Interim AD Named

[MarkL]

Deep dark secrets? Really?

Athletic priorities can be complicated, especially in a MAC school with a hockey program ...
GC was a great AD in terms of bringing in money. He was brought in as a guy who ran the John Purdue Club and was considered brilliant at connecting with the alums and brining in big donations. A high priority at the time was increasing the athletics budget through donations instead of student fees. Several million dollar plus donations show this priority. A lot went well under GC's watch but one thing that has not gone well is connecting with the community. We've seen it in the basketball program. Doesn't seem like that was a high priority when he was brought in given the athletic finances. Priorities have changed a bit now. We've got a brand new top of the conference arena and many other great facilities. We do have a football project coming soon. I think putting basketball at the top of the conference has got to be a high priority this time around along with getting NW Ohio excited about BGSU basketball. I think another priority has got to be keeping the hockey momentum going but without sacrificing the commitment to basketball and the commitment to football coach salaries. Money's not unlimited around here.

An issue the new AD has to tackle quickly on that same vein ... coach salaries. GC (until very recently) kept coach salaries low. He tried to take the limited funding we've been given and make the most of it, and that often meant good coaches (Clark Lea for example) taking off quickly. Different philosophy is consider a higher salary an investment. Invest a lot into the coaches with the confidence that you've got the right staff in place, they will produce a winning product, and that winning product will bring in ticket revenue. I prefer option two. I also come from the perspective of a fan of athletics. I can see why option one might be necessary in some cases.

Its complicated. Lots to manage here and lots to consider (staff reductions for a very visible example). That's why such a diverse group to decide the new AD. Very, very important hire coming up and it has an impact well beyond athletics. It's got to be done right and with a whole lot of factors to consider.

[BGWriter]

Sheri Stoll and Jill Carr are on the committee because the University requires representation from across campus on search committees. There are always people that seem totally inappropriate on committees (search, thesis, dissertation, etc.) simply because they will then be completely unbiased and ask questions that some people would assume to be dumb or obvious and therefore overlooked.

My point is that they should bypass the committee process altogether. It's needlessly bureaucratic and ill-suited to what needs to be accomplished. We're not looking for a lecturer in the biology department.

Sidney Ribeau handled this perfectly the last time: have a professional agency that's done this before compile the names and bring them to the decision-makers. This is vastly superior to leaving the fate of BGSU sports in the hands of a committee comprised of many who are wholly unaware of the dynamics of college athletics.

Very well stated and I agree with you.

If you want something screwed up, put a committee in charge of it. In all likelihood, that will be the result. It's simply the nature of the beast. It's why we don't have committees making the most important decisions at the top businesses in this country. They ARE the top businesses because they don't allow themselves to get mired down with internal bureaucratic processes.

I get why some of you feel it's important to have representation of these various areas involved in the search -- but that's a very academic way of approaching what is NOT an academic challenge.

If you want these folks involved, the time to do so is in putting together the criteria for the job itself. Then turn all of that over to a specialist to find you candidates and turn them loose. They can then weed out folks based on what people are looking for and bring the top candidates to Dr. Mazey.

BG is at a very critical point in the development (overhaul?) of its athletic department. The wrong hire now will completely derail any good that Christopher did so far as building an infrastructure upon which winning programs can be built (his strength).

They really, really need to get this one right.

[mscarn]

Deep dark secrets? Really?

Athletic priorities can be complicated, especially in a MAC school with a hockey program ...
GC was a great AD in terms of bringing in money. He was brought in as a guy who ran the John Purdue Club and was considered brilliant at connecting with the alums and brining in big donations. A high priority at the time was increasing the athletics budget through donations instead of student fees. Several million dollar plus donations show this priority. A lot went well under GC's watch but one thing that has not gone well is connecting with the community. We've seen it in the basketball program. Doesn't seem like that was a high priority when he was brought in given the athletic finances. Priorities have changed a bit now. We've got a brand new top of the conference arena and many other great facilities. We do have a football project coming soon. I think putting basketball at the top of the conference has got to be a high priority this time around along with getting NW Ohio excited about BGSU basketball. I think another priority has got to be keeping the hockey momentum going but without sacrificing the commitment to basketball and the commitment to football coach salaries. Money's not unlimited around here.

