college to what it is -- way, way out of whack. 50K here, 100K there and pretty soon it adds up to real money -- and anyone paying off a college loan, paying for someone's college now, or saving for college knows that very well. And at UConn, student activity fees cover a pretty big part of the athletic budget, enough to put UConn among the national leaders in that category.

It's the donors, ticket buyers -- and fee-paying students -- who are subsidizing this search. I don't have a problem with UConn's activity fee, but I think Warde has an extra-special responsibility to spend responsibly given how much students are underwriting his budget. Vet his top candidates, responsible. This other "opening doors, reaching out, keeping stuff below the radar" stuff, not so much.

Unless Bob Burton or somebody similar wants to pony up Parker's fee, maybe Warde ought to skip it this time -- or take a 10-20 percent pay cut this year to cover Parker's fee. (Given his strong relationship with Parker, it seems like he should have no problem making it back down the road).

This whole "we gotta use a search firm" thing is a very small symptom of a much, much larger problem in campus bureaucracies, especially big-time athletic bureaucracies. Spending money with little thought to where it's coming from. Some smart people figured out there was good coin to be made, and something that barely existed 15 years now has been sold to be indispensable. Gotta give that selling job credit, they've certainly swayed a lot of people here.

I don't disagree with some of this. I do disagree with other parts. I think its a big assumption to think that Warde Manuel is unaware of the source of a portion of his dept.'s "revenue." So I will see your assumption and raise you...

What if part of the reason former "Coach" Pasqualoni was not fired in 2012 like everyone wanted was that the powers that be realized they would save $250k on the buyout if they waited. So the mandate from up on high was keep him for a year and gain resources with which to find a new coach, or fire Former "Coach" Pasqualoni and forego those resources Manuel felt were necessary.

As far as whether $50-100k is a lot of money, of course it is, but then you have ask yourself: Do you support UConn and the goals the institution as a whole is trying to acheive or are you okay with the percieved notion of being satisfied to be on the outside looking in? This question is not necessary confined to the athletic department either. What are your tboughts on the >$600k Tudor house the president just got from the UConn Foundation?

 

[whaler11]

Warde should do a bad job, because doing a good job would be a conflict of interest because it could lead to him getting another job.

There.

Works good for Parker. They helped Minnesota hire Tim Brewster and got paid three years later when he went belly up.

 

[ZooCougar]

Works good for Parker. They helped Minnesota hire Tim Brewster and got paid three years later when he went belly up.

Haha. False. You obviously didn't read that article closely enough. Brewster was not a Parker hire.

Smith was well-established, but Brewster had never even been a college coordinator. He went 15--30 before being fired in the middle of his fourth season. "Tim was not a good hire, but the search firm wasn't the problem," says Joel Maturi, the Golden Gophers' former athletic director. "[Tim] wasn't one of Parker's guys. It was my choice."

 

[ZooCougar]

I don't disagree with some of this. I do disagree with other parts. I think its a big assumption to think that Warde Manuel is unaware of the source of a portion of his dept.'s "revenue." So I will see your assumption and raise you...

What if part of the reason former "Coach" Pasqualoni was not fired in 2012 like everyone wanted was that the powers that be realized they would save $250k on the buyout if they waited. So the mandate from up on high was keep him for a year and gain resources with which to find a new coach, or fire Former "Coach" Pasqualoni and forego those resources Manuel felt were necessary.

As far as whether $50-100k is a lot of money, of course it is, but then you have ask yourself: Do you support UConn and the goals the institution as a whole are trying to acheive or are you okay with the percieved notion of being satisfied to be on the outside looking in? This question is not necessary confined to the athletic department either. What are your tboughts on the >$600k Tudor house the president just got from the UConn Foundation?

Waiting to fire P had nothing to do with saving money. That would have made it much easier to accept.

 

[Husky25]

Waiting to fire P had nothing to do with saving money. That would have made it much easier to accept.

I am aware of this. Ruskin made a leap. I made my intention quite clear that I was making a bigger leap.

 

[ruskin]

Haha. False. You obviously didn't read that article closely enough. Brewster was not a Parker hire.

And P was very likely not a Neinas/Alden 'hire' either. Not sure what's worse, following a firm's bad advice or hiring a firm and then ignoring what they 'provided'.

 

[ZooCougar]

And P was very likely not a Neinas/Alden 'hire' either. Not sure what's worse, following a firm's bad advice and hiring a firm and then ignoring what they 'provided'.

How has Warde done in previous football hires?

Did you get to Beijing yet?

 

[whaler11]

Haha. False. You obviously didn't read that article closely enough. Brewster was not a Parker hire.

Was Parker retained in the search that hired Brewster. Yes he was. And the awesome Tubby Smith hire too. Great ROI there for Minnesota.

But your snippet highlights there are 'Parker guys'. Hopefully the right guy for UConn is a 'Parker guy.

 

[ruskin]

Waiting to fire P had nothing to do with saving money. That would have made it much easier to accept.

As said many many many times that was worst $250K 'saved' ever. Lost ticket revenue, concessions, parking etc by retaining P will be well over $1 million when all is said and done

 

[ruskin]

How has Warde done in previous football hires?

Did you get to Beijing yet?

Cute again. A shovel joke.

He did well hiring Quinn. He did very very very very poorly in not convincing superiors last December not to retain P.

 

[ZooCougar]

Was Parker retained in the search that hired Brewster. Yes he was. And the awesome Tubby Smith hire too. Great ROI there for Minnesota.

But your snippet highlights there are 'Parker guys'. Hopefully the right guy for UConn is a 'Parker guy.

Again. Go actually read the article. Brewster wasn't one of the guys Parker proposed. The AD found him on his own outside of Parker's efforts.

Your argument is sloppy because you didn't bother to spend two minutes researching. Quit twisting, before we start calling you "Upstater II".