Mike Bohn replacment qualifications discussion

[Gold]

It's come down to that question. Sink has mentioned he doesn't know the inner workings of the OU AD, but he's really confident about the jury still being out on him. So a final question, if CU gets a chance to hire Mullens today, do we do it or not?

 

[Junction]

It's come down to that question. Sink has mentioned he doesn't know the inner workings of the OU AD, but he's really confident about the jury still being out on him. So a final question, if CU gets a chance to hire Mullens today, do we do it or not?

I'll answer your question if you ever answer mine....

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I'll take him if he brings Knight with him and puts a ball gag on...well, Gold's keyboard I guess. :lol:

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Let Ceal Barry be the interim AD until December, 2013.

Mack Brown can then be hired as AD come January, 2014.

 

[Quattro]

It's come down to that question. Sink has mentioned he doesn't know the inner workings of the OU AD, but he's really confident about the jury still being out on him. So a final question, if CU gets a chance to hire Mullens today, do we do it or not?

Not speaking for Sink but you're pretty good at dodging questions

 

[Gold]

I'll answer your question if you ever answer mine....

Haha, which one, the one where you insinuated Bill Belichick wouldn't be a good AD? I thought that was the best question in this thread.

 

[Gold]

Not speaking for Sink but you're pretty good at dodging questions

I'm streamlining the discussion. This way is quicker.

 

[Quattro]

I'm streamlining the discussion. This way is quicker.

While avoiding nearly every question you have been asked

 

[Junction]

Haha, which one, the one where you insinuated Bill Belichick wouldn't be a good AD? I thought that was the best question in this thread.

The one I bumped this morning and specifically said "bump for Gold to answer"....

BTW, the idea of Bill Belichick, one of the most notoriously anti-social people on Earth, being a kick ass fundraiser, is pretty hilarious.... Sure, in the initial excitement over the hire they would get money. But there is so much more to the job than that.

Allow me to ask another question... If Benson came out and said "Our criteria for hiring our next athletic director is that the person we hire will have to have shown they can run a successful football program" and then comes back in a month and says "Introducing our new Athletic Director - Joe Blow, assistant athletic director from Vanderbilt", are you going to say to yourself "Wow, they just got the guy who exactly matched the criteria they laid out!"?

 

[Gold]

The one I bumped this morning and specifically said "bump for Gold to answer"....

BTW, the idea of Bill Belichick, one of the most notoriously anti-social people on Earth, being a kick ass fundraiser, is pretty hilarious.... Sure, in the initial excitement over the hire they would get money. But there is so much more to the job than that.

I missed it, no offense. I'd say what has Vandy done in FB & MBB lately to make this a good hire, and the answer better be great. Have they made significant incremental strides year over year on-and-off the field? Show me their progress under this AD.

 

[Junction]

I missed it, no offense. I'd say what has Vandy done in FB & MBB lately to make this a good hire, and the answer better be great. Have they made significant incremental strides year over year on-and-off the field? Show me their progress under this AD.

Vandy won 2 more games last year than UK did Mullens' last year there. And their FB history is, to put it mildly, worse than UK's....

 

[somebody]

You're embarrassing yourself here. Not only by throwing the insults around like you're triumph the insult comic dog, and far less funny, but also because you're talking in circles.

Oregon and other top programs wanted Mullens. That might pain you to admit more successful athletic depts wanted him, and you apparently think its dumb luck he landed one of the biggest operating budgets in our conference. Also, it's more dumb luck and coincidence Oregon had had success since he joined.

All these coincidences, amazing stuff.

Bohn proved my initial hunch about his qualifications over the last 7 years. If you think Bohn was a good AD, then the last 2 days must have been hard on you.

I don't need to insult you, you have pages of posts that do more than I ever could. I was just pointing out how you misinterpreted someone else's comparison of you to another weak poster. And I never said Mullen couldn't do the job, just that your arguments are poor. But then, since you have no real argument, you have to make something up to "refute".

 

[Gold]

Vandy won 2 more games last year than UK did Mullens' last year there. And their FB history is, to put it mildly, worse than UK's....

I'm well aware of every schools historical FB performance. I wouldn't make a decision based on that. Recent incremental year-over-year success is a better indicator. Re: Vandy, they have made strides the last 2 years vs. prior performance, but it's not enough to warrant a lateral or AD promotion to CU. If they continue the trend over the next 2-3 years, sure then let's talk.

 

[SINKRATZ]

It's come down to that question. Sink has mentioned he doesn't know the inner workings of the OU AD, but he's really confident about the jury still being out on him. So a final question, if CU gets a chance to hire Mullens today, do we do it or not?

Pardon me for asking an obvious question, but doesn't the fact that I don't know much about the inner workings of the OU athletic department explain why I would say the jury is out on Mullens?

I'll ask you one more time, then I give up: please explain to us specifically what you believe Mullens has done in his first 3 years at Oregon to demonstrate he is a good AD?

