Driveforshow Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Can somebody tell me what has really changed since Buning has come aboard. I don't see that the budget has gotten any better we are still in the red. We lost some good people like Rob B and if things keep going the way its going we could loose some more. Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way but I feel this seach for our new basketball coach has been ran in the wrong way both Tom B and Betty R should have never been on the seach for our new coach unless they have had their new coach hired some time ago. It will be interesting on way they look at the new radio contract is it going to be all about the money our is it going to be about taking care of our small town supporters. WHAT HAS CHANGED ???
RD17 Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Can somebody tell me what has really changed since Buning has come aboard. I don't see that the budget has gotten any better we are still in the red. We lost some good people like Rob B and if things keep going the way its going we could loose some more. Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way but I feel this seach for our new basketball coach has been ran in the wrong way both Tom B and Betty R should have never been on the seach for our new coach unless they have had their new coach hired some time ago. It will be interesting on way they look at the new radio contract is it going to be all about the money our is it going to be about taking care of our small town supporters. WHAT HAS CHANGED ??? Regardless of what you think of the job Buning is doing, he most certainly should be involved in the search for a new basketball coach-- hiring coaches is right at the top of the list of an AD's responsibilities.
Driveforshow Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 YES he makes the final decision, but the names should be brought to him to make the final decision.He should not be part of the board that brings the names to himself.
SiouxMD Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I see LTC Buning has been demoted to LT...2nd or 1st?
RD17 Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 YES he makes the final decision, but the names should be brought to him to make the final decision.He should not be part of the board that brings the names to himself. Most schools don't even have search committees when looking for coaches... it's all on the AD to review the applications, do the interviews, and make the hire. The bottom line is that it is ultimately the AD's responsibility for the success or failure of the individual athletic teams so he'd better have more say in the hiring process than just picking from a list of three finalists.
legend334 Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I have stated before how I felt about a three person search committe, with one person being the AD....it makes no sense, unless the decision had already been made and you did not want any other opinions of who would make a good canidate. Even when Terry Wanless was here back when, we had search committees of at least 7 to 9 people, for a volleyball coach, football coach etc....Even when Dalen Lennon was hired, RT had a search committee...and he had input, he was not a member of the committee!!! Only very small schools do not have a search committee. I also find it amazing that within one day, the 3 person committee sifted through 56 resumes, even if all those were not sent over to him, lets say half, thats how many references to call, three per resume....80....that is a lot of phone calls to make in a day....unless the committee....already had their person....and by connecting the dots of not inviting anymore applications even before the other two have interviewed....it would appear the E. Illinois man will get the job!!! The only thing that has changed is that people seem to be expendable, and from what i am feeling within the dept, that seems to be the attitude, never good when this happens!!!!! The red ink will not change until the issue of playing and paying to play in all of these buildings is addressed.
Siouxman Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I have stated before how I felt about a three person search committe, with one person being the AD....it makes no sense, unless the decision had already been made and you did not want any other opinions of who would make a good canidate. Even when Terry Wanless was here back when, we had search committees of at least 7 to 9 people, for a volleyball coach, football coach etc....Even when Dalen Lennon was hired, RT had a search committee...and he had input, he was not a member of the committee!!! Only very small schools do not have a search committee. I also find it amazing that within one day, the 3 person committee sifted through 56 resumes, even if all those were not sent over to him, lets say half, thats how many references to call, three per resume....80....that is a lot of phone calls to make in a day....unless the committee....already had their person....and by connecting the dots of not inviting anymore applications even before the other two have interviewed....it would appear the E. Illinois man will get the job!!! The only thing that has changed is that people seem to be expendable, and from what i am feeling within the dept, that seems to be the attitude, never good when this happens!!!!! The red ink will not change until the issue of playing and paying to play in all of these buildings is addressed. I have hired people, and you believe that I pre-screen applications long before I ever start contacting references. It becomes an impossible task when you have many applications to go through a full-blown checkout of every person. You will have some initial criteria in mind, and simply reviewing the applications will cause some to fall out of consideration. When you have many applications, it does not take much time to realize that some applications are just not up to par. Then you take a second harder look, at more specifics. You should be able to weed the applications down to a manageable size before you begin contacting references. There is no inference that you have pre-selected the winner. It is simply a process of carving the mountain down to a manageable molehill, and minimizing wasted time. You can always relook at applications that were previously screened out if the tighter investigation eliminates all of your smaller group.
