|
Post by ruffledfeathers on Feb 27, 2020 19:03:30 GMT -6
Nailed it, General.
RF
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 27, 2020 20:47:21 GMT -6
Beth is not mediocre. She has done a good job here reorganizing, bringing in new people and competent people....She is not going to do much that is really really bold, maybe not even if she has the power, and I doubt that. Your so deep into your mediocrity fetish that you can't even recognize it as you're describing it. You first say she's not mediocre and then you proceed to describe the exact nature of her mediocrity. Not sure what your "fetish" is. You from on high call someone mediocre who's been good or excellent at every stop. Who is doing more good things here than past ADs. The department is changed for the better and now has a much better chance to overcome it's problems and accomplish things than we she arrived. You do this without much if any first hand contact or observation of her at work. Why? Because she won't try the lunatic Sherman Plan? Wants to move on to a better job than this place? I call that damned smart. Excellent plan.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 28, 2020 6:50:10 GMT -6
So, I guess having an AD who is completely inert and ineffectual on basketball is just another one of those things that we should just accept as the natural and inevitable order of things and cumulatively they explain why it's also natural and inevitable that some MAC team other than us goes to the tourney every year.
But then you know that she's been "good or excellent at every stop" because one of her supporters told you that.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Feb 28, 2020 7:16:49 GMT -6
You from on high call someone mediocre who's been good or excellent at every stop. Who is doing more good things here than past ADs. I'd like a description of the good and excellent things she's done at each stop, and what good things she's done here. Aside from seeing a couple of long-timers leave (that needed to happen), I can't point to a single thing she's done, positive or negative.
|
|
|
Post by frozenbaugh on Feb 28, 2020 8:14:21 GMT -6
Your so deep into your mediocrity fetish that you can't even recognize it as you're describing it. You first say she's not mediocre and then you proceed to describe the exact nature of her mediocrity. Not sure what your "fetish" is. You from on high call someone mediocre who's been good or excellent at every stop. Who is doing more good things here than past ADs. The department is changed for the better and now has a much better chance to overcome it's problems and accomplish things than we she arrived. You do this without much if any first hand contact or observation of her at work. Why? Because she won't try the lunatic Sherman Plan? Wants to move on to a better job than this place? I call that damned smart. Excellent plan. You just need to take the 'L' on this and move on. You says she's been good and excellent then describe safe and mediocre. Besides she is young and this job is about her NEXT job. She is not going to do much that is really really boldThis is literally what every AD since forever at Ball State has done.
|
|
|
Post by frozenbaugh on Feb 28, 2020 8:35:21 GMT -6
And I would also add this is the time to be bold if you want to be noticed. The time to be safe is when you reach the Mark Sandy stage of AD life.
To be clear, I don't know what an AD at BSU or anywhere else needs to do to be bold. It's her career though, not mine and I understand safe.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 28, 2020 8:56:54 GMT -6
What I said was more about lunatic bold.
The issue also is how much bold an AD can do within current budget while keeping the show going.
And what bold the Prez and BOT will accept and approve.
Dropping out of the MAC might be what is needed. That would not be an AD call for example. Not firing a coach. ..
MOST administration is keeping the trains running not overhaul. When radical change needed AD does not have authority without approval to act.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 28, 2020 9:05:36 GMT -6
No, I actually agree with 00 that safely and strictly following the conventional wisdom is a smart career move for her. Being female and not obviously screwing up puts her in great position to move up. Having and implementing strong, innovative and decisive ideas about football and basketball entails some risk that she doesn't need to take.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 28, 2020 9:07:47 GMT -6
By the way, 00, you were called out on listing the good and excellent things she did at previous stops...or did you overlook that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2020 9:59:03 GMT -6
Clearing dead wood can be done by a temp service in about 2 months of nosing around any office.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Feb 28, 2020 10:01:44 GMT -6
I will agree that Beth can’t make any truly impactful move without sign off from above. I guess that’s where the rubber meets the road in terms of an AD fighting for what he/she wants. Does Beth have that kind of collateral yet?
