re: Why Carolina hired Muschamp instead of Herman and how the search failed.

quote:

---

This is the answer to your question.

---

No it's not ... but I'll play along for the fun of it until it's time to saddle my horse and go for a ride.

quote:

---

I'm an executive search consultant (read-not headhunter or recruiter). I'm an EXECUTIVE SEARCH CONSULTANT in a very particular industry. I will bring you EXECUTIVES that manage millions of dollars.

---

I say po-tay-toes you say po-tah-toes ... yada yada yada. You're a fricking stewardess, not a flight attendant.

quote:

---

I'm not a college football coach search consultant. Read the whole thread. I'm ALSO not some recruiter that you suggest "combs LinkedIn". That's not me Sir. I make phone calls to people I know.

---

More bullshite ... just as I predicted. You have no shame.

quote:

---

This thread - which I wrote and you're reading was about the PROCESS...

---

And the question I've been asking you to answer for going-on three pages now is, how would you have handled the process different, in your all-seeing, all-knowing, expert executive opinion.

:::::::: I'm seriously lulzing hard right now :::::::::

quote:

---

I'm not here to tell you WHO Tanner should have hired.

---

Then, by all means, do tell how you would have handled the process differently Mr. Executive Search Consultant. Perhaps Bob Beaudine or someone at Eastman-Beaudine will stumble across this thread and reach-out to you as a candidate by which they might upgrade their staff of Executive Search Consultants.

You do realize, do you not, that the longer you skirt the fact that you were called on your bullshite ... the worse it makes you appear, do you not?

And since you have issues with the "PROCESS" (sic) evoked by Eastman-Beaudine, Ray Tanner and SCAR ... being the failed optics of the search, you're proving yourself to be a hypocritical little dick in addition to all the other fallacies in your claims as I've already pointed-out in the previous two pages of this thread ... do you not - do not you not realize as much?

So bite the mother fricking bullet and answer the question.

Either that, or stfu.

Or would you prefer I just draw a bottom line on this bullshite thread of yours and put you out of your misery?

Let me know that you've rested your case and I'll present my closing arguments ... when you are ready.

quote:

---

Scrooster laid out a timeline describing interest and events, both from USCe and potential coaches. By his own admission, Muschamp was way down the list. Like... fifth or sixth. I hate to break it to you, but if you end up hiring the fifth or sixth guy you considered, then you didn't do a very good job qualifying the first few guys.

---

Only an idiot defends an idiot. You don't really want to get mixed-up with this guy - it'd be like defending Obama's strategy to fight terrorism in this country and abroad, or defending Jeffery Dahmer as having had an eating disorder, or defending ISIS on a freedom of religion basis.

Also, I laid-out no such timeline. I was/am saving that for his bullshite explanation - which is obviously never coming - he's too busy deflecting to actually defend his original post ... because his original post is indefensible.

quote:

---

Again, all the OP was doing was giving some insight into the process about how modern day coaching searches are done. The hire/fire process at that level has been changing over the years, and more and more schools are using search firms. As NCAA athletics have grown, no single AD can have the number of contacts to access ALL the available coaches out there. The Good Ol' Boy network still works, but it's not as effective as it used to be.

---

The OP stated conclusively, based on his self-claimed expertise, both in his subject line and in the body of his original post that was the genesis for this bullshite thread, that Ray Tanner may have by-passed the search firm, relied on his own ability to hire, and that Tanner failed to conduct a professional survey to deduce the prospect(s) true interest in the position that was to be filled.

The OP implies a certain ineptness on behalf of Tanner and SCAR with regard to Herman in particular ... both in the subject line of this thread and again, in the body of his original post.

Once the OP either replies to my very specific question, in kind, or rests his case and defaults to me to close this absurd conversation once and for all ... I'll provide great detail as to why the OP is so utterly full of unmitigated bullshite.

quote:

---

I'm defending the most sane guy in this entire thread.

