kdwrightuwyo said: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 said:kdwrightuwyo said: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?
Poke Around said: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?
TheRealUW said:Poke Around said: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 said:Burman was on board with the idea of going after Gillespie...but several of UW's big time donors said otherwise.
wellpoke said:Poke Around said: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 said:Can't blame the search firm.
NowherePoke said:wellpoke said:Poke Around said: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.
Wyokie said:Who's this Parker guy you're talking about? And what issues between him and Gillespie?
kdwrightuwyo said: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.
McPeachy said:Wyokie said:Who's this Parker guy you're talking about? And what issues between him and Gillespie?
Here you go...
http://www.parkersearch.com/
WYCowboy said:Just how much did the university pay the search firm for the Schroyer hire and this search.