Coaching Changes - Per ESPN

[McPeachy]

Here is the consolidated list of coaching changes for this season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=6171342

19 openings so far, with 1 filled already (Pepperdine).

Glad to see the mid-season firing was used so properly to our advantage!

[kdwrightuwyo]

TB didn't fire Schroyer so we could get a head start...he fired him because it was inevitable and to show that he was committed to making a big change. It would have been nice if he could have used it as an advantage, but it wasn't why Schroyer was fired.

[Poke Around]

TB didn't fire Schroyer so we could get a head start...he fired him because it was inevitable and to show that he was committed to making a big change. It would have been nice if he could have used it as an advantage, but it wasn't why Schroyer was fired.

Well now that it is established that you understand the Schroyer situation, can you please explain to me why in the heck he was every hired?

[kdwrightuwyo]

TB didn't fire Schroyer so we could get a head start...he fired him because it was inevitable and to show that he was committed to making a big change. It would have been nice if he could have used it as an advantage, but it wasn't why Schroyer was fired when he was.

Well now that it is established that you understand the Schroyer situation, can you please explain to me why in the heck he was every hired?

I can't tell if you're trying to be rude, or ask a legit question...but I have no idea why he was hired. From everything that I've read, TB and HS had history, and TB wanted to help his buddy out. I dunno.

[TheRealUW]

Well now that it is established that you understand the Schroyer situation, can you please explain to me why in the heck he was every hired?

I hate the Heath Schroyer hire as much as the next guy, but Burman was in a tough spot when that hire happened. There was a lot of pressure from the fans to get rid of McClain at the time, but the athletics department was strapped for cash. Burman basically had two choices:

1) Please the fans by getting rid of McClain, knowing that UW didn't have the money at the time to attract a very good coach in his place or...

2) Keep McClain on and piss off the fans with the hopes that either McClain could turn it around or the cash flow was better in the next few years

Obviously, Burman chose the first option and things didn't really work out, but I'm not sure he had much of a choice at the time. Could Burman have done some things differently? Absolutely...but the bottom line is that the odds were slim that we were going to attract any coach worth a damn offering the salary we were able to at the time.

I don't think fans are giving Burman a fair shake this time around either. From what I've heard, Eric Schmoldt's article the other day was spot on. Burman was on board with the idea of going after Gillespie...but several of UW's big time donors said otherwise. Is Burman just supposed to say, "Screw you, I don't need your money or support"? That sure wouldn't sit well with many fans in the state. So, once again, Burman is in a postion to try to find a happy medium to please both sides. Ultimately, Burman has to get it done with this hire or it's probably time for him to move on, but the guy isn't out to destroy UW athletics by any means.

[Poke Around]

Well now that it is established that you understand the Schroyer situation, can you please explain to me why in the heck he was every hired?

I hate the Heath Schroyer hire as much as the next guy, but Burman was in a tough spot when that hire happened. There was a lot of pressure from the fans to get rid of McClain at the time, but the athletics department was strapped for cash. Burman basically had two choices:

1) Please the fans by getting rid of McClain, knowing that UW didn't have the money at the time to attract a very good coach in his place or...

2) Keep McClain on and piss off the fans with the hopes that either McClain could turn it around or the cash flow was better in the next few years

Obviously, Burman chose the first option and things didn't really work out, but I'm not sure he had much of a choice at the time. Could Burman have done some things differently? Absolutely...but the bottom line is that the odds were slim that we were going to attract any coach worth a damn offering the salary we were able to at the time.

I don't think fans are giving Burman a fair shake this time around either. From what I've heard, Eric Schmoldt's article the other day was spot on. Burman was on board with the idea of going after Gillespie...but several of UW's big time donors said otherwise. Is Burman just supposed to say, "Screw you, I don't need your money or support"? That sure wouldn't sit well with many fans in the state. So, once again, Burman is in a postion to try to find a happy medium to please both sides. Ultimately, Burman has to get it done with this hire or it's probably time for him to move on, but the guy isn't out to destroy UW athletics by any means.