An issue the new AD has to tackle quickly on that same vein ... coach salaries. GC (until very recently) kept coach salaries low. He tried to take the limited funding we've been given and make the most of it, and that often meant good coaches (Clark Lea for example) taking off quickly. Different philosophy is consider a higher salary an investment. Invest a lot into the coaches with the confidence that you've got the right staff in place, they will produce a winning product, and that winning product will bring in ticket revenue. I prefer option two. I also come from the perspective of a fan of athletics. I can see why option one might be necessary in some cases.

Its complicated. Lots to manage here and lots to consider (staff reductions for a very visible example). That's why such a diverse group to decide the new AD. Very, very important hire coming up and it has an impact well beyond athletics. It's got to be done right and with a whole lot of factors to consider.

You're making my case for me. What on earth do some of these people know about the internal athletic department issues you cited? Coaching salaries, operating budgets, fan support, balancing the needs of various programs all fall under the umbrella of athletics. We need people who understand college athletics picking someone to handle the business of college athletics. Why would non-athletic people be needed other than to preemptively mark their territory and tell the athletic director all the reasons why something can't be done?

No-one told Christopher to bury his head in accounting spreadsheets and ignore the community. He may have failed at this, but whoever we hire needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. In your rundown of priorities you assume it's an either/or scenario when it's simply not. Any athletic director knows it's all the same ball of wax. (BTW, Lea would have left if Lee Iacocca was the athletic director. Keeping Elko was a coup. You can fundraise and handle these matters at the same time...maybe even tell the donors about keeping a great coach so they'll be inclined to give more! Those crazy athletic directors and their synchronicity)

Whoever the next athletic director is needs to know, above anything else, that he'll have support from the highest levels and the university is committed to winning and doing all the things that correlate with winning. Handling the process this way and giving the head football coach and a secretary an equal voice doesn't inspire confidence.

[mscarn]

I get why some of you feel it's important to have representation of these various areas involved in the search -- but that's a very academic way of approaching what is NOT an academic challenge.

Definitely. It's a fundamentally flawed approach and, combined with the Orr decision, leads me to believe that Dr. Mazey is in over her head and doesn't understand how Division I sports work and where the athletic program fits in to the university.

[footballguy51]

mscarn, do you have any other topics you wish to weigh in on? You've done a good job thus far.

In all actuality, there is not, in my opinion, a single inappropriate person on this committee. Let's look at the committee members.

Committee chair Sheri Stoll (Vice President for Finance and Administration): As the Vice President for Finance and Administration, she would probably be the new AD's supervisor or would at least oversee some of the operations of athletics. Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing this person?

Jill Carr (Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students): As the Dean of Students, she is very connected with the student population. Don't we always complain about student attendance at games? Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Nikki Chiricosta (tennis student-athlete): Even though Nikki is a student-athlete and therefore will be leaving the University soon, she represents the voice of student athletes that will be directly impacted by the new AD's decisions. Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Dave Clawson (Head Football Coach): Even though nobody has complained about Coach Clawson being on this committee, it should at least be addressed that having the coach of the largest athletic program on the committee only makes sense.

Rick Hargrave (Foundation Board): The foundation, quoted directly from the BG website, "is a nonprofit corporation that provides leadership to our development efforts, receives funds on behalf of the University, and guides and supports investment decisions." Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Daniel Keller (Board of Trustees): The Board of Trustees oversees all University stuff. Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Amy Lanning (Administrative Secretary to the AD): Amy would be the new AD's secretary. Shouldn't she have a voice in who her new boss would be?

Dr. Lee Meserve (Faculty Athletics Representative): The faculty have a say as part of shared governance, and Dr. Meserve and his wife contribute a LOT of money to athletics. Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Diane Tymiak (Foundation Board): Same as Rick. Member of the Foundation Board, therefore why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Jermaine Truax (Assistant Athletics Director for Compliance): Jermaine falls into a similar category as Amy. Why wouldn't you want somebody having a voice in choosing their new boss?

Fran Voll (Board of Trustees): Same as Daniel above. Member of the Board of Trustees, therefore why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

[factman]

I'm just happy that we have to have a committee to replace the AD!