I believe you are basing your opinion solely on the football team's record which was good long before he got there thanks in large part to the coach the previous AD hired. Please tell me this isn't your whole reasoning and enlighten us with your Rob Mullens knowledge.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I'm well aware of every schools historical FB performance. I wouldn't make a decision based on that. Recent incremental year-over-year success is a better indicator. Re: Vandy, they have made strides the last 2 years vs. prior performance, but it's not enough to warrant a lateral or AD promotion to CU. If they continue the trend over the next 2-3 years, sure then let's talk.

Another serious question: how do you (you specifically) determine how much of that incremental success should be attributed to the AD versus the head coach? Does an AD get more credit for the success of a football program if he was the one who hired the coach that produces the success, or does that not matter?

 

[Junction]

I'm well aware of every schools historical FB performance. I wouldn't make a decision based on that. Recent incremental year-over-year success is a better indicator. Re: Vandy, they have made strides the last 2 years vs. prior performance, but it's not enough to warrant a lateral or AD promotion to CU. If they continue the trend over the next 2-3 years, sure then let's talk.

So, when Kentucky makes strides from bad to mediocre over 4-5 years, that is enough to make an assistant AD a can't miss lights out AD candidate, but when Vandy makes strides from historically, monumentally putrid to somewhat good in a shorter time frame, that carries less weight? I guess part of our criteria is now making sure that the turnaround takes at least a certain amount of time?

It would be so much easier for you to admit that Mullens is probably a very good AD and was a very good candidate, but he doesn't meet the criteria you set forth AT ALL. You're getting so twisted up trying to defend both positions that I'm honestly starting to hurt....

 

[Gold]

If you're going to keep throwing a million questions at me, this is going to go on and on.

Why credit Mullens?

1. He retained Chip Kelley at OU for the first 3 years of his tenure. Kelley had a TON of opportunities to leave, and Mullens kept him at OU for as long as he could.

2. He's been balancing a growing budget for an organization that's had trouble with doing just that. The Belloti fiasco (coach and AD who brokered his own exit fee) was a blackeye on their accounting and financial procedures. By all accounts Mullens has helped in that area, as well as with the Knight Arena.

3. His relationship with Kelley was fantastic. A quote from Kelley, who interviewed Mullens for the job:
Oregon football coach Chip Kelly, who sat on the athletic-director search committee and helped interview eight candidates last weekend in San Francisco, said Mullens drew raves. "Unlike any other candidate, people were just jumping on the table for the guy and saying unbelievable things about him," Kelly said.

 

[Gold]

I asked a simple question. If Mullens is interested in the CU AD position today, do you hire him? Only one person answered.

 

[Gold]

So, when Kentucky makes strides from bad to mediocre over 4-5 years, that is enough to make an assistant AD a can't miss lights out AD candidate, but when Vandy makes strides from historically, monumentally putrid to somewhat good in a shorter time frame, that carries less weight? I guess part of our criteria is now making sure that the turnaround takes at least a certain amount of time?

It would be so much easier for you to admit that Mullens is probably a very good AD and was a very good candidate, but he doesn't meet the criteria you set forth AT ALL. You're getting so twisted up trying to defend both positions that I'm honestly starting to hurt....

This is where you're confused. Kentucky going from bad to 8-5 in the SEC isn't mediocre. It's great relative to who they are. You cannot understand that for some reason. Frankly, it would be great for CU if we went 8-5 right now.

You can't keep cutting down every program that is not CU. I realize we're all alumni, but there are other programs that have deserved credit for their accomplishments. It's not all coincidence and luck that makes these ADs successful.

 

[El Gringo]

I think football played a huge part and particularly the coaching search/mismanged presser. But like I said with Dr. Phil's comments, I think the "business" of things (not being able to raise funds for Folsom improvements) ultimately led to his dismissal which you could say is football-related.

Like I said Tuesday afternoon, saying Bohn was successful as CU AD except when it came to football (like many claimed) is like saying it's a good restaurant except when it comes to the food. Since football brings home nearly all the bacon (let's not forget MBB is just starting to become profitable), everything else can fail and football can work out, and it's not great but it's OK. It can't be the other way around. The service, decor, location of a restaurant can all be bad but if you got unbelieveable food, people will likely comeback since they are usually going for that. OTOH, the best restaurant ambiance won't compensate if the food sucks unless it's like a sports bar or something, where food might be secondary.

Spot on, an this is why most of the folks, like me, who have always thought favorably of Mike, can understand and appreciate why he was let go. You won't se me going all Joel Klatt on the admin for this decision.

 

[SINKRATZ]

If you're going to keep throwing a million questions at me, this is going to go on and on.

Why credit Mullens?

1. He retained Chip Kelley at OU for the first 3 years of his tenure. Kelley had a TON of opportunities to leave, and Mullens kept him at OU for as long as he could.

2. He's been balancing a growing budget for an organization that's had trouble with doing just that. The Belloti fiasco (coach and AD who brokered his own exit fee) was a blackeye on their accounting and financial procedures. By all accounts Mullens has helped in that area, as well as with the Knight Arena.