82SiouxGuy Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I have hired people, and you believe that I pre-screen applications long before I ever start contacting references. It becomes an impossible task when you have many applications to go through a full-blown checkout of every person. You will have some initial criteria in mind, and simply reviewing the applications will cause some to fall out of consideration. When you have many applications, it does not take much time to realize that some applications are just not up to par. Then you take a second harder look, at more specifics. You should be able to weed the applications down to a manageable size before you begin contacting references. There is no inference that you have pre-selected the winner. It is simply a process of carving the mountain down to a manageable molehill, and minimizing wasted time. You can always relook at applications that were previously screened out if the tighter investigation eliminates all of your smaller group. I have hired people in private industry and served on a search committee at UND. You only contact references for people you are seriously considering for the position. I am sure that they used the guidelines outlined in the job announcement to eliminate the people that were not qualified, found a group that most closely matched that criteria, and decided to look closer at those people. My guess is that they checked references on 5-10 candidates (maybe a few more) and made their list of candidates to interview. Without seeing the applications or talking with references it is very difficult to tell how qualified the current candidates are.
UND92,96 Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I have hired people in private industry and served on a search committee at UND. You only contact references for people you are seriously considering for the position. I am sure that they used the guidelines outlined in the job announcement to eliminate the people that were not qualified, found a group that most closely matched that criteria, and decided to look closer at those people. My guess is that they checked references on 5-10 candidates (maybe a few more) and made their list of candidates to interview. Without seeing the applications of talking with references it is very difficult to tell how qualified the current candidates are. Weemer's credentials consist of seven years as an assistant at Eastern Illinois, during which time they had a losing record for five of those seasons. Last year he was the head coach of a 13-15 high school team. I find it outrageous that somebody with those credentials could possibly be our next head coach.
Driveforshow Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 I have hired people in private industry and served on a search committee at UND. You only contact references for people you are seriously considering for the position. I am sure that they used the guidelines outlined in the job announcement to eliminate the people that were not qualified, found a group that most closely matched that criteria, and decided to look closer at those people. My guess is that they checked references on 5-10 candidates (maybe a few more) and made their list of candidates to interview. Without seeing the applications of talking with references it is very difficult to tell how qualified the current candidates are. If that was the case in this process then I feel they missed the boat on some good people and I find it interesting that they only brought in four when he knew his was not going to hire Randal, because you hire a guy and take it away from him and then bring him in to be a finalist is wrong. By doing that you may be missing the boat on somebody else unless you know who your guy is before the process begins.If SW is hired on friday which alot of people feel thats going to happen then somebody needs to look into this process because A current high school coach would not have made my list.
The Sicatoka Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Gee, with all of the "insider" stuff and questioning of process and implicit "no confidence" vote to anyone that would come in, I know I'd be excited to come into this situation. If you have a problem with something you won't solve it here; go to the source and deal with it head on.
UND92,96 Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Gee, with all of the "insider" stuff and questioning of process and implicit "no confidence" vote to anyone that would come in, I know I'd be excited to come into this situation. If you have a problem with something you won't solve it here; go to the source and deal with it head on. That's been attempted. Hence, the statement in today's Herald article by Wayne Nelson about the controversy of the process. I'm sure you read Buning's response.
D1sioux Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I have hired people, and you believe that I pre-screen applications long before I ever start contacting references. It becomes an impossible task when you have many applications to go through a full-blown checkout of every person. You will have some initial criteria in mind, and simply reviewing the applications will cause some to fall out of consideration. When you have many applications, it does not take much time to realize that some applications are just not up to par. Then you take a second harder look, at more specifics. You should be able to weed the applications down to a manageable size before you begin contacting references. There is no inference that you have pre-selected the winner. It is simply a process of carving the mountain down to a manageable molehill, and minimizing wasted time. You can always relook at applications that were previously screened out if the tighter investigation eliminates all of your smaller group. I missed the part of a high school coach criteria....or a director of operations...whom isnt a coach at all?? I missed those criteria???