I think our needs are a little different this time than the previous one, and we need people that are BG connected, that can find the right person to correct the ills of the previous administration. We need an AD that can relate to the students and the town, and someone that likes to be at BG, rather than using the position for for self advancement to the detriment to the athletic department, as our next AD.

[MarkL]

Does factman want to be the next AD?

[Globetrotter]

mscarn, do you have any other topics you wish to weigh in on? You've done a good job thus far.

In all actuality, there is not, in my opinion, a single inappropriate person on this committee. Let's look at the committee members.

Committee chair Sheri Stoll (Vice President for Finance and Administration): As the Vice President for Finance and Administration, she would probably be the new AD's supervisor or would at least oversee some of the operations of athletics. Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing this person?

Jill Carr (Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students): As the Dean of Students, she is very connected with the student population. Don't we always complain about student attendance at games? Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Nikki Chiricosta (tennis student-athlete): Even though Nikki is a student-athlete and therefore will be leaving the University soon, she represents the voice of student athletes that will be directly impacted by the new AD's decisions. Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Dave Clawson (Head Football Coach): Even though nobody has complained about Coach Clawson being on this committee, it should at least be addressed that having the coach of the largest athletic program on the committee only makes sense.

Rick Hargrave (Foundation Board): The foundation, quoted directly from the BG website, "is a nonprofit corporation that provides leadership to our development efforts, receives funds on behalf of the University, and guides and supports investment decisions." Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Daniel Keller (Board of Trustees): The Board of Trustees oversees all University stuff. Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Amy Lanning (Administrative Secretary to the AD): Amy would be the new AD's secretary. Shouldn't she have a voice in who her new boss would be?

Dr. Lee Meserve (Faculty Athletics Representative): The faculty have a say as part of shared governance, and Dr. Meserve and his wife contribute a LOT of money to athletics. Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Diane Tymiak (Foundation Board): Same as Rick. Member of the Foundation Board, therefore why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Jermaine Truax (Assistant Athletics Director for Compliance): Jermaine falls into a similar category as Amy. Why wouldn't you want somebody having a voice in choosing their new boss?

Fran Voll (Board of Trustees): Same as Daniel above. Member of the Board of Trustees, therefore why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

I think it would make sense to have another coach on there. Maybe of another smaller sport that could provide that perspective.

[musicman2343]

I think it would make sense to have another coach on there. Maybe of another smaller sport that could provide that perspective.

I agree with that. It could definitely help.

[Globetrotter]

The reality is that everyone will weigh in on it, so you will hear different opinions but there will be only a handful of opinions that really make the final decision. Stoll and maybe Clawson. Not sure who else. That doesn't make it bad to hear all of the different opinions.

[Pete Segaard]

mscarn, do you have any other topics you wish to weigh in on? You've done a good job thus far.

In all actuality, there is not, in my opinion, a single inappropriate person on this committee. Let's look at the committee members.

Committee chair Sheri Stoll (Vice President for Finance and Administration): As the Vice President for Finance and Administration, she would probably be the new AD's supervisor or would at least oversee some of the operations of athletics. Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing this person?

Jill Carr (Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students): As the Dean of Students, she is very connected with the student population. Don't we always complain about student attendance at games? Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Nikki Chiricosta (tennis student-athlete): Even though Nikki is a student-athlete and therefore will be leaving the University soon, she represents the voice of student athletes that will be directly impacted by the new AD's decisions. Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Dave Clawson (Head Football Coach): Even though nobody has complained about Coach Clawson being on this committee, it should at least be addressed that having the coach of the largest athletic program on the committee only makes sense.

Rick Hargrave (Foundation Board): The foundation, quoted directly from the BG website, "is a nonprofit corporation that provides leadership to our development efforts, receives funds on behalf of the University, and guides and supports investment decisions." Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Daniel Keller (Board of Trustees): The Board of Trustees oversees all University stuff. Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Amy Lanning (Administrative Secretary to the AD): Amy would be the new AD's secretary. Shouldn't she have a voice in who her new boss would be?

