Heather Dinich singes the NCAA- BIG TIME

[monkey1371]

Well, then, **** my life. I love what Shalala has done for the University from an academic and brand standpoint, but in her 12 years here, she has hired:

Perry Clark
Larry Coker
Frank Haith
Randy Shannon
Al Golden
Jim Larranaga

I think the only reasonable conclusion from that list is that she needed to learn twice in each sport before going with what seems now like the correct selection.

Let's just say I hope she relies on someone else who "knows more about hiring Football and Basketball coaches."

As Stated Above.....

Was she supposed to go against the word of Paul Dee?......Lets look at his track record at that point.

1) Hired Butch Davis.......Pretty **** good decision.
2) When hired had a Men's Baskeball coach with a 34-80 record after his 4th season......Did he fire him or give him more time? How did that work out with Leonard Hamilton?
3) Hired Jim Morris who went on to Win 2 National Titles in then next 8 years.

So you guys want to play this REVISIONIST HISTORY with what Paul Dee's track record was at that point 2000?

In what imaginary world should any president or any school been in a position to challenge Paul Dee's recommendations at that time?

Obviously she should have known not to trust Paul Dee at that point in time......Like I said....the crap people post.

So in your world, a leader gets credit for good decisions, but pushes blame to others for bad decisions (on the heels of previous bad decisions)?

Drop the attitude. No one has answered you with commentary personally attacking you. It's neither welcomed or needed around here. Your ellipses don't exactly place you in the strongest of lights to begin with...........

No....My point is consistent.

I have no problem if you guys want to bash her for Hiring Hocutt or trusting Dee with the Randy and Haith Hires.......Legitimate gripes.

My problem is revisionist history regarding the Coker and Clark hires.....

Paul Dee was walking on water at the times of those decisions......For you guys to have expected her to go against him in those hires is completely disingenuous......

After the Clark Fiasco and Coker extension catastrophe......there was cause to look at his decision making more closely.

But blaming her for the Coker and Clark hiring ......Total BS and agenda driven not based in a reality.

 

[LuCane]

Well, then, **** my life. I love what Shalala has done for the University from an academic and brand standpoint, but in her 12 years here, she has hired:

Perry Clark
Larry Coker
Frank Haith
Randy Shannon
Al Golden
Jim Larranaga

I think the only reasonable conclusion from that list is that she needed to learn twice in each sport before going with what seems now like the correct selection.

Let's just say I hope she relies on someone else who "knows more about hiring Football and Basketball coaches."

As Stated Above.....

Was she supposed to go against the word of Paul Dee?......Lets look at his track record at that point.

1) Hired Butch Davis.......Pretty **** good decision.
2) When hired had a Men's Baskeball coach with a 34-80 record after his 4th season......Did he fire him or give him more time? How did that work out with Leonard Hamilton?
3) Hired Jim Morris who went on to Win 2 National Titles in then next 8 years.

So you guys want to play this REVISIONIST HISTORY with what Paul Dee's track record was at that point 2000?

In what imaginary world should any president or any school been in a position to challenge Paul Dee's recommendations at that time?

Obviously she should have known not to trust Paul Dee at that point in time......Like I said....the crap people post.

So in your world, a leader gets credit for good decisions, but pushes blame to others for bad decisions (on the heels of previous bad decisions)?

Drop the attitude. No one has answered you with commentary personally attacking you. It's neither welcomed or needed around here. Your ellipses don't exactly place you in the strongest of lights to begin with...........

No....My point is consistent.

I have no problem if you guys want to bash her for Hiring Hocutt or trusting Dee with the Randy and Haith Hires.......Legitimate gripes.

My problem is revisionist history regarding the Coker and Clark hires.....

Paul Dee was walking on water at the times of those decisions......For you guys to have expected her to go against him in those hires is completely disingenuous......

After the Clark Fiasco and Coker extension catastrophe......there was cause to look at his decision making more closely.

But blaming her for the Coker and Clark hiring ......Total BS and agenda driven not based in a reality.

For a response, read my post just prior to the one you just made.

 

[The Franchise]

She's clearly overseen some poor hires and some poor extensions. I think everyone can agree on that. I'm a big supporter of her work at my alma mater, and I can agree on that. If you can't agree with that, then you're just quibbling to quibble. It should also be equally clear that the AD should be the point man on decisions such as hiring a football HC.

As the unfortunate chicks who reach into the pants of many CIS posters aks, "Where's the beef?".