Yes he did have a choice. He could have hired a coach with promise instead of a buddy who had shown his loyalty to Wyoming with the way he left earlier.
And my money is on the fact that somebody used Schmoldt to try and cover Burman's butt. Word is strong around the department that Buchanan told Burman decision was his and Burman was so busy squatting that he didn't have the inner strength to even interview the guy.
Anyone who believes that a donor made the decision on Gillispie probably believes that the search for McLain's replacement was a true search, even though Burman hired his buddy and the search firm we paid to help us had ties to Schroyer and Langley.

[wellpoke]

Burman was on board with the idea of going after Gillespie...but several of UW's big time donors said otherwise.

Sorry guys, but I don't buy that story. It may be true, but I think the lack of movement on hiring BCG had more to do with the search firm that was hired than any donors out there. Besides, if BCG had come here and turned us into a perennial conference champ and an NCAA contender, the donors would have come out of the wood work. Burman knows that.

[NowherePoke]

Burman was on board with the idea of going after Gillespie...but several of UW's big time donors said otherwise.

Sorry guys, but I don't buy that story. It may be true, but I think the lack of movement on hiring BCG had more to do with the search firm that was hired than any donors out there. Besides, if BCG had come here and turned us into a perennial conference champ and an NCAA contender, the donors would have come out of the wood work. Burman knows that.

Can't blame the search firm. The issues between Parker and BCG have been known (or at least rumored) for years, so our leadership was certainly aware of it. It indicates that the decision not to pursue BCG was made as far back as when we hired Parker.

[wellpoke]

Can't blame the search firm.

Wasn't trying to blame them, just saying Burman knew what he was getting when he hired them. I believe the decision to not pursue BCG was made a while ago, and at the highest levels.

[Wyokie]

Burman was on board with the idea of going after Gillespie...but several of UW's big time donors said otherwise.

Sorry guys, but I don't buy that story. It may be true, but I think the lack of movement on hiring BCG had more to do with the search firm that was hired than any donors out there. Besides, if BCG had come here and turned us into a perennial conference champ and an NCAA contender, the donors would have come out of the wood work. Burman knows that.

Can't blame the search firm. The issues between Parker and BCG have been known (or at least rumored) for years, so our leadership was certainly aware of it. It indicates that the decision not to pursue BCG was made as far back as when we hired Parker.

Who's this Parker guy you're talking about? And what issues between him and Gillespie?

[McPeachy]

Who's this Parker guy you're talking about? And what issues between him and Gillespie?

Here you go...

http://www.parkersearch.com/

[McPeachy]

TB didn't fire Schroyer so we could get a head start...he fired him because it was inevitable and to show that he was committed to making a big change. It would have been nice if he could have used it as an advantage, but it wasn't why Schroyer was fired.

Agree. It surely isn't the WHY that cost HS his job (to get a head start for the next guy)...but is sure defies logic (more like common sense) to think that the time was not used properly.

Then again, was the team was that close to total anarchy, as spurred by events on 12/31/10 ???

[Wyokie]

Who's this Parker guy you're talking about? And what issues between him and Gillespie?

Here you go...

http://www.parkersearch.com/

Oh, O.K. Now I'm on the same page as the rest of ya. Duh! Now I know how Homer Simpson feels. LOL

[WYCowboy]

I would just like to know what kind of idiots we have running the athletic dept and the university if we didn't use the time right after we fired Schroyer to get a head start on hiring a new coach and/or hiring a search firm with a bias against certain extremely well qualified candidates. How much did the university pay the search firm for the Schroyer hire and this search. What the hell is going on at the university that I'm pouring my money into. It has just about hit the fan with me. I think it is about time for an investigation.

[McPeachy]

Just how much did the university pay the search firm for the Schroyer hire and this search.

The HS experiment cost UW $30,000.00. Yahhhh...$30K...to hire a guy that everyone knew was already going to be hired, regardless of anything the search firm provided.