The Illinois AD Search

TomB · Feb 11, 2016

God, I'm glad I'm not on that committee. It's a no win.

If you hire someone quickly, you didn't explore all the options.

If you take your time and explore your options, people say "You could have hired that person months ago." Which is a BS statement if Ive ever seen one. You don't truly know who the candidates are or who the best one is until you see who is interested and interview them.

The worst thing is there are candidates that people in the media or on message boards are talking like they are the miracle cure or something. If you don't get one of them, you've failed. Also BS. Not only do you have to select someone competent, but you have to find someone with a vision. More specifically, that vision has to be achievable and compatible with the vision the administration has for the University as a whole and that is applicable to Illinois.

So, say the committee likes George/Tiley but they aren't interested. Or their vision is to increase attendance by doing something the University doesn't want to or isn't allowed to do...maybe sell beer at football games or something. (As I recalled, the legislature had to take action for the Bears to be able to do so when they were playing here.) Then you have to move on. But you can't publicly say why you didn't choose the message board darling, so everyone thinks you screwed up.

Now, having moved on, say you aren't thrilled with the rest of the candidates. Do you hire someone because people on a message board are whining about how long it takes? Or do you go back to the drawing board and see if you can find some better candidates?

In other words, no matter what these people do, people on message boards will call them inept, incompetent, post pictures of dumpster fires etc. despite having no actual clue what's going on or why.

Step back a bit and realize that a lot of the posts on this forum are disparaging people who are trying to do the best job they can and that criticism based on speculation and media reports of questionable accuracy.

And then give a moment of thanks that YOU aren't the one under the microscope.

TheBucket · Feb 11, 2016

Over / Under - March 4th for an official decision and announcement

Ransom Stoddard · Feb 11, 2016

TomB said:
God, I'm glad I'm not on that committee. It's a no win.
....

Excellent post.

CoalCity · Feb 11, 2016

BZuppke said:
Way too funny! Good job! I actually think Wilson is doing a good job and should be (likely will be) the permanent Chancellor. As far as the endpoint getting moved out a few times, it happens in everything in life for various circumstances. Wilson and the committee will ultimately be judged based on the result, whether it comes tomorrow or February 29 or March 15 for that matter. Hire the right person!

AMEN! Groce is most likely getting a pass for this year anyway, so what does it matter if the AD is hired after the end of the BB season? It would appear from the time being taken that there's a good chance Tiley is still in play and there are details being hammered out. That's fine.

Whitman being the first alternate behind Tiley shouldn't cause a lot of heartburn either. While he may lack P5 experience it appears that he has wildly succeeded at every career stop. Weren't we all inexperienced at a particular job once? As someone said earlier, we could do a lot worse than a young, brilliant, charismatic native son with a knowledge of P5 athletics and a love for Illini Nation.

The angst is totally justified because we all want this process to be a success so we can start talking bowl games and seedings again instead of being embarrassed by the shabby front porch, but maybe we should all take a few deep breaths...

:chief:

SummerofGeorge · Feb 11, 2016

AutoPoster 3000 said:
University of Illinois Front Porch 2005-2015

Serenity now!

Summer of George likes this

UIUC1867 · Feb 11, 2016

You know what? Let's just remove the interim label and give Paul Kowalczyk a two-year contract as the AD.

I'm half-joking of course, but you shouldn't rule it out of the realm of possibilities at this point. :crazy:

DaChief4ever · Feb 11, 2016

JoseyWales83 said:
Stevie Jay
‏@StevieJayFM
Chancellor Barbara Wilson just said they hope to announce a new AD by the end of the month...she said don't listen to media. Inaccuracies !

Which month? Guess we got it narrowed down to November or December?

ILLmatic04 · Feb 11, 2016

TomB said:
Step back a bit and realize that a lot of the posts on this forum are disparaging people who are trying to do the best job they can and that criticism based on speculation and media reports of questionable accuracy.

And then give a moment of thanks that YOU aren't the one under the microscope.

If I'm understanding TomB correctly, he's suggesting that we give those leading the search the benefit of the doubt. My thing is this - has anything transpired since August that would suggest they should be given the benefit of the doubt? I'm not talking about the committee - it should be clear at this point that they will have no actual impact on the outcome of the search. Second and Chalmers detailed this better than I could a while back, but just go through the timeline and the things that were said by Barb and Tim since Thomas was let go. Nothing they have done or said should suggest to anyone that they have earned the benefit of the doubt. I wish it were otherwise.