 

[CaneWasher]

You're welcome to send me a nickel every time you try to emulate me, but I have to caution you, you're not talented or knowledgeable enough to pull it off.

With all due respect, I have to tell you, you are drowning here. I know more than my share about being a prick. It's just a fact that you're wrong, and you are clearly demonstrating your ignorance on the topic of prickage here.

 

[drifters1234]

I agree with Ethnic here for the most part. Under that woman's watch there have been 3 huge mistakes, from a football perspective, that have really set this program back (even before the Shapiro fiasco)

Extending Coker
Hiring Shannon
Extending Shannon.

Two coaches who you can argue are among the worst to be handed the keys to a division 1 program anywhere in the country over the last 15 years. Two coaches who were never even considered for another major job, despite the fact their resume's read "U of M head coach". ****...one of those 2 is even rocking a National Championship title.

Conversely I'm fully aware that overall from the school's perspective she's done A LOT of good for the school. She excels in the political forum....so this is where I expect her to come through and make up for those mistakes by using her "power/connections" to make this NCAA investigation go away.

But let's please stop acting like she's played this beautifully. At the end of the day we're staring at an investigation that hasn't gone away and all indications are the NCAA is still going to try to rape us. If this is all part of that master plan and she's about to turn the turn on the NCAA...well....we're watching.

If that turns out to be the case I think most rational Cane fans will forgive her for those 3 aforementioned sins....at least I will. But at this point I'm still skeptical.

You are confusing the Athletic Director with the President of the university. Those three errors were AD errors, Shalala just gives the AD the signed check, the AD chooses who it goes to. The President of the university has more important things to do, as in run the university

LMAO. You are seriously claiming that DS didn't have a role in the hiring of Coker and Shannon (and Golden)? Wow.

Please cite the numerous examples of Presidents of Universities going against the recommendations of the AD in the hiring of a head Football and Basketball coaches?

According that quote....It must happen all the time.

The President of the University knows more about hiring Football and Basketball coaches that anybody else at a school.....


Amusing how Shalala was suppposed to disagree and challenge the recommendations of Paul Dee the AD since 1993 and oversaw the football team rebuild from severe sanctions to the most dominant team in the History of College Football.....

She was supposed to disregard his recommendations according to Ethnic.....The crap people post.:rollcanes:

I'll give you a prime example -- Urban Meyer's hiring from Utah to UF. As you may recall, Spurrier threw his hat into the ring, but was basically told to **** off w/ the demand the he "send in his resume." Appropriately, Spurrier told UF to pound sand: "My resume is your trophy case." For clarification, UF never won a single SEC title (outside of a year that was nullified because of probation) until Spurrier arrived. Thanks to him, UF had his own Hesiman, Danny Wuerfel's, 5 SEC titles, and a National Championship. The AD (his good friend Jeremey Foley) did not dismiss him from the interview process; Bernie Machen (the then-UF president) did, bc he wanted to bring in his buddy from Utah.

In short, don't think that the university president is a neutral bystander in hiring the head football coach at big-time football programs. and the primary reason is that fund raising - the most crticial portion of the president's job whether you want to admit it or not - is largely drawn from boosters who are motivated by the school's success on the gridiron.

 

[monkey1371]

Ethnic,

So what are ****ing about then.....She was involved. So what?

Yes or No....Should she have gone against the word of Paul Dee back in 2000 in hiring Coker and why?

I think most get your point, but I would have genuinely questioned the rationale in the same way I did back then. It was a shortsighted decision. If I'm CEO of a company whose brand is heavily affected by a particular specialty (here, athletics), I ensure the decision is made as thoroughly as possible instead of solely relying on my VP of _______ (as you've indicated she did with Paul Dee).

But, what I'm more upset about is that decision/mistake was followed up by the decision to promote Randy Shannon from within a failed culture. And, as far as we know, she played a significant role in giving Randy and his organized binder an opportunity. She's accountable for that mistake. I don't know how that can be argued.

The Randy decision was forced out of necessity.....due to previous bad and circumstantial financial decisions.

Remember when we hired Randy back in 2006 this was the situation....I believe the whole hiring process went like this:


FINANCIAL SITUATION
- Coker was year 2 into an extension paying him $2.5 million (one of the highest salaries at the time in College Football)
- The department had to pay a $2-$3 million dollar buyout to him
- They were also paying another $1.5 million in buyouts to Perry Clark
- And had just paid a $1 million exit penalty to the Big East
- Miami ACC Rev share...It just kicked in full in 2006. 2004 & 2005 they earned $6.2 million in 2006 they got a full share at $9 million

They hired a committee and did a half *** search.
- Rumors about approaching Spurrier and Stoops (you guys can add the others)
- They did offer Schiano a $2 million dollar deal that he turned down
- Leach showed up drunk at the interview(allegedly).
- The hire Shannon for what I believe was $900k

Shannon did not warrant anymore...that was pretty much in line with what 1st time HC get at their first jobs even at big universities.