D1sioux Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Gee, with all of the "insider" stuff and questioning of process and implicit "no confidence" vote to anyone that would come in, I know I'd be excited to come into this situation. If you have a problem with something you won't solve it here; go to the source and deal with it head on. BRILLIANT!
D1sioux Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I have hired people in private industry and served on a search committee at UND. You only contact references for people you are seriously considering for the position. I am sure that they used the guidelines outlined in the job announcement to eliminate the people that were not qualified, found a group that most closely matched that criteria, and decided to look closer at those people. My guess is that they checked references on 5-10 candidates (maybe a few more) and made their list of candidates to interview. Without seeing the applications or talking with references it is very difficult to tell how qualified the current candidates are. So if you saw Bobby Knight as a reference, would you call him and ask him about this coach?? Perhaps the LTC doesnt know Bobby....he was a head coach at West Point, coached Mike K...a certain Duke coach....he should know that history....of West Points that is!
The Sicatoka Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I feel sorry for my alma mater in this: When it was RT as the AD (with final call), he went to Kupchella and Harmeson (three!) and they together decided to stay internal and hire a hockey coach --> UPROAR! Now Buning as the AD (with final call), forms a committee of three and they go external to hire a coach --> UPROAR! The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'll give it this: I'd rather have passion and uproar from the fans over the process than complacency.
82SiouxGuy Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I missed the part of a high school coach criteria....or a director of operations...whom isnt a coach at all?? I missed those criteria??? Here is the criteria again, as posted here: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION: Requires a bachelor
legend334 Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 That was a waste of 3 mins to read, wait, 5 to reread, because it made no sense.
82SiouxGuy Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 So if you saw Bobby Knight as a reference, would you call him and ask him about this coach?? Perhaps the LTC doesnt know Bobby....he was a head coach at West Point, coached Mike K...a certain Duke coach....he should know that history....of West Points that is! I wasn't talking about any candidate in particular or how I would have handled this search. If I saw Bobby Knight as a reference I would definitely look seriously at that candidate. Whether I would have called would depend on other factors like experience, education, success and so on, it wouldn't be an automatic call. And just because I called for that reference wouldn't guarantee an in person interview. Buning and/or the committee set up the criteria before getting applications and supposedly followed their own criteria in selecting candidates to interview.
The Sicatoka Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 That was a waste of 3 mins to read, wait, 5 to reread, because it made no sense. That paragraph is hard to read. Here it is broken into bullet points: Requires - a bachelor
UND92,96 Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I feel sorry for my alma mater in this: When it was RT as the AD (with final call), he went to Kupchella and Harmeson (three!) and they together decided to stay internal and hire a hockey coach --> UPROAR! Now Buning as the AD (with final call), forms a committee of three and they go external to hire a coach --> UPROAR! The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'll give it this: I'd rather have passion and uproar from the fans over the process than complacency. Conducting a national search--good; Offering job and then retracting said offer to Herbst--bad; Strictly interpreting one of the "preferred" criteria so as to all but eliminate any candidate with strong local ties--bad; Choosing to interview a candidate who was apparently unable to find a collegiate coaching job last year, and who has a history of being a part of losing programs--bad; Choosing to interview a candidate who was recently demoted--bad. My expectations were to hire somebody who has either proven to be a successful college head coach (at any level), OR somebody who was an assistant at a highly successful program (preferably dI but can accept Brown because of Winona's recent success).
The Sicatoka Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 My expectations were to hire somebody who has either proven to be a successful college head coach (at any level), OR somebody who was an assistant at a highly successful program (preferably dI but can accept Brown because of Winona's recent success). As were mine. I'd love to see all of the other factors that we don't see (DI/DII concerns? finances? salary? NCAA sanctions with logo?) that got us here, but I'm not going to get the pitchfork and torch out and storm Hyslop .... yet.
Recommended Posts