What Makes a Good AD? [or Sporting Experience vs. Money Management]
Since we've been discussing it ad nauseum elsewhere, in bits and pieces, I thought it might be worth bringing together a unified set of thoughts on what makes a good AD in a single thread. Or actually, it is the night before thanksgiving and I am bored and everyone else in my house seems occupied. But whatever.
Some folks seem to think business acumen is essential (it is roughly a $100m+ dollar business after all); others think that experience in sports and coaching is a must. So which is it?
My model for a surprisingly good AD is Wisconsin head Barry Alvarez. He has an eye for good coaches and has repeatedly made excellent hires in football, basketball, hockey, and elsewhere. Thus, he leans towards being a sports guy, and I think lets others handle the business side of things. By the way, an excellent article of the breakdown of Wisconsin revenue can be found online here; fun to see how all the dollars break down.
But perhaps business is more important. Here's an article in 1987 our famous Don Canham on the issue: "An athletic director has to know how to arrange schedules for maximum TV and radio revenue and how to hire coaches," Canham said. "But ability to read the bottom line is more important. In 1968, the Michigan athletic budget was $2.6 million. Now [ed:1987] it's $19 million. Athletics paid its own way then, and it still does, from shoveling snow to supporting non-revenue sports."
So, what are the qualities you are looking for? Which is more important, hiring, or money? Or, what should this thread have been about on the night before Turkey day?*
----
* Glib answers listed here to avoid the need to post:
- "Hire Harbaugh!"
- "Another damn AD thread?"
- Some long discussion about how RR would have done with another year and more $$ for a defensive coordinator.
- "The thread should have been about Turkey, and maybe stuffing."
November 26th, 2014 at 11:46 PM ^
November 26th, 2014 at 11:51 PM ^
November 26th, 2014 at 11:56 PM ^
Maybe I'm missing something. Which excellent hires in basketball and hockey did Barry Alvarez make?
November 27th, 2014 at 12:04 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 12:04 AM ^
- didn't fire bo ryan
- didn't fire mike eaves
(I really thought he had hired Ryan; memory is failing me I guess)
November 26th, 2014 at 11:59 PM ^
I like stuffing.
November 27th, 2014 at 12:07 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 1:05 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 1:25 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 8:22 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 9:43 AM ^
My mom was judgemental too. With therapy, I eventually got over it...
(nervous twitch)
:)
November 27th, 2014 at 12:20 AM ^
Well he let Bert go and replaced him with someone that's probably just as good and not a giant dick, so there's that.
November 27th, 2014 at 12:31 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 1:11 AM ^
component?
It would seem such a component might turn out to be very useful. If one believes in such stuff.
November 27th, 2014 at 12:38 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 9:20 AM ^
I'm sure UM has a policy whereby spouses can't be each other's supervisors, so by hiring Jim Harbaugh's wife, they'd probably guarantee the opposite.
November 27th, 2014 at 3:06 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 9:20 AM ^
Canham specifically stated that the AD's most important job is hiring coaches. If you mess that up(especially in football), all the other stuff does not matter.
November 27th, 2014 at 6:06 AM ^
That is why I feel some of this sports/business debate is silly to some degree. The reason they look at business leaders is because they are leaders not because they are from business. Im not arguing for/against hiring a CEO but more making the point i think the issues are framed wrong. A good leader should be able to learn the intricacies of he new organization and their industry and still be effective. Take Alan Mulally and the turnaround at Ford...they hired him from Boeing when he had no car experience. And Microsoft was looking at him as potential CEO last year even though he had no experience in that industry. Those companies focused less on experience and more on leadership and the ability to move an organization forward.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 27th, 2014 at 9:18 AM ^
At the high level which these sort of jobs are located - does knowledge of the "product" (be it cars, colas, computers, aircraft) matter? Yes, but only to a certain degree. A big part as pearlw points out relates to just organizing and motivating people. This is a position where there are only a few basic strategic decisions to make (e.g. who to hire to be next coach of X, should we sign or not sign with Nike or Addidas) and a lot of personnel/business decisions (e.g. should they keep or not keep some staffers, should they make a conscious effort to reach out to alumni groups in some parts of the country).
The AD won't be recruiting any players, calling any plays or making 'suggestions' on game plans or reviewing tape - he/she should be busy mending fences with the upset groups, keeping the development donation stream smoothly flowing and trying to position UM better in the strange new world of team/uni/endorsements.
November 27th, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^
First, to your point, it would be advisable to list the job duties and expected performance/achievments from the Athletic Director. Assuming that this is the same to all parties involved (e.g. President, Regents, Faculty/Staff, Alumni, Students, Athletes, Fans) is problematic.
For example, this board is potentially overrepresented by the #IHateBrandon and #DaveBrandonSucks crowd. I'm not going to dissect Brandon's performance or defend some of the glaring errors, but in reading many of the posts his contributions to the athletic department have been ignored. These include improvements in facilities, a vision for the future of the athletic campus, improvements in non-revenue sports, hiring and retaining good coaches, continued self-sufficiency and profitability of the athletic department, etc.
But putting all of this aside, it's seems fairly obvious that the one thing (and maybe the only thing) that matters is a winning football program. Michigan's athletic identity (right or wrong) is tied to its football program in the eyes of many. Moreover, this is what pays the bills. Brandon failed in that regard because the "experience" has not involved winning lately and no amount of flyovers, eagles, or rocket men could overcome that failure.
tldr summary: Win, baby, win.
November 27th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 1:29 PM ^
If DB gets the blame for all the BS stuff from the athletic department then he also gets to share in the credit (being the surplus). Yep, he bled the football goers a bit too much, but there was a plan behind all of this money raising and that was to develop more than Men's football, basketball and hockey. You can see that in the facilities spending/building and constant promotion of non-revenue sports.
November 27th, 2014 at 8:50 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 8:53 AM ^
November 27th, 2014 at 9:05 AM ^
We've known Hackett would be around for a while because Schlissel's going to take his sweet time with the search. Some national media guys find this out, and claim Hackett is the permanent AD because they can't wrap their little brains around Schlissel not moving at the speed of the newscycle. And then everybody freaks out because they forget that we already know everything that national media guys think they just learned but actually misunderstood.
That's what happened, right? So we should probably just calm down now.
November 27th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
The point made by one poster regarding the need for a leader who's run a large complex organization, e.g. his Mulally example is well taken. As further noted the nature of athletics departments today are such they require the characteristics of a successful corporate leader type.
But in my view that's only half of the equation necessary to achieve success as an AD. The AD's position requires a hybrid type of leader, if you will. While industry-specific experience may, or may not, produce success - again Mulally, the AD spot requires a person who understands both the executive bottom-line corporate world drivers, and at the same time not only understands, but has a feel and respect for the nuances that drive academic institutions, while integrating both of those skillsets into a succesfully managed athletics department.
That's a tall order and will take time identify that individual.
November 27th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
Can we not give Mr. Hackett more than a few weeks in the job before assuming he's not up to it and impugning his character????
Sometimes this site and this board ...
November 27th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
There are some superficial similarities between Canham and Brandon's approach to Michigan football, but I think Canham had a much better understanding of who his customers were, and obviously made a much better hire as head football coach.
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/michigan-football-needed-turnaroun…
November 27th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^
Interesting read especially the part about Paterno. It sounds like he was very interested in the job, but Canham was not gonna risk waiting for him to make a decision after the bowl game.
November 27th, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^