For Example:
Bo Pelini was hired at $1.1 million at Nebraska 2 years later
Richt got $750K at UGA several years earlier
Stoops got $675k at OU
Tressell got around with bonuses $600k-$800k


Quite Simply:

They could take a chance with Shannon...It was a great feel good story across many different lines....and it saved them basically at least $1-1.5 million a year and gave the Athletic
Department chance to "catch up" from all the buyouts. Was a win/win at the time for them.

But hindsight showed that they were penny wise and dollar foolish in that decision.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Well, then, **** my life. I love what Shalala has done for the University from an academic and brand standpoint, but in her 12 years here, she has hired:

Perry Clark
Larry Coker
Frank Haith
Randy Shannon
Al Golden
Jim Larranaga

I think the only reasonable conclusion from that list is that she needed to learn twice in each sport before going with what seems now like the correct selection.

Let's just say I hope she relies on someone else who "knows more about hiring Football and Basketball coaches."

As Stated Above.....

Was she supposed to go against the word of Paul Dee?......Lets look at his track record at that point.

1) Hired Butch Davis.......Pretty **** good decision.
2) When hired had a Men's Baskeball coach with a 34-80 record after his 4th season......Did he fire him or give him more time? How did that work out with Leonard Hamilton?
3) Hired Jim Morris who went on to Win 2 National Titles in then next 8 years.

So you guys want to play this REVISIONIST HISTORY with what Paul Dee's track record was at that point 2000?

In what imaginary world should any president or any school been in a position to challenge Paul Dee's recommendations at that time?

Obviously she should have known not to trust Paul Dee at that point in time......Like I said....the crap people post.

So in your world, a leader gets credit for good decisions, but pushes blame to others for bad decisions (on the heels of previous bad decisions)?

Drop the attitude. No one has answered you with commentary personally attacking you. It's neither welcomed or needed around here. Your ellipses don't exactly place you in the strongest of lights to begin with...........

No....My point is consistent.

I have no problem if you guys want to bash her for Hiring Hocutt or trusting Dee with the Randy and Haith Hires.......Legitimate gripes.

My problem is revisionist history regarding the Coker and Clark hires.....

Paul Dee was walking on water at the times of those decisions......For you guys to have expected her to go against him in those hires is completely disingenuous......

After the Clark Fiasco and Coker extension catastrophe......there was cause to look at his decision making more closely.

But blaming her for the Coker and Clark hiring ......Total BS and agenda driven not based in a reality.

I don't agree Paul Dee was walking on water back then. He was a lawyer. He wasn't some legendary picker of corching talent.

And your statement about her 'going against him' is naive. That's not how management works. She is the CEO. She can interrogate the process and players, and either guide the decision elsewhere or own the outcome. You're trying to create a binary choice that never is how this stuff works in the real world.

And anyhow, it's enough that you're agreeing that the Shannon and Haith hires she gets tagged for. That's enough for us to agree on.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Ethnic,

So what are ****ing about then.....She was involved. So what?

Yes or No....Should she have gone against the word of Paul Dee back in 2000 in hiring Coker and why?

I think most get your point, but I would have genuinely questioned the rationale in the same way I did back then. It was a shortsighted decision. If I'm CEO of a company whose brand is heavily affected by a particular specialty (here, athletics), I ensure the decision is made as thoroughly as possible instead of solely relying on my VP of _______ (as you've indicated she did with Paul Dee).

But, what I'm more upset about is that decision/mistake was followed up by the decision to promote Randy Shannon from within a failed culture. And, as far as we know, she played a significant role in giving Randy and his organized binder an opportunity. She's accountable for that mistake. I don't know how that can be argued.

The Randy decision was forced out of necessity.....due to previous bad and circumstantial financial decisions.

