jdub27

Unless you have something to back up any of those names going anywhere, quit spreading rumors.

I had full faith in Mike and glad to see Chaves is basically giving him the opening to get the experience he wants. Hopefully he takes full advantage of the opportunity as it should only strengthen the athletic department. In return, Chaves is going to make raising money a bit easier.

UND had it compiled in Faison's retirement release * Walter Hempel, Jan. 1-June 30, 1903 * Dr. George J. Sweetland Jr., 1904-08 * Dr. David L. Dunlap, 1908-12 * Charles E. Armstrong, 1912-13 * Fred L. Thompson, 1913-18 * Paul Jones Davis, 1919-28 * Charles A. "Jack" West, 1928-46 * Glenn L. "Red" Jarrett, 1946-58 * Leonard R. "Len" Marti, 1958-76 * Dr. Carl R. Miller, 1976-85 * John F. "Gino" Gasparini, Oct. 4, 1985-June 30, 1990 * Dr. Terry Wanless, Nov. 1, 1990-June 30, 1999 * Roger Thomas, July 1, 1999-Feb. 18, 2005 * Tom Buning, July 1, 2005-2007. * Brian Faison, May 2008-Dec. 31, 2017 * Bill Chaves

16th AD in school history.

You are a year behind on that one, PSU's new AD started 1/1/17. But I'd love to see the link to where they are discussing it. http://www.goviks.com/news/2016/12/5/portland-state-names-valerie-cleary-as-new-director-of-athletics.aspx

Might as well toss some out there, guessing there will a few people making the trip.

Not that it matters, but she did have a 3 year stint in a few different roles for the San Jose Sharks a while back. I believe it was more so on the guest relations/facilities side but it is at least something related to hockey. Overall, she probably had the widest variety of experience and I have no issue with her being a finalist. In fact, I'm hoping she gave a few examples of some areas she saw potential revenue, I think she had some good ideas that could be tapped into.

Hopping on the bandwagon after Morton didn't even make the finalists?

Without a doubt the correct decision.

That's true but.... ......it would be a train wreck of epic proportions.

Dangerous game to play in the event the top candidate were to pull out for some reason, especially with him not having been on campus yet. I don't doubt that it happens, but I think in this instance there were quite a few other ones to put through if they were trying to make one person stand out (though that happened regardless).

Fair point but I don't think they bother sending one more than they were required (4 vs. 3) if that is what they were after. Regardless, I still think it is pretty obvious in this situation who the best all-around candidate is.

Yes, it would have been nice to see who else applied so we could "judge" the committee's finalists. However the law was literally changed because of the complaints on how the open record laws were diluting the pool of candidates. Qualified people weren't applying because they didn't necessarily want their names revealed if they didn't make the cut or realized that they might be a finalist but felt like they weren't going to get the job or even if they had second thoughts after applying. This gave them the chance to back out before being revealed. I would rather trust a group of well qualified people to make a choice from a stronger pool than reserve the right to criticize them from having to select from a weaker pool. You can't have it both ways. As for the candidates, I have a hard time buying that there was a mandate for diversity. Yes, all the candidates have their own area of strength, but what exactly would be the point of having 3 of the exact same candidates with the same strength, when it can be determined ahead of time which of those 3 is the most qualified in that particular strength? Seems redundant and a waste of finalist spots. If I know A has a better all-around resume and interviewed better than B and C, I don't need to make all 3 finalists to determine that. And it wasn't like they didn't bring in 2 or 3 other sitting D-1 AD's because of it either. After reading the resumes and listening to the candidates speak, it was clear that these 4 were selected as finalists for a reason. This was not a weak group. They beat out other qualified applicants to be selected.

I trust him too and think he's a great guy. His passion for UND is unquestioned and I think someday he could be a great AD. However his current expertise is coaching and fundraising, not running a Division 1 athletic department. Who under him is going to help him learn the actual day to day stuff, because this was his answer to his admitted lack of experience in that area. This is not questioning his leadership ability, however I don't think the pieces are currently in place in the athletics department (particularly with a new vacancy that will be a very important hire) and I'm not confident in his connections to know exactly what is needed at this time. I think finding a way to incorporate him further into the day to day operations could be a huge win/win for everyone. Listening to Chaves talk was completely different than the other 3 candidates. They needed to keep the conversation focused on strengths or points that needed to be referenced back to. Chaves didn't have any of that, he was speaking from a spot of experience. He didn't need to talk up all the successes he's had, they were on his resume with half of them coming while UND was in the same conference as the athletic department he was leading. We have a strong fundraising arm in place and while they need more help from the AD than they were getting, it doesn't need to be spearheaded from that spot, just used when necessary (whether that's a lot or a little, doesn't matter).

