[cardcrimson]

Saving my thoughts for when we figure out who the new director will be.  Athletic Director is a tough job, and change for change's sake is not always a winning strategy.

So you're saying we should have stuck with Muir?

I read his comment as saying that evaluating the (forced?) resignation requires knowing both what has left and what it is being replaced with.  I agree with most that Muir should have been replaced long ago (for me, the last straw was when we suffered our first major NCAA sanctions).  But just because I don't think Muir was very good doesn't mean that the next AD will automatically be better.  I think when Muir finally got around to firing Dawkins, most people were pretty excited (and many felt it was overdue).  It turns out that the replacement (Haase) was no better.  

BC

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I disagree with evaluating the result of a termination requires knowing both what has left and what is the replacement. When making decisions, one doesn't have the benefit of future hindsight. The question really should be two fold: first is the person a net positive or a net negative to the organization; second, if a net positive or even net neutral, what is the probability of finding replacement who can improve the status quo.

If the first, you cut immediately (or as soon as legally possible in this day and age). If the second, you make the decision on the likelihood of improving. In Muir's case, you mentioned the NCAA sanctions, a brobdingnagian negative. The state of the basketball and football programs, brobdingnagian negatives. The Pac-12 debacle. The move to the ACC. His lack of hiring prowess. All negatives. He needed to go after any of those major negatives to the University. Levin's predecessor seems to have the same concerns the poster appears to hold to which I responded: "but what if the replacement I hire is worse?" He never made the change.

Letting people go is tough. Leaders make hard decisions and take action. Glad Levin did. I don't know Levin, but I trust that he will find somebody who is a net positive over Muir.

Finally, waiting to evaluate his "resignation" until his replacement is named is not a luxury in the real world, but I guess it is the second-guessing world of sports boards.

[cardcrimson]

Saving my thoughts for when we figure out who the new director will be.  Athletic Director is a tough job, and change for change's sake is not always a winning strategy.

So you're saying we should have stuck with Muir?

I read his comment as saying that evaluating the (forced?) resignation requires knowing both what has left and what it is being replaced with.  I agree with most that Muir should have been replaced long ago (for me, the last straw was when we suffered our first major NCAA sanctions).  But just because I don't think Muir was very good doesn't mean that the next AD will automatically be better.  I think when Muir finally got around to firing Dawkins, most people were pretty excited (and many felt it was overdue).  It turns out that the replacement (Haase) was no better.  

BC

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I disagree with evaluating the result of a termination requires knowing both what has left and what is the replacement. When making decisions, one doesn't have the benefit of future hindsight. The question really should be two fold: first is the person a net positive or a net negative to the organization; second, if a net positive or even net neutral, what is the probability of finding replacement who can improve the status quo.

If the first, you cut immediately (or as soon as legally possible in this day and age). If the second, you make the decision on the likelihood of improving. In Muir's case, you mentioned the NCAA sanctions, a brobdingnagian negative. The state of the basketball and football programs, brobdingnagian negatives. The Pac-12 debacle. The move to the ACC. His lack of hiring prowess. All negatives. He needed to go after any of those major negatives to the University. Levin's predecessor seems to have the same concerns the poster appears to hold to which I responded: "but what if the replacement I hire is worse?" He never made the change.

Letting people go is tough. Leaders make hard decisions and take action. Glad Levin did. I don't know Levin, but I trust that he will find somebody who is a net positive over Muir.

Finally, waiting to evaluate his "resignation" until his replacement is named is not a luxury in the real world, but I guess it is the second-guessing world of sports boards.