Dr. Lee Meserve (Faculty Athletics Representative): The faculty have a say as part of shared governance, and Dr. Meserve and his wife contribute a LOT of money to athletics. Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Diane Tymiak (Foundation Board): Same as Rick. Member of the Foundation Board, therefore why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Jermaine Truax (Assistant Athletics Director for Compliance): Jermaine falls into a similar category as Amy. Why wouldn't you want somebody having a voice in choosing their new boss?

Fran Voll (Board of Trustees): Same as Daniel above. Member of the Board of Trustees, therefore why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

I think it would make sense to have another coach on there. Maybe of another smaller sport that could provide that perspective.

Fran Voll.

[Falconfreak90]

Does factman want to be the next AD?

Sounds good to me! FM will always have BG's best interest in mind. Maybe he'll work for free beer?

[Falcon Fanatic]

Fran Voll.

Agree! I was very pleased when I saw he was on the committee. As our former, highly successful, Women's Basketball Coach, and a BIG supporter of Falcon Hockey (still very close friends with Jerry York), he is a REALLY GREAT person to have on this committee!!

[mscarn]

mscarn, do you have any other topics you wish to weigh in on? You've done a good job thus far.

In all actuality, there is not, in my opinion, a single inappropriate person on this committee. Let's look at the committee members.

Committee chair Sheri Stoll (Vice President for Finance and Administration): As the Vice President for Finance and Administration, she would probably be the new AD's supervisor or would at least oversee some of the operations of athletics. Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing this person?

Jill Carr (Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students): As the Dean of Students, she is very connected with the student population. Don't we always complain about student attendance at games? Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Nikki Chiricosta (tennis student-athlete): Even though Nikki is a student-athlete and therefore will be leaving the University soon, she represents the voice of student athletes that will be directly impacted by the new AD's decisions. Why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Dave Clawson (Head Football Coach): Even though nobody has complained about Coach Clawson being on this committee, it should at least be addressed that having the coach of the largest athletic program on the committee only makes sense.

Rick Hargrave (Foundation Board): The foundation, quoted directly from the BG website, "is a nonprofit corporation that provides leadership to our development efforts, receives funds on behalf of the University, and guides and supports investment decisions." Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Daniel Keller (Board of Trustees): The Board of Trustees oversees all University stuff. Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Amy Lanning (Administrative Secretary to the AD): Amy would be the new AD's secretary. Shouldn't she have a voice in who her new boss would be?

Dr. Lee Meserve (Faculty Athletics Representative): The faculty have a say as part of shared governance, and Dr. Meserve and his wife contribute a LOT of money to athletics. Why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Diane Tymiak (Foundation Board): Same as Rick. Member of the Foundation Board, therefore why shouldn't she be involved in choosing the next AD?

Jermaine Truax (Assistant Athletics Director for Compliance): Jermaine falls into a similar category as Amy. Why wouldn't you want somebody having a voice in choosing their new boss?

Fran Voll (Board of Trustees): Same as Daniel above. Member of the Board of Trustees, therefore why shouldn't he be involved in choosing the next AD?

Thanks for the compliment.

As for the committee members, while most may have tangential connections to the athletic department, these do not render them qualified to evaluate the merits of a Division I athletic director. Their interactions with them are either from a distance or in a subserviant capacity.

I want people who understand the intimate details of how a senior executive successfully manages a big-time athletic program and can use that expereince to evaulate the qualifications, background and skill sets of the candidates. Most of the above wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Jon Steinbrecher and Jon Voight. That's a problem in my book, and I hope the presence of Clawson, Meserve and Voll is enough to salvage it.

[It's the Journey...]

Have you ever thought maybe the University is also using a search firm to narrow down the candidate pool before our on campus committee takes over? The search firm could be asking those experience type questions. Once the candidate pool gets past that point it is a matter of "do they fit at BG". I think you are looking at the committee as the ones who will be asking all the questions. While that will happen I also look at the committee as the perfect mix of people who will be questioned. Stoll will be able to answer the financial questions from a candidate and Carr will answer any of the overall student life questions. you have representation of both large and small sports. This is as much about getting information about the University from the committee as it is about getting information about how the department will be run from the candidate. No two processes are alike, let's just let it run its course and then evaluate its success.