Remember when we hired Randy back in 2006 this was the situation....I believe the whole hiring process went like this:


FINANCIAL SITUATION
- Coker was year 2 into an extension paying him $2.5 million (one of the highest salaries at the time in College Football)
- The department had to pay a $2-$3 million dollar buyout to him
- They were also paying another $1.5 million in buyouts to Perry Clark
- And had just paid a $1 million exit penalty to the Big East
- Miami ACC Rev share...It just kicked in full in 2006. 2004 & 2005 they earned $6.2 million in 2006 they got a full share at $9 million

They hired a committee and did a half *** search.
- Rumors about approaching Spurrier and Stoops (you guys can add the others)
- They did offer Schiano a $2 million dollar deal that he turned down
- Leach showed up drunk at the interview(allegedly).
- The hire Shannon for what I believe was $900k

Shannon did not warrant anymore...that was pretty much in line with what 1st time HC get at their first jobs even at big universities.

For Example:
Bo Pelini was hired at $1.1 million at Nebraska 2 years later
Richt got $750K at UGA several years earlier
Stoops got $675k at OU
Tressell got around with bonuses $600k-$800k


Quite Simply:

They could take a chance with Shannon...It was a great feel good story across many different lines....and it saved them basically at least $1-1.5 million a year and gave the Athletic
Department chance to "catch up" from all the buyouts. Was a win/win at the time for them.

But hindsight showed that they were penny wise and dollar foolish in that decision.

Money was an excuse with Randy. As you note, there was no real search. They zeroed in on him, for their own reasons. Bad call. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Dan E. Dangerously]

NJ isn't as creative with his names as he used to be.

 

[monkey1371]

I'll give you a prime example -- Urban Meyer's hiring from Utah to UF. As you may recall, Spurrier threw his hat into the ring, but was basically told to **** off w/ the demand the he "send in his resume." Appropriately, Spurrier told UF to pound sand: "My resume is your trophy case." For clarification, UF never won a single SEC title (outside of a year that was nullified because of probation) until Spurrier arrived. Thanks to him, UF had his own Hesiman, Danny Wuerfel's, 5 SEC titles, and a National Championship. The AD (his good friend Jeremey Foley) did not dismiss him from the interview process; Bernie Machen (the then-UF president) did, bc he wanted to bring in his buddy from Utah.

In short, don't think that the university president is a neutral bystander in hiring the head football coach at big-time football programs. and the primary reason is that fund raising - the most crticial portion of the president's job whether you want to admit it or not - is largely drawn from boosters who are motivated by the school's success on the gridiron.

Good example....For devils advocate purposes I would argue that the UF situation is slightly different in that they have to beat coaches away with a stick while we have coaches tuning us down left an right. We get guys from Rutgers telling us they are not interested while UF gets coaches over Notre Dame.

For the part in bold.....Donna has proved exceptional in fundraising even with a poor football team. She has raised what now....over $1.5 Billion for a small private organization. And I would challenge that according to the BOT the academic rankings are much more important than the football teams performance.

Quite simple in pretty much all the other areas which are higher up on her responsibilities she had excelled at this school.....Athletics have not excelled on the field. But getting out of the Big East to the ACC was a good thing long term, getting the bank united center built was a great thing (not saying she deserves all the credit for those).....but there have been good things as well.

Unfortunately on the field the teams have suffered......a quite honestly the whole ACC has....Remember how great of a basketball conference it was...how great GT, Wake, UVA were....Clemson was always a NCAA tourney team every few years, BC made a lot of sweet 16s......Now all have gone to crap.

 

[monkey1371]

I don't agree Paul Dee was walking on water back then. He was a lawyer. He wasn't some legendary picker of corching talent.

And your statement about her 'going against him' is naive. That's not how management works. She is the CEO. She can interrogate the process and players, and either guide the decision elsewhere or own the outcome. You're trying to create a binary choice that never is how this stuff works in the real world.

And anyhow, it's enough that you're agreeing that the Shannon and Haith hires she gets tagged for. That's enough for us to agree on.

Ethnic,

Do you agree with the following....When walking into a new situation as a manager.....If that situation is currently successful, you don't do anything to rock the boat immediately? Until you get your "sea legs" you keep the status quo. Isn't that how it usually works in the real world?

 

[drifters1234]

I'll give you a prime example -- Urban Meyer's hiring from Utah to UF. As you may recall, Spurrier threw his hat into the ring, but was basically told to **** off w/ the demand the he "send in his resume." Appropriately, Spurrier told UF to pound sand: "My resume is your trophy case." For clarification, UF never won a single SEC title (outside of a year that was nullified because of probation) until Spurrier arrived. Thanks to him, UF had his own Hesiman, Danny Wuerfel's, 5 SEC titles, and a National Championship. The AD (his good friend Jeremey Foley) did not dismiss him from the interview process; Bernie Machen (the then-UF president) did, bc he wanted to bring in his buddy from Utah.

