New Season

[LanderPoke]

It upsets some people but it's now obvious that PBJ has a fairly steep learning curve relative to other potential hc candidates at the time and within our budget. A search committee may not always pick a winner but would have undoubtedly detected the level of PBJ s inexperience. This is all on the hiring process. I actually feel a little bad for PBJ; part of a hiring committee's job is making sure they aren't setting a candidate up for failure. They don't always hit on a hire but they are usually good at identifying what certainly won't work.

I’ll take sawvel’s contract and be made to feel like an idiot every week. I can take the criticism for that $&

 

[307bball]

Re-read #3 ... I'll re-post:

How Sawful was hired has no causal relationship with his inability to succeed as a head coach.

Unless Burman bonked him on the head with a pipe during the interview causing memory loss....his ability or inability to succeed was the same before and after he was hired. The obviousness of that ability changed dramatically...that is for sure.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

That is some nice rhetorical ninjitsu...I guess you are technically correct that if Sawful was never hired, he would not "fail" as a HC. I guess that is true of you and I as well, Yay! If that is your only point ... than I agree.

I still maintain that his ability to succeed as a HC is unaffected by who he is hired by and the process that leads up to that decision. If Sawful had not been hired, he would still not be a good HC...but nobody would know that because it never would have happened.

So you disagree that a hiring committee would have sniffed out his deficiencies?

If so, then you are saying he seemed qualified with a necessary skill set at the time of hire as evaluated by professionals.

 

[LawPoke]

No, you are misunderstanding. It's obvious of his deficiencies now to fans. Had a committee been used, they would have been able to identify these deficiencies during the search process especially in relation to more qualified candidates. Before it starts again, identifying under qualified is easier than identifying qualified that will succeed.

The process most certainly caused him to fail by putting him in a position he wasn't qualified for despite what should have been very obvious deficiencies.

Fact is, ADs make hiring decisions on their own without a committee every year. Ours seemingly relied on the recommendation of the previous guy and we are now paying a huge price. Fact is, most great ADs have a sense of who can and can't lead a program and a stable of 2-3 trusted advisors who can help them run traplines so they aren't on an island.

For better or worse - mostly worse - TB picks the shiny object that is closest to him. Slick, Shyatt, Edwards, Napoleon, and Sunny - all "easy" hires that did not involve much creativity or work. DC was a hot commodity - as was Bohl. But Sawful was the Edwards of football hiring decisions. For the most part, the TB legacy is one dotted with "meh" results, facilities expansions, and a steady decline in the regional and national stature of the program he was entrusted to steward. So while we can talk about who has or hasn't worked out and hiring committees, the reality is any of those discussions distract from the real issue and where accountability should sit.

 

[307bball]

Fact is, ADs make hiring decisions on their own without a committee every year. Ours seemingly relied on the recommendation of the previous guy and we are now paying a huge price. Fact is, most great ADs have a sense of who can and can't lead a program and a stable of 2-3 trusted advisors who can help them run traplines so they aren't on an island.

For better or worse - mostly worse - TB picks the shiny object that is closest to him. Slick, Shyatt, Edwards, Napoleon, and Sunny - all "easy" hires that did not involve much creativity or work. DC was a hot commodity - as was Bohl. But Sawful was the Edwards of football hiring decisions. For the most part, the TB legacy is one dotted with "meh" results, facilities expansions, and a steady decline in the regional and national stature of the program he was entrusted to steward. So while we can talk about who has or hasn't worked out and hiring committees, the reality is any of those discussions distract from the real issue and where accountability should sit.

+1000!

 

[307bball]

So you disagree that a hiring committee would have sniffed out his deficiencies?

If so, then you are saying he seemed qualified with a necessary skill set at the time of hire as evaluated by professionals.

I stand by my previous statement:

"I don't share your belief that a committee has some inherent ability to not f-up something."

I'm sure that statement misrepresents you somewhat. The purpose of that statement is just that I don't share your opinion about hiring committees.