3. His relationship with Kelley was fantastic. A quote from Kelley, who interviewed Mullens for the job:
Oregon football coach Chip Kelly, who sat on the athletic-director search committee and helped interview eight candidates last weekend in San Francisco, said Mullens drew raves. "Unlike any other candidate, people were just jumping on the table for the guy and saying unbelievable things about him," Kelly said.

So he retained an established coach by making him the highest paid coach in the conference, he balanced a budget rich with Nike money and a huge infusion of cash from a new conference media deal, and he is a good interview. Solid.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I asked a simple question. If Mullens is interested in the CU AD position today, do you hire him? Only one person answered.

I have no clue, I don't know much about the guy. Maybe, but I'm definitely not as sold as you are.

 

[SINKRATZ]

This is where you're confused. Kentucky going from bad to 8-5 in the SEC isn't mediocre. It's great relative to who they are. You cannot understand that for some reason. Frankly, it would be great for CU if we went 8-5 right now.

You can't keep cutting down every program that is not CU. I realize we're all alumni, but there are other programs that have deserved credit for their accomplishments. It's not all coincidence and luck that makes these ADs successful.

Mullens had nothing, NOTHING to do with Kentucky's trivial success in football.

 

[Junction]

This is where you're confused. Kentucky going from bad to 8-5 in the SEC isn't mediocre. It's great relative to who they are. You cannot understand that for some reason. Frankly, it would be great for CU if we went 8-5 right now.

You can't keep cutting down every program that is not CU. I realize we're all alumni, but there are other programs that have deserved credit for their accomplishments. It's not all coincidence and luck that makes these ADs successful.

Vandy was 9-4 last year. They are a worse program historically than UK. I'm not "putting down every program that is not CU" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) when I point out that fact. It's even greater for who they are than an 8-5 record is for UK. And, by the way, Vandy is also in the $EC. It's an almost exact correlation, except that Vandy has seen an even greater FB turnaround recently. So if Mullens resume' made him a no-brainer for Oregon, then why shouldn't an associate AD from Vandy have us dancing naked on the roof of Balch Fieldhouse with joy? And yet, you hedge.

Here's the bottom line. You tied yourself to the idea that we MUST hire someone who has run a successful FB program. Then you tied yourself to Mullens, who had not run any program at all, and came from a school where FB was pretty thrilled to reach the Music City and Liberty Bowls. And you continue to duck and dodge to try to maintain both positions. When confronted with the question of whether a Mullens clone would meet the first criteria you were preaching in the thread, you can't commit to a direct answer. I'm pretty sure we all know why....

 

[Gold]

I have no clue, I don't know much about the guy. Maybe, but I'm definitely not as sold as you are.

Mullens calls and your answer is maybe. Anyone else?

 

[Gold]

Vandy was 9-4 last year. They are a worse program historically than UK. I'm not "putting down every program that is not CU" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) when I point out that fact. It's even greater for who they are than an 8-5 record is for UK. And, by the way, Vandy is also in the $EC. It's an almost exact correlation, except that Vandy has seen an even greater FB turnaround recently. So if Mullens resume' made him a no-brainer for Oregon, then why shouldn't an associate AD from Vandy have us dancing naked on the roof of Balch Fieldhouse with joy? And yet, you hedge.

Here's the bottom line. You tied yourself to the idea that we MUST hire someone who has run a successful FB program. Then you tied yourself to Mullens, who had not run any program at all, and came from a school where FB was pretty thrilled to reach the Music City and Liberty Bowls. And you continue to duck and dodge to try to maintain both positions. When confronted with the question of whether a Mullens clone would meet the first criteria you were preaching in the thread, you can't commit to a direct answer. I'm pretty sure we all know why....

Listen, I'm not the soup nazi. I'd prefer someone who comes from a great football program, but I'm open to hearing from great candidates. If they can demonstrate success in other ways that are impressive (like managing a huge college budget like UK, during a time when success was had on the football and basketball programs), I'm more than open to it.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

This discussion is regressing. We are all dumber for having read it.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Mullens calls and your answer is maybe. Anyone else?

If I'm invited to join the search committee, and if he calls me then I'll start to care about his qualifications for CU.

 

[Junction]

Mullens calls and your answer is maybe. Anyone else?

2009 Mullens or OU Mullens?

If the AD at Oregon calls, you have to listen. You don't have to hire him, because OU is a totally different animal than CU as has been pointed out, and was at a totally different point when Mullens was hired than CU is now.

If an associate AD at Kentucky calls and touts Rich Brooks' success there as his ticket to the job, I'm not rushing to fill out the contract. Now, maybe he's a really talented guy who is ready to transcend his resume', so I would take a longer look, but is he at the top of my list? Not likely.

Basically, the fact that he has now been an AD would be a big difference maker for me.

 

[Junction]

Mullens had nothing, NOTHING to do with Kentucky's trivial success in football.

Who knew that Mitch Barnhart is basically nothing more than a figurehead taking credit for the work of Rob Mullens for almost an entire decade?