In short, don't think that the university president is a neutral bystander in hiring the head football coach at big-time football programs. and the primary reason is that fund raising - the most crticial portion of the president's job whether you want to admit it or not - is largely drawn from boosters who are motivated by the school's success on the gridiron.

Good example....For devils advocate purposes I would argue that the UF situation is slightly different in that they have to beat coaches away with a stick while we have coaches tuning us down left an right. We get guys from Rutgers telling us they are not interested while UF gets coaches over Notre Dame.

For the part in bold.....Donna has proved exceptional in fundraising even with a poor football team. She has raised what now....over $1.5 Billion for a small private organization. And I would challenge that according to the BOT the academic rankings are much more important than the football teams performance.

Quite simple in pretty much all the other areas which are higher up on her responsibilities she had excelled at this school.....Athletics have not excelled on the field. But getting out of the Big East to the ACC was a good thing long term, getting the bank united center built was a great thing (not saying she deserves all the credit for those).....but there have been good things as well.

Unfortunately on the field the teams have suffered......a quite honestly the whole ACC has....Remember how great of a basketball conference it was...how great GT, Wake, UVA were....Clemson was always a NCAA tourney team every few years, BC made a lot of sweet 16s......Now all have gone to crap.

I am not challenging Shalala's success in a variety of areas - fundraising and otherwise - concerning the university. I am disagreeing with your assertion that university president's at big time college football programs are not heavily involved with the hiring process for head coaches. All of these individuals, both the presidents and ADs, are highly political and savvy. They don't air disagreements in public; they come to an agreement in private and then attempt to interview and hire their targets.

UF's hiring was an anomaly in terms of the public knowing that the president unilaterally made the decision, given his prior relationship with Meyer and Spurrier's stellar and proven record at UF. in other words, it clearly was Machen driving the train there, bc Foley would have never been so dismissive of Spurrier if he were making the call. But that does not mean there are not disputes between presidents and ADs, and ultimately, the president's decision will carry the day.

 

[Ethnicsands]

I don't agree Paul Dee was walking on water back then. He was a lawyer. He wasn't some legendary picker of corching talent.

And your statement about her 'going against him' is naive. That's not how management works. She is the CEO. She can interrogate the process and players, and either guide the decision elsewhere or own the outcome. You're trying to create a binary choice that never is how this stuff works in the real world.

And anyhow, it's enough that you're agreeing that the Shannon and Haith hires she gets tagged for. That's enough for us to agree on.

Ethnic,

Do you agree with the following....When walking into a new situation as a manager.....If that situation is currently successful, you don't do anything to rock the boat immediately? Until you get your "sea legs" you keep the status quo. Isn't that how it usually works in the real world?

Honestly, that sort of ridiculous generational is pointless and ignorant. When a new manager confronts a major hiring decision with long-term implications for them, they get involved, whether it's their first day on the job or not. If they don't, they're not right for the job.

And there is no 'not rocking the boat' when you must make a hiring decision. You just have to get it right. It's not 'rocking the boat' to get to the right answer in a decision process. So nothing about your question makes sense. In the real world I mean. I'm sure it makes sense on a message board.

 

[drifters1234]

I don't agree Paul Dee was walking on water back then. He was a lawyer. He wasn't some legendary picker of corching talent.

And your statement about her 'going against him' is naive. That's not how management works. She is the CEO. She can interrogate the process and players, and either guide the decision elsewhere or own the outcome. You're trying to create a binary choice that never is how this stuff works in the real world.

And anyhow, it's enough that you're agreeing that the Shannon and Haith hires she gets tagged for. That's enough for us to agree on.

Ethnic,

Do you agree with the following....When walking into a new situation as a manager.....If that situation is currently successful, you don't do anything to rock the boat immediately? Until you get your "sea legs" you keep the status quo. Isn't that how it usually works in the real world?

Honestly, that sort of ridiculous generational is pointless and ignorant. When a new manager confronts a major hiring decision with long-term implications for them, they get involved, whether it's their first day on the job or not. If they don't, they're not right for the job.

And there is no 'not rocking the boat' when you must make a hiring decision. You just have to get it right. It's not 'rocking the boat' to get to the right answer in a decision process. So nothing about your question makes sense. In the real world I mean. I'm sure it makes sense on a message board.

and to follow on this point, it's ridiculous to equate the university president to a "manager." and the head football coach is the highest paid person on the university payroll. she would be incompetent if she had simply deferred to the AD's recommendation without fully analyzing the implications of that hire.