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 28, 2020 10:11:02 GMT -6
I will agree that Beth can’t make any truly impactful move without sign off from above. I guess that’s where the rubber meets the road in terms of an AD fighting for what he/she wants. Does Beth have that kind of collateral yet? So I'd like to know where, you got the notion Said I'd like to know where, you got the notion So I'd like to know where, you got the notion Said I'd like to know where, you got the notion (To rock the boat), don't rock the boat baby (Rock the boat), don't tip the boat over (Rock the boat), don't rock the boat, baby (Rock the boat), don't tip the boat over
Our program's like a ship on the ocean With recruiting going nowhere and a yearly implosion
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 28, 2020 10:18:34 GMT -6
And I would also add this is the time to be bold if you want to be noticed. The time to be safe is when you reach the Mark Sandy stage of AD life. To be clear, I don't know what an AD at BSU or anywhere else needs to do to be bold. It's her career though, not mine and I understand safe. No. Exactly the opposite in this case.
Beth has already been noticed. She needs no home runs here to be a success. If she was hired here to hit home runs I imagine she would be swinging for the fences and doing a good job with that. She was not, she was hired to make structural change, manage a very tight budget, to be much more personable and accessible, and work with the "strategic plan" where athletics is not a high priority.
As you get started in an AD career, bold is an option if you are hired to be bold and allowed to be. In MOST cases in contrast to that course you need to do lots of good things, including watching budget, working well with others, producing a list of accomplishments, but don't really need home runs. And pretty important in your future is not presiding over a disaster.
Where you are also wrong is with Sandy. He had virtually nothing to lose except maybe his reputation as a solid citizen. If you highly value that you might indeed play it safe. But if he was a hire where the President wanted bold, he could have done damned near anything. This was his swan song, no worry about future after this gig. Look at this forum and you see some say he did take big risk and was "bold" here. Gambled on extension for Whitford.
Sandy was no hero here, but he did pretty much what his boss wanted. On his Whitford gamble which was defensible, but hardly anyone really was enthusiastic about it, he did not badly lose, some would say, he accomplished the goal of getting out of the cellar and being representative. But whatever the chances were of that he failed to hit a home run... So he was a total loss say others.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 28, 2020 10:19:28 GMT -6
So I was just describing what is in fact the reality. If you are a very good young administrator, ready to be an AD, you are on an upward trajectory. You do all the "right" things, have to do them well, and you try very hard not to mismanage something. A career killer. More important than the home run.
When you take the job where they want home runs, yes you better swing for the fences. It is no indictment of an AD who takes a "mediocre" job like BSU where are ready to prove your competence and intend to move up to better. Besides, those are the jobs available...
Look at Bubba. He was an up and comer, actually maybe more so than Goetz with the ND record. He came, he worked hard for a while, presided over some success, which many do not think he had all that much to do with. More or less at the peak of what was a mostly unblemished record, he made a move that was not very much up from here. A lot of BS about how his next job represented different problems for him to confront, solve and learn from, expanded his skills and so on...BUT in my mind the best part of the move was it avoided a pending disaster he was part of creating. He escaped and went on. Contrast TC who was AD during our most risky out of the box "bold" coaching hire. He worked for a "bold" President. He was not young, not headed up from here. The President at the time of the hire had 3 pretty good choices, two of the finalists young and on the way up, one a steady hand with experience who would fit a top down administration. Which one was the choice? My sense of what Sherman calls "bold" would be in the category of very high risk moves. VERY few Presidents would allow much of that. And with his advocacy of the Sherman Plan bold to him may mean lunatic bold.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 28, 2020 10:25:17 GMT -6
Clearing dead wood can be done by a temp service in about 2 months of nosing around any office. Not the way organizations do it, is it? Wonder why?
Could be harder than you think.
|
|