AutoPoster 3000 · Feb 11, 2016

TomB said:
God, I'm glad I'm not on that committee. It's a no win.

If you hire someone quickly, you didn't explore all the options.

If you take your time and explore your options, people say "You could have hired that person months ago." Which is a BS statement if Ive ever seen one. You don't truly know who the candidates are or who the best one is until you see who is interested and interview them.

The worst thing is there are candidates that people in the media or on message boards are talking like they are the miracle cure or something. If you don't get one of them, you've failed. Also BS. Not only do you have to select someone competent, but you have to find someone with a vision. More specifically, that vision has to be achievable and compatible with the vision the administration has for the University as a whole and that is applicable to Illinois.

So, say the committee likes George/Tiley but they aren't interested. Or their vision is to increase attendance by doing something the University doesn't want to or isn't allowed to do...maybe sell beer at football games or something. (As I recalled, the legislature had to take action for the Bears to be able to do so when they were playing here.) Then you have to move on. But you can't publicly say why you didn't choose the message board darling, so everyone thinks you screwed up.

Now, having moved on, say you aren't thrilled with the rest of the candidates. Do you hire someone because people on a message board are whining about how long it takes? Or do you go back to the drawing board and see if you can find some better candidates?

In other words, no matter what these people do, people on message boards will call them inept, incompetent, post pictures of dumpster fires etc. despite having no actual clue what's going on or why.

Step back a bit and realize that a lot of the posts on this forum are disparaging people who are trying to do the best job they can and that criticism based on speculation and media reports of questionable accuracy.

And then give a moment of thanks that YOU aren't the one under the microscope.

It kind of sounds like you are on the committee ... but I digress. As for as it being "no win," correct me if I'm wrong, but working through precisely these kinds of challenges IS THE JOB. If the perfect candidate fell from the sky with no strings attached, why would we even need a committee?

It shouldn't take months to draw up a list of finalists. George, Tiley, Whitman, Michael, Frazier ... all known entities from the start. Things need not be held up for a month while folks contemplate the eventual assembly of a search committee and retention of a search firm, which happened here. These things only take long when there is zero urgency. If a preferred candidate, who happens to be a darling of the media and message boards, turns out to have a vision that is not compatible with the administration's, or completely unrealistic, deal-breaking demands, then there's no point lingering on them when there is no hope of arriving at a common ground. You realize that early and move on. If the demands are not so fixed or the difference in vision not so great, then negotiate an agreement ... right? Isn't that the whole crux of it?

And, I'm sorry, but months into the process, if things reach an impasse such that the committee has to "go back to the drawing board" and dig up a entirely new batch of candidates, that IS a massive failure of planning and execution, plain and simple. It is absolutely reasonable for the fans on message boards and elsewhere to expect, at this late stage of the game, that we're at least in position to move on to a Plan B, C, or D -- and swiftly. If that's not what we're doing right now as we speak, then there's no defense for these folks. They will have botched the process, you could say almost by definition. How could you say you're "not thrilled" with the rest of candidates -- they are the ones you picked out! How is this debatable?

Look, I understand you want to defend people with good intentions that are trying to do the right thing, but from an empirical standpoint, if the situation you just laid out is what is actually happening, it's far from a case of "no matter what these people do, people on message boards will call them inept, incompetent, post pictures of dumpster fires etc." I'll tell you what they could do: their job properly.

sdillini · Feb 11, 2016

AutoPoster 3000 said:
It kind of sounds like you are on the committee ... but I digress. As for as it being "no win," correct me if I'm wrong, but working through precisely these kinds of challenges IS THE JOB. If the perfect candidate fell from the sky with no strings attached, why would we even need a committee?

It shouldn't take months to draw up a list of finalists. George, Tiley, Whitman, Michael, Frazier ... all known entities from the start. Things need not be held up for a month while folks contemplate the eventual assembly of a search committee and retention of a search firm, which happened here. These things only take long when there is zero urgency. If a preferred candidate, who happens to be a darling of the media and message boards, turns out to have a vision that is not compatible with the administration's, or completely unrealistic, deal-breaking demands, then there's no point lingering on them when there is no hope of arriving at a common ground. You realize that early and move on. If the demands are not so fixed or the difference in vision not so great, then negotiate an agreement ... right? Isn't that the whole crux of it?