 

[monkey1371]

I'll give you a prime example -- Urban Meyer's hiring from Utah to UF. As you may recall, Spurrier threw his hat into the ring, but was basically told to **** off w/ the demand the he "send in his resume." Appropriately, Spurrier told UF to pound sand: "My resume is your trophy case." For clarification, UF never won a single SEC title (outside of a year that was nullified because of probation) until Spurrier arrived. Thanks to him, UF had his own Hesiman, Danny Wuerfel's, 5 SEC titles, and a National Championship. The AD (his good friend Jeremey Foley) did not dismiss him from the interview process; Bernie Machen (the then-UF president) did, bc he wanted to bring in his buddy from Utah.

In short, don't think that the university president is a neutral bystander in hiring the head football coach at big-time football programs. and the primary reason is that fund raising - the most crticial portion of the president's job whether you want to admit it or not - is largely drawn from boosters who are motivated by the school's success on the gridiron.

Good example....For devils advocate purposes I would argue that the UF situation is slightly different in that they have to beat coaches away with a stick while we have coaches tuning us down left an right. We get guys from Rutgers telling us they are not interested while UF gets coaches over Notre Dame.

For the part in bold.....Donna has proved exceptional in fundraising even with a poor football team. She has raised what now....over $1.5 Billion for a small private organization. And I would challenge that according to the BOT the academic rankings are much more important than the football teams performance.

Quite simple in pretty much all the other areas which are higher up on her responsibilities she had excelled at this school.....Athletics have not excelled on the field. But getting out of the Big East to the ACC was a good thing long term, getting the bank united center built was a great thing (not saying she deserves all the credit for those).....but there have been good things as well.

Unfortunately on the field the teams have suffered......a quite honestly the whole ACC has....Remember how great of a basketball conference it was...how great GT, Wake, UVA were....Clemson was always a NCAA tourney team every few years, BC made a lot of sweet 16s......Now all have gone to crap.

I am not challenging Shalala's success in a variety of areas - fundraising and otherwise - concerning the university. I am disagreeing with your assertion that university president's at big time college football programs are not heavily involved with the hiring process for head coaches. All of these individuals, both the presidents and ADs, are highly political and savvy. They don't air disagreements in public; they come to an agreement in private and then attempt to interview and hire their targets.

UF's hiring was an anomaly in terms of the public knowing that the president unilaterally made the decision, given his prior relationship with Meyer and Spurrier's stellar and proven record at UF. in other words, it clearly was Machen driving the train there, bc Foley would have never been so dismissive of Spurrier if he were making the call. But that does not mean there are not disputes between presidents and ADs, and ultimately, the president's decision will carry the day.

I think when you look at Donna.....In the other areas of her responsibilities she feels more confident/comfortable in her knowledge and takes a more hands/alpha role in dealing with them.

With Athletics, she does not have that same level of confidence/comfort........She is more passive when it comes to those decisions and relies more on the people she has in charge of those areas. She quickly falls back in to quick comfortable dealings when situations arise(IE: Constantly reaching out for help/advice from Wisconsin folks 13 years later).

We as fans want that old, white haired, alpha dog guy that has been going to football games for 50+ years and shares our same passion for it, who treats it as a pet project above all else.....but she is not cut that way.

So I truly believe that she does not treat hiring the football coach the same way that the president of Bama, UF , Mich or OSU would.....For that reason I get why that rubs people the wrong way on these boards.

 

[SmokeyRone]

Bottom line, Canes athletics fans have suffered a decade of horrors previously unkown to civilized man directly due to Shalala.

If she can get us out of the mess that occured under her watch and under her derection, I will be pleased with her, for that.

Just one example, (I know the radical left here will foam at the mouth, but they will anyway.)

She hired Shannon for political purposes, promulgated a FAKE coaching search, a couple FAKE interviews (Leach being drunk=Shalala lie, Dee admitted that Leach turned down the job when told Shannon had to be his DC, and had full co-authority with him. Leach RAN away, as would anyone with a brain.

 

[The Franchise]

I don't agree Paul Dee was walking on water back then. He was a lawyer. He wasn't some legendary picker of corching talent.

And your statement about her 'going against him' is naive. That's not how management works. She is the CEO. She can interrogate the process and players, and either guide the decision elsewhere or own the outcome. You're trying to create a binary choice that never is how this stuff works in the real world.