As for the conclusion you draw from that, He didn't seem anything to me at the time...how could he? I had no insider knowledge about his actual HC acumen or a professional evaluation of it. Your "If so, then...." statement doesn't follow. I'm making no claim about what he seemed like.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Fact is, ADs make hiring decisions on their own without a committee every year. Ours seemingly relied on the recommendation of the previous guy and we are now paying a huge price. Fact is, most great ADs have a sense of who can and can't lead a program and a stable of 2-3 trusted advisors who can help them run traplines so they aren't on an island.

For better or worse - mostly worse - TB picks the shiny object that is closest to him. Slick, Shyatt, Edwards, Napoleon, and Sunny - all "easy" hires that did not involve much creativity or work. DC was a hot commodity - as was Bohl. But Sawful was the Edwards of football hiring decisions. For the most part, the TB legacy is one dotted with "meh" results, facilities expansions, and a steady decline in the regional and national stature of the program he was entrusted to steward. So while we can talk about who has or hasn't worked out and hiring committees, the reality is any of those discussions distract from the real issue and where accountability should sit.

+1000!

So you guys think TB just missed and couldn't identify the deficiencies we're witnessing?

 

[307bball]

So you guys think TB just missed and couldn't identify the deficiencies we're witnessing?

I mean...If I had to fit this into very few words...I would re-word it as TB just missed and couldn't identify the deficiencies we're witnessing. I could obviously say much more...and have, but that is at least not inaccurate. That about describes most of TB's coaching hires.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I stand by my previous statement:

"I don't share your belief that a committee has some inherent ability to not f-up something."

I'm sure that statement misrepresents you somewhat. The purpose of that statement is just that I don't share your opinion about hiring committees.

As for the conclusion you draw from that, He didn't seem anything to me at the time...how could he? I had no insider knowledge about his actual HC acumen or a professional evaluation of it. Your "If so, then...." statement doesn't follow. I'm making no claim about what he seemed like.

First, I've clearly differentiated the two failure buckets. Candidates who are obviously under qualified and rarely hired vs those that are qualified but fail for a variety of reasons. Most search processes are pretty good at picking out and omitting the former. The latter happens frequently.

Based on what we've witnessed, I can't help but think that PBJ would be in the former with any marginally rigorous search process revealing that which would exclude him as a candidate.

His skill set is mostly the same as it was 2 years ago. A large part of his shortcoming is inexperience and hc skills not all budgets, recruiting, etc. The hiring process that should have vetted the deficiencies failed and that should have been the easy part of the process.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I mean...If I had to fit this into very few words...I would re-word it as TB just missed and couldn't identify the deficiencies we're witnessing. I could obviously say much more...and have, but that is at least not inaccurate. That about describes most of TB's coaching hires.

I'll focus on football.

You're the one saying he hired the all-time greatest coach at WYO. Just lucky? I'd say he had to have some knowledge to do that. DC wasn't a bad hire; he just turned out to be a giant ahole and was better than PBJ.

For some reason, he just completely overlooked glaring deficiencies in this hire?

 

[307bball]

I'll focus on football.

You're the one saying he hired the all-time greatest coach at WYO. Just lucky? I'd say he had to have some knowledge to do that. DC wasn't a bad hire; he just turned out to be a giant ahole and was better than PBJ.

For some reason, he just completely overlooked glaring deficiencies in this hire?

I claimed he hired the all-time greatest coach at WYO?? This is news to me but I will issue that retraction right now If I clamed that.

 

[307bball]

First, I've clearly differentiated the two failure buckets. Candidates who are obviously under qualified and rarely hired vs those that are qualified but fail for a variety of reasons. Most search processes are pretty good at picking out and omitting the former. The latter happens frequently.

Based on what we've witnessed, I can't help but think that PBJ would be in the former with any marginally rigorous search process revealing that which would exclude him as a candidate.

His skill set is mostly the same as it was 2 years ago. A large part of his shortcoming is inexperience and hc skills not all budgets, recruiting, etc. The hiring process that should have vetted the deficiencies failed and that should have been the easy part of the process.

I mostly agree with this. The hiring process in question was not just a random hiring process though. This is for the HC of of a college football program. Your claim that underqualified candidates are rarely hired is belied by the failure rate of that process.