And, I'm sorry, but months into the process, if things reach an impasse such that the committee has to "go back to the drawing board" and dig up a entirely new batch of candidates, that IS a massive failure of planning and execution, plain and simple. It is absolutely reasonable for the fans on message boards and elsewhere to expect, at this late stage of the game, that we're at least in position to move on to a Plan B, C, or D -- and swiftly. If that's not what we're doing right now as we speak, then there's no defense for these folks. They will have botched the process, you could say almost by definition. How could you say you're "not thrilled" with the rest of candidates -- they are the ones you picked out! How is this debatable?

Look, I understand you want to defend people with good intentions that are trying to do the right thing, but from an empirical standpoint, if the situation you just laid out is what is actually happening, it's far from a case of "no matter what these people do, people on message boards will call them inept, incompetent, post pictures of dumpster fires etc." I'll tell you what they could do: their job properly.

Whether the people running the search are competent or not is certainly debatable. But people who are getting upset at the length of time it's taking, and using that as a proxy for incompetence don't really have perspective. 3-4 months for a retained search for a high level executive in the business world is entirely normal. Exactly normal, as a matter of fact. And things don't always go smoothly. Getting it right is another matter, and that's where the competence/incompetence should be judged.

Cubby Blue · Feb 11, 2016

sdillini said:
Whether the people running the search are competent or not is certainly debatable. But people who are getting upset at the length of time it's taking, and using that as a proxy for incompetence don't really have perspective. 3-4 months for a retained search for a high level executive in the business world is entirely normal. Exactly normal, as a matter of fact. And things don't always go smoothly. Getting it right is another matter, and that's where the competence/incompetence should be judged.

Not to mention that they could pick the right person at the right time, and it still not work out after the fact.

IlliniOllie · Feb 11, 2016

UIUC1867 said:
You know what? Let's just remove the interim label and give Paul Kowalczyk a two-year contract as the AD.

I'm half-joking of course, but you shouldn't rule it out of the realm of possibilities at this point. :crazy:

It's not ideal, but it's not a dagger... right?

AutoPoster 3000 · Feb 11, 2016

sdillini said:
Whether the people running the search are competent or not is certainly debatable. But people who are getting upset at the length of time it's taking, and using that as a proxy for incompetence don't really have perspective. 3-4 months for a retained search for a high level executive in the business world is entirely normal. Exactly normal, as a matter of fact. And things don't always go smoothly. Getting it right is another matter, and that's where the competence/incompetence should be judged.

We do love our straw man arguments here. I didn't say time was a proxy for competence. I was speaking to the scenario set forth by the original poster. His premise was, we contacted George and/or Tiley and found their visions incompatible or demands unmeetable. That took, apparently, three months to figure out. Then, instead of being prepared to move on to Plan B, we instead looked at all the fallback candidates, which we brought in for interviews by the way, and decided, naw, they are all unsatisfactory too. And then decided to start the whole process over again from scratch. I've spent some time in the professional world also, and in my experience, when you expend resources on a project that you eventually decide has failed and have to scrap, potentially alienating and/or insulting important people in your business circle in the process, only to be forced to start over from square one, that's generally not considered a job-well-done.

mattcoldagelli · Feb 11, 2016

sdillini said:
Whether the people running the search are competent or not is certainly debatable. But people who are getting upset at the length of time it's taking, and using that as a proxy for incompetence don't really have perspective. 3-4 months for a retained search for a high level executive in the business world is entirely normal. Exactly normal, as a matter of fact. And things don't always go smoothly. Getting it right is another matter, and that's where the competence/incompetence should be judged.

You lose the benefit of the doubt when you pull something as once-in-a-lifetime stupid as the Cubit extension.

GForce · Feb 11, 2016

AutoPoster 3000 said:
We do love our straw man arguments here. I didn't say time was a proxy for competence. I was speaking to the scenario set forth by the original poster. His premise was, we contacted George and/or Tiley and found their visions incompatible or demands unmeetable. That took, apparently, three months to figure out. Then, instead of being prepared to move on to Plan B, we instead looked at all the fallback candidates, which we brought in for interviews by the way, and decided, naw, they are all unsatisfactory too. And then decided to start the whole process over again from scratch. I've spent some time in the professional world also, and in my experience, when you expend resources on a project that you eventually decide has failed and have to scrap, potentially alienating and/or insulting important people in your business circle in the process, only to be forced to start over from square one, that's generally not considered a job-well-done.