And anyhow, it's enough that you're agreeing that the Shannon and Haith hires she gets tagged for. That's enough for us to agree on.

Ethnic,

Do you agree with the following....When walking into a new situation as a manager.....If that situation is currently successful, you don't do anything to rock the boat immediately? Until you get your "sea legs" you keep the status quo. Isn't that how it usually works in the real world?

Honestly, that sort of ridiculous generational is pointless and ignorant. When a new manager confronts a major hiring decision with long-term implications for them, they get involved, whether it's their first day on the job or not. If they don't, they're not right for the job.

And there is no 'not rocking the boat' when you must make a hiring decision. You just have to get it right. It's not 'rocking the boat' to get to the right answer in a decision process. So nothing about your question makes sense. In the real world I mean. I'm sure it makes sense on a message board.

Let's not forget how the hire went down in 2001 either. Barry Alvarez was the #1 candidate and top choice to replace Freckles after Wannstache turned the job down. You'd have to put two and two together and realize that Shalala was integral in Alvarez being the top candidate despite Shalala not even being officially in place yet. Alvarez was responsible for taking Wisconsin, under Shalala's watch, from the bottom of the barrel to a very good program.

 

[The Franchise]

I'll give you a prime example -- Urban Meyer's hiring from Utah to UF. As you may recall, Spurrier threw his hat into the ring, but was basically told to **** off w/ the demand the he "send in his resume." Appropriately, Spurrier told UF to pound sand: "My resume is your trophy case." For clarification, UF never won a single SEC title (outside of a year that was nullified because of probation) until Spurrier arrived. Thanks to him, UF had his own Hesiman, Danny Wuerfel's, 5 SEC titles, and a National Championship. The AD (his good friend Jeremey Foley) did not dismiss him from the interview process; Bernie Machen (the then-UF president) did, bc he wanted to bring in his buddy from Utah.

In short, don't think that the university president is a neutral bystander in hiring the head football coach at big-time football programs. and the primary reason is that fund raising - the most crticial portion of the president's job whether you want to admit it or not - is largely drawn from boosters who are motivated by the school's success on the gridiron.

Good example....For devils advocate purposes I would argue that the UF situation is slightly different in that they have to beat coaches away with a stick while we have coaches tuning us down left an right. We get guys from Rutgers telling us they are not interested while UF gets coaches over Notre Dame.

For the part in bold.....Donna has proved exceptional in fundraising even with a poor football team. She has raised what now....over $1.5 Billion for a small private organization. And I would challenge that according to the BOT the academic rankings are much more important than the football teams performance.

Quite simple in pretty much all the other areas which are higher up on her responsibilities she had excelled at this school.....Athletics have not excelled on the field. But getting out of the Big East to the ACC was a good thing long term, getting the bank united center built was a great thing (not saying she deserves all the credit for those).....but there have been good things as well.

Unfortunately on the field the teams have suffered......a quite honestly the whole ACC has....Remember how great of a basketball conference it was...how great GT, Wake, UVA were....Clemson was always a NCAA tourney team every few years, BC made a lot of sweet 16s......Now all have gone to crap.

I am not challenging Shalala's success in a variety of areas - fundraising and otherwise - concerning the university. I am disagreeing with your assertion that university president's at big time college football programs are not heavily involved with the hiring process for head coaches. All of these individuals, both the presidents and ADs, are highly political and savvy. They don't air disagreements in public; they come to an agreement in private and then attempt to interview and hire their targets.

UF's hiring was an anomaly in terms of the public knowing that the president unilaterally made the decision, given his prior relationship with Meyer and Spurrier's stellar and proven record at UF. in other words, it clearly was Machen driving the train there, bc Foley would have never been so dismissive of Spurrier if he were making the call. But that does not mean there are not disputes between presidents and ADs, and ultimately, the president's decision will carry the day.

I think when you look at Donna.....In the other areas of her responsibilities she feels more confident/comfortable in her knowledge and takes a more hands/alpha role in dealing with them.

With Athletics, she does not have that same level of confidence/comfort........She is more passive when it comes to those decisions and relies more on the people she has in charge of those areas. She quickly falls back in to quick comfortable dealings when situations arise(IE: Constantly reaching out for help/advice from Wisconsin folks 13 years later).

We as fans want that old, white haired, alpha dog guy that has been going to football games for 50+ years and shares our same passion for it, who treats it as a pet project above all else.....but she is not cut that way.

So I truly believe that she does not treat hiring the football coach the same way that the president of Bama, UF , Mich or OSU would.....For that reason I get why that rubs people the wrong way on these boards.

