• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Selection Committee

spsyk

Well-known member
DONOR
I glad that finally a new HC has been hired for the position at the UM, however could someone explain the cloud of secrecy vailed by the selection committee of Halsam / Engstrom.

I realized the process does not need to have any transparency from the University point of view, although would it not be of interest to know whom the candidates were so the decision to could be held to scrutiny, in lieu of the AD making comment that he is not going to comment or expand on who was being consider.

So what the fan base got is; your new HC is Bob Stitt and that is all you need to know along with his credentials. Support him because that is what the University provided, and make sure to purchase your season tickets, and support with GSA membership.

Haslam / Engstrom, appears to have taken a lesson without mentioning a name, " Never let a crisis go to waste ".
 
It is very likely that most candidates for the job already had jobs and if they didn't get the job they don't want their name splashed all over in the media so their players and supporters could see they were out looking for a new job. And who cares if you and I know the name of the top candidates...do you really think our input would be considered. The President of the University of Montana hires the University of Montana Athletic Director to run the UM Department of Athletics, and that includes hiring coaches for the various athletic programs at the University of Montana. If you want input into coaching hires, get a degree in sports administration and apply to the university for a job. If you get hired you get input.
 
Is it true that Stitts and TG had never spoken a word to each other when this decision was made? Maybe that is normal in this process, I don't know. Just seems sort of strange that there wouldn't be any sort of discussion between them... unless Ty was an actual candidate? Then I can see it. I assume shortly thereafter you would think they had to have met. Sounds like an arranged marriage. What if they hate each other? :lol:
 
EverettGriz said:
My guess: because that's the way hiring is done.


This.


It is called professional courtesy. It is for the benefit of those not hired, so that they do not end up with egg on their face.
 
I think it's more the norm than those schools that have candidates come to open forums, hand out resumes at the door, have everyone put their heads on a desk and then raise your hand to vote.
 
GeauxGriz said:
EverettGriz said:
My guess: because that's the way hiring is done.


This.


It is called professional courtesy. It is for the benefit of those not hired, so that they do not end up with egg on their face.


Well it's ONE way hiring is done and in my opinion (for the reasons stated) I think it is the right way. Was it when Ash was hired the 4 or 5 prospective candidates were announced and there was a public type "forum" with a question/answer session or am I thinking of someplace else?
 
Makes sense to me now, thanks, I knew Egriz could answer my question, I should have known
they hire like they fire.

However would that have pertained to coaches that didn't have employment when considered for the position, If so, then do the same rules applied,.
 
spsyk said:
Makes sense to me now, thanks, I knew Egriz could answer my question, I should have known
they hire like they fire.

However would that have pertained to coaches that didn't have employment when considered for the position, If so, then do the same rules applied,.

I don't think it essentially a "rule." Each University and AD may do things differently. With that said I am fine with no names being given out publically prior to a hire, regardless of whether the candidate is employed at the time. I would assume if an (unemployed) candidate is seeking a position at one institution they are also communicating with other Universities simultaneously.

Here is what I figure, if an unemployed candidate wants it to be (publically) known which doors he is knocking on it's likely his decision to do so. That may be a good move or a bad one depending on the situation.
 
signedbewildered said:
spsyk said:
Makes sense to me now, thanks, I knew Egriz could answer my question, I should have known
they hire like they fire.

However would that have pertained to coaches that didn't have employment when considered for the position, If so, then do the same rules applied,.

I don't think it essentially a "rule." Each University and AD may do things differently. With that said I am fine with no names being given out publically prior to a hire, regardless of whether the candidate is employed at the time. I would assume if an (unemployed) candidate is seeking a position at one institution they are also communicating with other Universities simultaneously.

Here is what I figure, if an unemployed candidate wants it to be (publically) known which doors he is knocking on it's likely his decision to do so. That may be a good move or a bad one depending on the situation.


Precisely.
 
There was no "selection committee". There was a small group of boosters that Haslam kept apprised of the situation and sought general input from, but there was no official selection committee assisting with the hiring process. Personally, I think that it was done the right way. There's no reason to have too many cooks in the kitchen during the executive decision process.
 
Yes, it should have been vetted in 35 statewide public meetings, and then put to a vote of the good fans. And then ratified by the legislature and approved by the governor.
 
Basically the "process" comes down to this. If your not afraid of being held accountable you make the decision. If you want to be able to distribute blame and save your job you form a committee and invite input. If your an AD you either have balls or you select the person you can get a consensus about. Safest way is the consensus way but you usually get some moderate achievement or production but are held back by the thought those involved must reach concensus on admitting they made a mistake, because no one has ownership in f th decision.
 
Probably the same reasons that coaches say - I have not interviewed for that position or no one has contacted me and then they are hired the next day.
 
mtgrizfankb said:
Apparently you have never been part of a professional hiring process

Exactly. For several reasons it Cannot be 100% transparent.

I can't understand bulletin board posters that naively believe that they must be informed of everything and that their opinion counts. Haslam fulfilled his duties as AD, conducted the recruitment and made his decision, and really has no accountability to eGriz. As comparison, KH is not an elected official on your homeowner's assoc. board. Just my :twocents: :|
 
Back
Top