Well that's the rub. Higher Ed/Academia is in a bubble and not the real world. UIUC will not go bankrupt no matter how poorly resources are managed or execs perform, unlike the biz world. In my experience with higher ed admin, spending endless hours in committees and meetings is equated with actual productivity, regardless if anything gets done. The thing is, P5 sports is a business of the highest order, but where it intersects with committee-loving univ admins is where there's trouble.

GreenwoodAve · Feb 11, 2016

My 2 cents- There was legit interest between George and the AD job, but it was never a guarantee. He couldn't leave Boulder.Now there is talks between Tiley and the committee. Tiley says he will come but he needs to be guaranteed X, Y, and Z. Thus the hold up. Not saying he takes it either but maybe that's why there is a new timeline?

Lake Camelot · Feb 11, 2016

GreenwoodAve said:
My 2 cents- There was legit interest between George and the AD job, but it was never a guarantee. He couldn't leave Boulder.Now there is talks between Tiley and the committee. Tiley says he will come but he needs to be guaranteed X, Y, and Z. Thus the hold up. Not saying he takes it either but maybe that's why there is a new timeline?

That doesn't fit with an end of the month date. Why would that take that long?

Also, I am all for Tiley. He would have been my first choice even over George. But if it takes that long for him to decide. I think it should be someone elses job offer.

GreenwoodAve · Feb 11, 2016

Lake Camelot said:
That doesn't fit with an end of the month date. Why would that take that long?

Also, I am all for Tiley. He would have been my first choice even over George. But if it takes that long for him to decide. I think it should be someone elses job offer.

It would take that long because Tiley needs things guarantied before he signs on the dotted line.

Butkuser · Feb 11, 2016

Lake Camelot said:
That doesn't fit with an end of the month date. Why would that take that long?

Also, I am all for Tiley. He would have been my first choice even over George. But if it takes that long for him to decide. I think it should be someone elses job offer.

While I agree with you on liking Tiley, there is logic behind some of the holdup just being geography. I would assume that no one would want to take a job, and no one would want to hire someone for said job, until there were face-to-face discussions.

I'm not saying that's what is happening, but it is one reasonable explanation of the extended timeline...I hope.

IlliniBubba · Feb 11, 2016

Butkuser said:
While I agree with you on liking Tiley, there is logic behind some of the holdup just being geography. I would assume that no one would want to take a job, and no one would want to hire someone for said job, until there were face-to-face discussions.

I'm not saying that's what is happening, but it is one reasonable explanation of the extended timeline...I hope.

Not to mention a possible move literally around the world. Flying over here for a possible face-to-face interview (if needed) is one thing, but if he's actually considering taking the job I'd imagine he'd want some time to pack and get ready to come, so once he's here he can do the press conference and be here for awhile initially to get things rolling, before eventually going back and moving his whole family. That's not exactly simple.

I don't have any inside info - but I do hope there's discussions going on with Tiley - he'd be worth a wait IMO.

AutoPoster 3000 · Feb 11, 2016

I don't want to belabor my point, and I get that I'm probably getting tiresome with this, so I'll try to sum it up and move on from this topic. In short, there is a right way and wrong way to do things. Here's an example of the wrong way:

1) Start by striping your interim AD of any power to make decisions, thereby creating unnecessary urgency that wouldn't be there if people had confidence in the interim person or felt somebody was minding the ship

2) Begin the search process at an exceptionally slow pace, creating the impression you don't know what you're doing or don't care; fail to control rogue elements and stop them from planting embarrassing stories about you in the press

3) After months of nothing happening, begin your pursuit with high-end candidates that realistically you can't afford or whose demands you won't be willing and/or able to meet; nevertheless, allow the process to drag on for a long time so that everyone gets their hopes way up

4) In the meantime, bring in and interview some fallback candidates, several of whom have significant ties to the program but have arguably thin qualifications, knowing the fanbase is going to debate this endlessly for months

5) Let it leak out in the press who was interviewed and when

6) Give yourself the appearance of being cheapskates when the high profile candidates drop out of the picture after months of speculation

7) Humiliate the fallback candidates you interviewed by reopening and/or delaying the search process in a possible attempt to find better people that were previously overlooked, essentially broadcasting to the world that your fallbacks failed to impress and aren't worthy of the job

8) When you eventually settle on someone, make it seem like they were your fifth or sixth choice, or that you just clicked the default box when you ran out of better options/ideas; in the event you select one of the original fallback candidates, leave everyone with the impression you really didn't want him but eventually ran out the energy to keep looking

Sound familiar? Oh, but it's message board posters like me that are the problem. My bad. Let me know where to send the letter of apology for my appalling lack of empathy and faith.