After listening to/meeting the candidates, here's my cliff notes: Porter - Fairly well rounded, though mainly within one school. Definitely did his homework and knew what to say to play to some of the crowd. Came off as ambitious but tough to tell if his track record backs up everything he said. Seemed a little rehearsed on a few things but was very informed. Mannausau - Played to his strengths: ties to UND. Focused much of his conversation around that. Had good ideas about how to handle the rest of the stuff, though unproven in that. Slightly concerned about the skill sets of those he said he would lean on to help with his experience shortfalls. Elliott - Wide variety of experience with some proven results in quite a few of them. An outside the box thinker that would bring some good ideas to the table. Didn't seem quite as prepared on some specifics, some of which is to be expected, but could hamper some of her ideas. Chaves - Was able to talk about what he has done instead of hypotheticals but in a way that gives him future flexibility to adapt to UND's needs. Very well-rounded, very personable. Thought he overplayed his affinity for hockey a bit, but likely done because EWU doesn't sponsor it, leaving a little gap in his resume that he wanted to clear up. Verdict: Chaves with a bullet. Not even sure it is that close, which says more about him than it does the other candidates, who were all very good. Second: everyone else with the order determined on what skill set you value. All were quality candidates, all had their strengths and all had their weaknesses. The only way I don't see it being Chaves is if one of the other candidates is able to convince Kennedy that their area of expertise is so important that the deficiencies they have can easily be overcome/overlooked.

All the candidates were good and had strengths. The one today is the front runner.

If the salary difference isn't that big, it is more of a plus in my mind, meaning it is more about the opportunity and not necessarily just a pay raise. The more I read his bio, the more encouraged I am about him.

She still isn't my top candidate but she has plenty of experience in the budget portion of her previous jobs along with overseeing quite a few people in her previous jobs. I get (one of) the reasons people don't like her is the amount of jobs she's had. She addressed that by pointing out a handful were term jobs (2 Olympic appointments and some fundraising projects). Frankly, her experience is easily the most impressive of the 3 who have interviewed so far, which by no means makes her the best candidate but is probably the main difference she has.

One common theme that all three candidates have stated is that firing a coach is not an issue. If you are in constant communication with coaches, both sides know what they need to be doing and where they need to be at. That also means it is a two-way street with the coaches getting the resources they need in order to meet the benchmarks set. None of the candidates are going to have knee-jerk reactions and buying out multi-year contracts because fans want them to. There are going to be up and down years and some of that will be dictated by outside circumstances (injuries, players transferring, etc) and despite people claiming those are excuses or accepting mediocrity, a good athletic director takes them into account when working with coaches and making decisions for the future.

Both candidates have done well in their interviews, playing to their strengths and keeping the conversation around those things. Porter has done well at WMU and they have done some good things while he was there. I'm not sure how much of that he is directly responsible for, but obviously some of it. He seemed to understand the culture of UND and said the right things. One of the big flags was why he was at WMU for so long, but his answer for was good enough to make it a non-issue for me. Mike did a great job yesterday and was able to play a lot on his experiences as a coach (being part of a team) and his ties to UND. No doubt he has the passion for the job and his ties definitely give him a certain advantage in the fundraising part. However I think his lack of experience with the actual "athletic director" portion is a bit of a hurdle to overcome. I also am a little wary of the thought of him having to rely on his staff for some of the things he doesn't have experience in as I think the general consensus is there are a couple people that should be replaced on that staff. I think the candidate today is a wild card who has a wide variety of experience and the candidate tomorrow comes in as the favorite on paper. I look forward to their interviews.

I don't believe he was interested in it. Enjoys his current job.

Who exactly did you expect to apply? Two senior associate/deputy AD's from schools that are higher up in the athletic hierarchy than UND, a sitting AD at a peer school plus the top internal candidate. Seems like a pretty logical group of finalists to me.

Tom's article covers it pretty well. Answered questions the right way and seemed to "get" it. His answer on why he was at WMU so long was important and should alleviate some concerns in regards to that.

Mike knew what he was getting into when he applied and there is no chance he wasn't aware there is a chance he wouldn't get the job and would be reporting to whoever did, especially with his lack of experience. He cares for UND too much to even consider something like that if someone else is chosen. Situations like that are common in the professional world everywhere.

The nickname was literally a public vote.