|
|
On one hand I think the search company probably has a good dozen to two dozen resumes they have not finished vetting yet and passed along to the school.
On the other hand I fear that our bowl fiasco (and of course past working constraints) have made good candidates a little gunshy about coming to Tech, even though we have a new admin.
I lean towards idea number 1 and hope it is not idea number 2.
Apply is a very loose term. In this world people don't apply for positions because their name is public knowledge and it hurts them at their current job if they don't get it. We will never know the names of those that applied. But I would imagine we got a lot of candidates to interview that are good quality candidates. It is Athletic Director at an FBS school.Originally Posted by hookdown
There are a number of other candidates. Thin reporting generally results in skinny, meaningless information and you should place minimal reliance on.
What Gator said.^^ The real candidates are protected by the search firm. Those three applicants must have sent their applications directly to LaTech without going through the search firm. There is really nothing to worry about.
As a journalist, I don't like public entities having the ability to hire a third party to keep everything in the dark. I'm a believer in public information. However, just because I don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I feel confident there are plenty of people who are being vetted by the search party. After all, that's what Tech is paying them for. Honestly, I'm surprised someone like Stan Williamson, who has a knowledge of how this process works, would allow his name to become public. The only thing that tells me is that his bosses probably know he is looking because it's his alma mater.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
Where does that newspaper get some of that crap? It's the small things like this that make it hard for Tech to win over the casual fans. Anybody paying a lick of attention know that 2 of those guys have no chance of getting the job. But the uninformed will read "little ole Tech can't find an AD." It's lazy at best and a misleading at worst.
Dear newsstar, please stop talking. I'm being dead serious, I'd prefer them to not even cover us.
I thought the story came out of the Shreveport Times not TNS...although owned by the same people!
Our part-time "beat writer" for The News-Star wrote the story for The News-Star, and The Times picked it up.
Thanks
Where did they get it? From us--the info was provided as a result of a FOIA request. But the info we gave them emphasized the search firm more than the 3 applicants. TNS spun it the other way.
Yeah, I agree with you on that. People have a right to know if a stellar candidate that exceeded all the qualifications was passed over in favor of a crony.
Seems odd to take the time and effort to submit a FOIA request for something like this.
Which ultimately led to an article about basically nothing..
It's not odd. It's SOP for something like this. You're not going to get all of the information because they do a good job of hiding things, but beat writers across the country file FOI requests for coaching and AD searches.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
The FOIA requests I've made are likely a tad bit more technical in nature than one for an athletics director... But I'm sure it took some level of effort and time.
And lord knows I'm not a beat writer, but it seemed common knowledge that a consulting agency would be engaged for this hire.
So, at the end of the day, you have little pertinent information, and certainly not much news. Perhaps instead of 'odd' I should have said a waste of time and money. But, hey. I don't read the Monroe paper anyway.
ULM did not claim to have 100 applicants. They had around 40 to be exact.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