UIGrad03 · Feb 11, 2016

mattcoldagelli said:
You lose the benefit of the doubt when you pull something as once-in-a-lifetime stupid as the Cubit extension.

I maintain that one of the biggest things we have to sell to a new AD is not being handcuffed to a new hire with a 3-4 year contract made by an interim AD.

As ridiculous as the Cubit thing seemed at the time, I'm glad they kicked the can down the road on the football hire. I want this thing fixed from the top down, with a common vision. Not middling administrators making middling hires in a whirlpool of instability.

If I am Dino Babers and an interim AD calls me about a job, and they have no succession plan in place, an interim chancellor, the whole administration is in turmoil, lawsuits and player abuse scandals looming, etc I'm not even getting past the obligatory chat about the weather. I'd have no idea who my bosses were going to be, or any kind of a coherent administrative vision for the program.

Likewise if I'm one of the prime AD candidates and the phone rings, this job looks a lot less desirable if we'd just hired the kind of coach we'd reasonably be able to attract in our situation this fall. So now not only do I have to put out several furiously burning tire fires, I'm also stuck with this coach I didn't hire and don't know for at least 2-3 years.

But what we have now is a disposable coach who at least put together a recruiting class (roughly equal to what Babers did at Syracuse) and can hold things together until the new AD can evaluate, network, and make a hire that can share a mutual direction and vision for the football program going forward under new leadership. #notideal but probably the most prudent decision that's been made in months here.

ColorMeBad · Feb 11, 2016

UIGrad03 said:
I maintain that of the biggest things we have to sell to a new AD is not being handcuffed to a new hire with a 3-4 year contract made by an interim AD.

As ridiculous as the Cubit thing seemed at the time, I'm glad they kicked the can down the road on the football hire. I want this thing fixed from the top down, with a common vision. Not middling administrators making middling hires in a whirlpool of instability.

If I am Dino Babers and an interim AD calls me about a job, and they have no succession plan in place, an interim chancellor, the whole administration is in turmoil, lawsuits and player abuse scandals looming, etc I'm not even getting past the obligatory chat about the weather. I'd have no idea who my bosses were going to be, or any kind of a coherent administrative vision for the program.

Likewise if I'm one of the prime AD candidates and the phone rings, this job looks a lot less desirable if we'd just hired the kind of coach we'd reasonably be able to attract in our situation this fall. So now not only do I have to put out several furiously burning tire fires, I'm also stuck with this coach I didn't hire and don't know for at least 2-3 years.

But what we have now is a disposable coach who at least put together a recruiting class (roughly equal to what Babers did at Syracuse) and can hold things together until the new AD can evaluate, network, and make a hire that can share a mutual direction and vision for the football program going forward under new leadership. #notideal but probably the most prudent decision that's been made in months here.

Nice post. +1

OrangeDeeLight · Feb 11, 2016

rehillini said:
Remember, when we hired our last AD (Mike Thomas), he had been national AD of the year twice based on the results of BB and FB coaches which he hired and they had great success!

So don't get hung up on the success someone had at another school. The challenge here is much tougher. Look what Thomas was able to do here.

Thomas did the best he could do hiring coaches with the budget he was given. MT went after the correct coaches in both FB & BB. He just could not get these coaches becasue he was not authorized to spend enough money to get the top coaches to come to this mess.

And MT not being able to set his own budget for hiring coaches is a MAJOR problem. MT was handcuffed. You think any smart, established AD (like George) is going to agree to be micromanaged like this?

GForce · Feb 11, 2016

UIGrad03 said:
I maintain that one of the biggest things we have to sell to a new AD is not being handcuffed to a new hire with a 3-4 year contract made by an interim AD.

I know this is the consensus thought around here, but is it really true? Would you want to step into the job and immediately have to deal with a potentially sticky issue of an 'interim' coach you firmly believe is not the long-term solution but who just won 8 games and suddenly a bunch of fans are demanding his extension? This could actually happen. Our current interim AD is no slouch, and I think we could've gotten Barbers to say yes despite our situation. And I don't think having hired someone like him would scare potential ADs off. But of course we'll never know now.

The Illinois AD Search

Ordained Dudeist Priest