Irwin M. Fletcher said:
This is a not a committee which is in place to search for a new candidate; it's in place merely as a facade. It didn't take a brain surgeon to see how how the information on Hawkins began to leak out.
Huh? I can say with certainty that the suggestion that a decision was made long ago to hire Hawkins, and that the search committee is a charade, is utterly false. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that either.
I never implied that Hawkins would be hired. What I attempted to allude to is the fact that Hawkins' name came out of committee coupled with the information about wealthy donors. That type of information should remain confidential, at least until the search has completed. It shouldn't be told all over town or to buddies who throw it up on every blog or message board available. It compromises the integrity of the search procedure, and it is extremely disrespectful of the candidates.
Speaking from experience, a search committee is only as effective as the person who formed it wants it to be. If you already have decided on one or two candidates beforehand, then a search committee is a waste of time and money (and a facade to save face). An effective committee will compile a list of candidates and painstakingly work their way to narrowing down the finalists and conducting interviews. Look, this process is as much about selling the university and program to the candidates as it is with the candidate sellling himself to the university. I sincerely hope it's a rumor about bringing 3 candidates in on the same day for interviews. That doesn't shed a positive light on the situation.
Yes, a search committee should be comprised of knowledgeable individuals who have the best interest of the program at heart. They should also be individuals who each have a unique viewpoint and talent which they bring to the table. The AD is a must. Having Jay on the committee is extremely wise and provides additional representation from the athletic department. Beyond that, it's a crap shoot. A booster is usually included, but a booster who served on the same losing staff with Jay doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A former player makes a lot of sense, but a wise and reasonable committee will have interviewed most of the current players to obtain their vantage point. A player one year removed from the program and who is actively working in the athletic department is providing no unique insight. I have no question he is intelligent. Many search committees I have seen usually have a representative, such as a faculty member, from the academic/administrative side as well. Somebody like Jerry, Mark, or Brad, who have seen every conference opponent firsthand, would also prove to be a valuable resource.
Sniper said:
Why can't a booster be friends and/or play pick-up games with players?
There are many regulations which govern the dynamics of boosters and student-athletes. Obviously, any interaction between boosters and recruits is prohibited. Once they become student-athletes, there is a fine line. My coach always told us to be respectful, courteous, and appreciative of the boosters, but to never make that fine line "fuzzy." It's not worth putting the university or the athlete at risk. You could say it's a matter of ethics, I suppose. While playing a pick-up game in an informal setting isn't necessarily against NCAA rules, it begs the question: why does a 30, 40, or 65 year old booster want to maintain a personal relationship with an 18-22 year old student? That's the kind of thing which raises a red flag.
tuffgong said:
Bluebengal, your IP address reveals that you in Iowa, which reveals that you are one of a few possible individuals, all associated with O'brien.
How do you know that? How and where are you able to see the IP addresses?
