TheCup
Well-known member
Like it or not, I think it probably did.
In response to the (bullshit) outcry from some quarters within the law school after Easton's "resignation," the Easton-driven fiasco of a town hall meeting/mock trial and the ensuing media coverage, Sternberg told the Boomerang “I'm not planning any further personnel changes. I think where we are is where we want to be.”
I understand Sternberg's predicament. He's got an agenda to pursue that is at risk because of the shitstorm that has flared up over the past couple weeks. Sternberg has a target on him now and many in the media and the legal establishment in this state are taking dead aim.
What's that have to do with athletics? I think it means that the level of difficulty in making any more personnel changes has risen exponentially. Sternberg got a pass early on because of the sense that a new president deserves to have his own team in place. But right or wrong, that honeymoon period is over. Sternberg said it himself with his quote I pasted above. He understands that he has no more personal capital to spend with Trustees on personnel changes.
So what does he do with Burman? Burman is a UW lifer. He's an alum and he dates all the way back to the Leckner-Dembo years in terms of involvement with the athletics department.
Is Sternberg, on the heels of saying that he plans no more personnel changes, in the near term really going to fire another long-time UW administrator? I don't think so, and I'm not sure he can without shifting the ground beneath his own feet even more. The outcry and media coverage of the past few weeks have tied his hands.
I've often thought of Burman's decisions as wrong, but I've never considered him stupid. I'm sure he senses the political reality over there just as Sternberg does. So the question we should be asking ourselves isn't whether Burman feels compelled to fire Christensen to save his own job. It's what will Burman do with Christensen if he knows his own job is solid?
In response to the (bullshit) outcry from some quarters within the law school after Easton's "resignation," the Easton-driven fiasco of a town hall meeting/mock trial and the ensuing media coverage, Sternberg told the Boomerang “I'm not planning any further personnel changes. I think where we are is where we want to be.”
I understand Sternberg's predicament. He's got an agenda to pursue that is at risk because of the shitstorm that has flared up over the past couple weeks. Sternberg has a target on him now and many in the media and the legal establishment in this state are taking dead aim.
What's that have to do with athletics? I think it means that the level of difficulty in making any more personnel changes has risen exponentially. Sternberg got a pass early on because of the sense that a new president deserves to have his own team in place. But right or wrong, that honeymoon period is over. Sternberg said it himself with his quote I pasted above. He understands that he has no more personal capital to spend with Trustees on personnel changes.
So what does he do with Burman? Burman is a UW lifer. He's an alum and he dates all the way back to the Leckner-Dembo years in terms of involvement with the athletics department.
Is Sternberg, on the heels of saying that he plans no more personnel changes, in the near term really going to fire another long-time UW administrator? I don't think so, and I'm not sure he can without shifting the ground beneath his own feet even more. The outcry and media coverage of the past few weeks have tied his hands.
I've often thought of Burman's decisions as wrong, but I've never considered him stupid. I'm sure he senses the political reality over there just as Sternberg does. So the question we should be asking ourselves isn't whether Burman feels compelled to fire Christensen to save his own job. It's what will Burman do with Christensen if he knows his own job is solid?