I don't agree with your assertion that a marginally rigorous search process is inherently better at weeding out mistakes like hiring Sawful....that being said It would be nice if somebody at the University asked Burman if he's doing anything to get better at hiring coaches.

Finally...your statement: "The hiring process that should have vetted the deficiencies failed..." is what Burman owns. The alchemy that leads to consistent good results in college coaches has escaped Burman. About the only thing I can see that consistently works is a quick trigger on "your fired" and a lot of $$. IMO if Burman doesn't deploy those two things, it ain't getting better.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I mostly agree with this. The hiring process in question was not just a random hiring process though. This is for the HC of of a college football program. Your claim that underqualified candidates are rarely hired is belied by the failure rate of that process.

I don't agree with your assertion that a marginally rigorous search process is inherently better at weeding out mistakes like hiring Sawful....that being said It would be nice if somebody at the University asked Burman if he's doing anything to get better at hiring coaches.

Finally...your statement: "The hiring process that should have vetted the deficiencies failed..." is what Burman owns. The alchemy that leads to consistent good results in college coaches has escaped Burman. About the only thing I can see that consistently works is a quick trigger on "your fired" and a lot of $$. IMO if Burman doesn't deploy those two things, it ain't getting better.

Stay with football. Aren't you the one saying Bohl is one of the greatest WYO coaches? Who hired Bohl?

So, TB has no clue. Luckily hired Bohl and predictably couldn't see PBJ's deficiencies?

The type that hire committees miss on would be someone like DC. Hot candidate. High demand. Obvious football knowledge. Etc.

I'm saying candidates like PBJ rarely make it out of committee. There's a difference whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

[LawPoke]

Stay with football. Aren't you the one saying Bohl is one of the greatest WYO coaches? Who hired Bohl?

So, TB has no clue. Luckily hired Bohl and predictably couldn't see PBJ's deficiencies?

The type that hire committees miss on would be someone like DC. Hot candidate. High demand. Obvious football knowledge. Etc.

I'm saying candidates like PBJ rarely make it out of committee. There's a difference whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

He never truly looked at PBJ's qualifications or lack thereof. It was a hurried hiring process largely directed by CB to ensure that all of the assistants he had assembled, including his son, survived for another year after he left. Losing players in the portal was a ready excuse to maintain continuity, but this was about CB calling his shot on the way out and forcing TB's hand.

The reality is that TB should have done more to vet PBJ and tell Bohl that it was nice to have his recommendation, but that he had work to do to get the best possible coach hired. Instead, he rubber-stamped Bohl's guy. It allowed him to avoid the hard parts of transitions - notably the part where assistants and their families are thrown into upheaval - all which I can sympathize with but can't say I respect as it very clearly conflicted with one of his central job responsibilities: to always look out for what is best for UW, the football program, and its future irrespective of what is easy.

Whether PBJ's deficiencies would have been identified by a committee or not, the reality is that if you had 4 qualified applicants, even a blind monkey would've passed on PBJ. The reality is, this was only a "search" if you consider the hiring of one, pre-ordained candidate a "search."

 

[ragtimejoe1]

He never truly looked at PBJ's qualifications or lack thereof. It was a hurried hiring process largely directed by CB to ensure that all of the assistants he had assembled, including his son, survived for another year after he left. Losing players in the portal was a ready excuse to maintain continuity, but this was about CB calling his shot on the way out and forcing TB's hand.

The reality is that TB should have done more to vet PBJ and tell Bohl that it was nice to have his recommendation, but that he had work to do to get the best possible coach hired. Instead, he rubber-stamped Bohl's guy. It allowed him to avoid the hard parts of transitions - notably the part where assistants and their families are thrown into upheaval - all which I can sympathize with but can't say I respect as it very clearly conflicted with one of his central job responsibilities: to always look out for what is best for UW, the football program, and its future irrespective of what is easy.

Whether PBJ's deficiencies would have been identified by a committee or not, the reality is that if you had 4 qualified applicants, even a blind monkey would've passed on PBJ. The reality is, this was only a "search" if you consider the hiring of one, pre-ordained candidate a "search."