Monk, President Shalala probably knows 100x more about football than that geek ****** Gordon Gee at Ohio Taint.

 

[stat1124]

Another thread successfully derailed!

 

[monkey1371]

I'll give you a prime example -- Urban Meyer's hiring from Utah to UF. As you may recall, Spurrier threw his hat into the ring, but was basically told to **** off w/ the demand the he "send in his resume." Appropriately, Spurrier told UF to pound sand: "My resume is your trophy case." For clarification, UF never won a single SEC title (outside of a year that was nullified because of probation) until Spurrier arrived. Thanks to him, UF had his own Hesiman, Danny Wuerfel's, 5 SEC titles, and a National Championship. The AD (his good friend Jeremey Foley) did not dismiss him from the interview process; Bernie Machen (the then-UF president) did, bc he wanted to bring in his buddy from Utah.

In short, don't think that the university president is a neutral bystander in hiring the head football coach at big-time football programs. and the primary reason is that fund raising - the most crticial portion of the president's job whether you want to admit it or not - is largely drawn from boosters who are motivated by the school's success on the gridiron.

Good example....For devils advocate purposes I would argue that the UF situation is slightly different in that they have to beat coaches away with a stick while we have coaches tuning us down left an right. We get guys from Rutgers telling us they are not interested while UF gets coaches over Notre Dame.

For the part in bold.....Donna has proved exceptional in fundraising even with a poor football team. She has raised what now....over $1.5 Billion for a small private organization. And I would challenge that according to the BOT the academic rankings are much more important than the football teams performance.

Quite simple in pretty much all the other areas which are higher up on her responsibilities she had excelled at this school.....Athletics have not excelled on the field. But getting out of the Big East to the ACC was a good thing long term, getting the bank united center built was a great thing (not saying she deserves all the credit for those).....but there have been good things as well.

Unfortunately on the field the teams have suffered......a quite honestly the whole ACC has....Remember how great of a basketball conference it was...how great GT, Wake, UVA were....Clemson was always a NCAA tourney team every few years, BC made a lot of sweet 16s......Now all have gone to crap.

I am not challenging Shalala's success in a variety of areas - fundraising and otherwise - concerning the university. I am disagreeing with your assertion that university president's at big time college football programs are not heavily involved with the hiring process for head coaches. All of these individuals, both the presidents and ADs, are highly political and savvy. They don't air disagreements in public; they come to an agreement in private and then attempt to interview and hire their targets.

UF's hiring was an anomaly in terms of the public knowing that the president unilaterally made the decision, given his prior relationship with Meyer and Spurrier's stellar and proven record at UF. in other words, it clearly was Machen driving the train there, bc Foley would have never been so dismissive of Spurrier if he were making the call. But that does not mean there are not disputes between presidents and ADs, and ultimately, the president's decision will carry the day.

I think when you look at Donna.....In the other areas of her responsibilities she feels more confident/comfortable in her knowledge and takes a more hands/alpha role in dealing with them.

With Athletics, she does not have that same level of confidence/comfort........She is more passive when it comes to those decisions and relies more on the people she has in charge of those areas. She quickly falls back in to quick comfortable dealings when situations arise(IE: Constantly reaching out for help/advice from Wisconsin folks 13 years later).

We as fans want that old, white haired, alpha dog guy that has been going to football games for 50+ years and shares our same passion for it, who treats it as a pet project above all else.....but she is not cut that way.

So I truly believe that she does not treat hiring the football coach the same way that the president of Bama, UF , Mich or OSU would.....For that reason I get why that rubs people the wrong way on these boards.

Monk, President Shalala probably knows 100x more about football than that geek ****** Gordon Gee at Ohio Taint.

Chise,

Ok, so I am wrong in my assumption on her "Alpha Dog" status when it comes to Athletics.....

So I ask the following:

Should there be a distinction between a "Bad Hire" and a "Bad Decision"?

Getting the right guy is does have a huge "crap shoot" element to it.....

Rich Rod was a no-brainer to Michigan, Dan Hawkins was the original Boise St Wonderboy...

But

Urban Meyer and Brian Kelly were as good as expected.....

Texas, OU, USC, Bama with all their resources, football is god culture......made numerous bad hires.....

So when it comes to our hires....

Randy seemed like a "Bad Decision" based upon the factors stated above.....

But was Perry Clark a "Bad Decision" at the time with his success at Tulane or was he just a "Hire" that did not work out? Was Coker a bad decision or just a bad hire?