---

The OP was hoping for someone such as you to come along ... you're cock blocking for him, pardon the pun. Let him answer the question, then decide if he is worth defending.

quote:

---

If you're that happy with the hire, why do you come off as angry and agitated? Sooo... that list you made in chronological order of candidates who considered and backed out is not a "timeline"? Okey-dokey.

---

I'm fine with the hire, neither happy or unhappy. Time will tell. Neither am I angry ... more to the point, I'm simply put-out with the amount of bullshite I have read in this thread being propagated by the OP on grounds that he has some expertise worth sharing with regard to the "process."

quote:

---

I think my premise still stands. If your eventual hire is the fifth or sixth guy you considered for the job, you're not doing something right in your qualification and vetting process.

---

Then I'll ask you the same question. Given the series of events that transpired, how would you have handled it differently. It's easy to be part of the peanut gallery. Rather, shower us with your vast knowledge of how the process should have transpired.

quote:

---

Defend Tanner all you want. You guys had MONTHS to get this right, and you settled for a coach that was recently terminated for a lack of success. At his next job, his team underperformed in his area of leadership.

---

No one is defending Tanner on the optics. He handled the PR aspects poorly but he had to play the hand he was dealt.

You may define it as "settled for a coach" whereas others may define it as making the best hire considering the unusual circumstances that reared its ugly head during the course of the process. I've stated many times that I thought Tanner failed to play this like an expert chess player, or more apropos an expert poker player, but at the same time he did okay with the hand he was dealt.

quote:

---

Again, maybe it will work out for you guys, maybe not. Good luck and have a great week.

---

Thank you and again, could that not be said about any hiring or firing that just transpired?

If there is one thing that is certain when it comes to coaching searches and hirings ... it is that nothing is certain. There are countless cases to prove as much.

Where I take exception is not in the fact of how SCAR reached the final hire, but in the innuendo and assumptions that played into the OP starting this thread and the fact that he claimed expertise in the process without knowing how the process actually evolved.

The OP has proven that he is neither man-enough, or professional enough, to admit he assumed too much and subsequently attempted to make an arse (of) u (and) me (d).

I'm going for a ride while it is cool and the dirt road is not dusty .... that should be enough time for either the OP to finally answer the question or for him to defer to me to close the argument once and for all and prove what a baseless and unfounded argument he presented, to start this thread, in the first place.

quote:

---

Then I'll ask you the same question. Given the series of events that transpired, how would you have handled it differently.

---

"Not that way."

I'll stand on the assertion that Beantown knows what he is talking about. I agree in his general layout of how the process most likely went. This is not necessarily mutually exclusive to your exhaustive layout of what you think happened, there is room for some of it to dovetail in.

But the fact is, unless you are Tanner's brother in law or something, you are likely no more sure about the process than anyone else. Using simple scientific observation methodology, one can see results and determine the most likely path it took to get there. This what Beantown did and frankly, it seems clear to me as well. Compared to other coaching searches that have taken place this fall, it just looks... inept. Well, maybe not compared to LSU, but I digress.

You're certainly free to disagree. No problem there. No need to come off as combative and angry, though. Ease up.

quote:

---

But the fact is, unless you are Tanner's brother in law or something, you are likely no more sure about the process than anyone else. Using simple scientific observation methodology, one can see results and determine the most likely path it took to get there. This what Beantown did and frankly, it seems clear to me as well. Compared to other coaching searches that have taken place this fall, it just looks... inept. Well, maybe not compared to LSU, but I digress.

---

Bingo. Shouting louder doesn't make you more correct Scrooster... Your personal feelings about recruiters don't really have any bearing on whether beantown or iglass have knowledge of a particular field. I've not personally had good experience with recruiters/headhunters either on the personal side or filling roles within organizations, but am not asinine enough to think that limited interaction should taint my view of an entire profession. Like with everything else (coaches included) there are good and there are bad.

quote:

---

You're certainly free to disagree. No problem there. No need to come off as combative and angry, though. Ease up.

---

Seems to be a trend for you but maybe you're just channeling your inner Boom to get ready for 2016.