We 100% agree. That was my original point. I blame the process more than PBJ. Someone like DC I blame more than the process.

 

[307bball]

Stay with football. Aren't you the one saying Bohl is one of the greatest WYO coaches? Who hired Bohl?

So, TB has no clue. Luckily hired Bohl and predictably couldn't see PBJ's deficiencies?

The type that hire committees miss on would be someone like DC. Hot candidate. High demand. Obvious football knowledge. Etc.

I'm saying candidates like PBJ rarely make it out of committee. There's a difference whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Bohl is the greatest Post-Bowl Alliance era Wyoming coach. That is, however, nearly the epitome of damning with faint praise. I would classify it as probably the reason TB is employed. Surely UW moves on from him if Bohl is not hired and it's another version of Glenn or DC with attendance continuing to dwindle.

Your assertions about hiring committees are interesting....I agree with you that the purpose of those committees is as you describe. I disagree that committees are any sort of guarantee that you don't get a bad coach.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Bohl is the greatest Post-Bowl Alliance era Wyoming coach. That is, however, nearly the epitome of damning with faint praise. I would classify it as probably the reason TB is employed. Surely UW moves on from him if Bohl is not hired and it's another version of Glenn or DC with attendance continuing to dwindle.

Your assertions about hiring committees are interesting....I agree with you that the purpose of those committees is as you describe. I disagree that committees are any sort of guarantee that you don't get a bad coach.

I never said you wouldn't get a bad coach. DC was a bad coach.

I said you wouldn't get a coach as unqualified as PBJ.

You can try to act like they are the same but most people recognize the difference.

 

[307bball]

I never said you wouldn't get a bad coach. DC was a bad coach.

I said you wouldn't get a coach as unqualified as PBJ.

You can try to act like they are the same but most people recognize the difference.

Well then our disagreement is very very small.

 

[307bball]

He never truly looked at PBJ's qualifications or lack thereof. It was a hurried hiring process largely directed by CB to ensure that all of the assistants he had assembled, including his son, survived for another year after he left. Losing players in the portal was a ready excuse to maintain continuity, but this was about CB calling his shot on the way out and forcing TB's hand.

The reality is that TB should have done more to vet PBJ and tell Bohl that it was nice to have his recommendation, but that he had work to do to get the best possible coach hired. Instead, he rubber-stamped Bohl's guy. It allowed him to avoid the hard parts of transitions - notably the part where assistants and their families are thrown into upheaval - all which I can sympathize with but can't say I respect as it very clearly conflicted with one of his central job responsibilities: to always look out for what is best for UW, the football program, and its future irrespective of what is easy.

Whether PBJ's deficiencies would have been identified by a committee or not, the reality is that if you had 4 qualified applicants, even a blind monkey would've passed on PBJ. The reality is, this was only a "search" if you consider the hiring of one, pre-ordained candidate a "search."

How much of this is public record and how much of this is speculation? Was there a press conference where Bohl talked about this discussion with TB?

My sense is we are all on the outside here and looking at an incomplete puzzle without the full picture. We don't know why TB did what he did, we just know the result and then some folks try to fit what we see with a narrative.

For me, I'm a compete athletic department outsider who is looking at results.....TB hires bad coaches so he hired a bad coach...pretty much fits what I've seen from him. I don't know why he does what he does so I don't traffic in that.

For some, TB has a purpose on this earth to destroy UW athletics and every seemingly bad decision is actually a resounding personal success in his dastardly mission.

 

[307bball]

I never said you wouldn't get a bad coach. DC was a bad coach.

I said you wouldn't get a coach as unqualified as PBJ.

You can try to act like they are the same but most people recognize the difference.

I guess for myself I don't really care what type of bad coach we get....the failure is the bad coach. Would you feel better if we had an identical record post-Bohl with somebody recommended by a hiring committee? I wouldn't. Given Wyoming's history that is completely possible...maybe even probable.

I want a good coach. I'm pretty certain you do as well. Good coaches and good programs come from interesting circumstances and stories in nearly every case.