Did not have this on my "week after Commencement" bingo card.
There has been much administrative upheaval at GW (which is what happens when you change University presidents with rapid-fire regularity) and this is just the latest example. I, for one, thought Vogel was a great choice for AD given her experience at GW, think she handled the Pandemic with alacrity and has weathered the reallignment/NIL firestorm well. Maybe she was too quick to pull the plug on Mojo and JC, but neither move was inexcusable either.
Still, we enter a Brave New World of money driving sports, and GW must now decide where it goes (and can go) in the new environment. Bean counting will be the metric for the AD going forward, not trophy accumulation; although the latter can spur the former. And, of course, we will need to see what kind of a relationship Vogel's replacement forges with Vogel's hires.

I will miss her. I think she was dealt a tough hand after the Nero-produced cluster fuck. I have no doubt Mojo was forced on her, and I give her high marks for acting with courage to move on JC amd start a new chapter with CC.

I this “new” environment for college athletics, I doubt we will see many more “lifetime AD’s” especially at a school in GWs category. A new AD is not a bad thing for us right now, and it doesn’t need to be a knock on TV to hold that belief.

With CC in the coach’s box for a while longer, it makes it a bit more attractive gig, I think. I’m looking forward to seeing who we attract and hope that they make changes for the better, not just to,do things differently.

Wishing TV  all the best in her new role.

Change can be good, very good. Looking forward, let’s hope for an ambitious new A.D. who has considerable experience with big time college hoops programs.  I am also looking forward to an announcement about a new location and plan for the Basketball Practice Facility. President Granberg has indicated her support for big time hoops success and for the practice facility. I have heard her speak about her experience at Clemson, where she saw first-hand the importance and return on investment of successful college athletics.

Last edited by NJColonial (5/21/2024 7:06 pm)

The eternal question becomes: do you go for someone who is already an AD at a smaller school or an assistant AD at a bigger one?

Obviously the answer is whoever can raise the most money and make the best hires.

Last edited by GW0509 (5/21/2024 7:41 pm)

HIRING A P5 ASSOCIATE AD

PROS: Higher likelihood of being able to call in schedule favors with P5 schools. Better relationships and higher expectations with vendors like Ticketmaster, adidas, etc. Higher expectations about investing in fan experience. Higher expectations about media engagements. Possible greater "splash." Relationships with higher conference ADs and commissioners as the realignment carousel turns.

CONS: Not prepared for working in an environment with more limited resources in budgets and staffing. Gaps in expertise (ie., if they came up in development, they won't know much about sports medicine). Not prepared for having to ask for so much permission from others. Not prepared for working with limited facilities. Not prepared for less generous donor base.

LOWER CONFERENCE AD MOVING UP

PROS: Familiarity with working within resource-limited environments. Potential experience needing to collaborate with Admissions, Development, President's Office because they haven't swung a big enough stick on their own. Experience having to work harder for donations. Experience with creative strategies to become tournament eligible. 

CONS: Maybe lower expectations and a lack of imagination for what's possible? Less of a "splash" in the alumni and DC community. Less experience with high-needs NIL collectives and soliciting big money gifts. Could be ill-prepared for the (somewhat) brighter spotlight. Inability to sync up expectations with CC given CC's ACC experience. 
 

Gwmayhem wrote:

Even though this shrinks the recruiting pool, I would love a new AD with a basketball background.  It is THE sport that drives revenue to the athletic department and I believe this will be more likely to be appreciated by such a person. 
 

Seems like a Big East Associate AD might be your A1 pick, then?  All schools that are basketball-centric, relatively similar alumni bases, and a higher level.

CC will have zero input on who GW ultimately chooses to be the next AD.
That would be like asking the teachers to help choose the next school principal. It's not a popularity contest.

I agree with many here that GW should look at those with P5,6 athletic administration experience. Like asst coaches, there are plenty of young and upcoming candidates looking to run their own show.

I hope we don't go cheap and hire a firm to vet good candidates.

Now that Tanya is gone, I hope Brian Serrano will be shown the door. He is the last of the "Nero" stink and stain remaining.

More than a firm or not, is an actual thoughtful search. And as noted above, perhaps at least listening to GW's biggest supporters among other constituent groups.
      Tanya was one of us, a former GW athlete, and numerous degree holder, which means a lot.
But she seemed to be promoted several levels up--and may not have had the usual background
for an AD candidate at the GW level. Kind of like Mojo who can still be a good coach one day, but wasn't necessarily experienced enough to go from third assistant to GW head coach in the blink of an eye.
    I am not entirely sure TV should have resigned or whatever it is, although mostly because she was one of us and nice enough. And college athletics are in a bizarre environment to say the least.
But things weren't going well at all, from our records to the practice facility.
   And it is indeed very odd that if we didn't clean house after Nero, we would pick his protege for the job.
Especially given the seriousness nature of the Nero scandal, which could have (and probably should have) cost GW a lot more money than it did.

 

Joel, strange that AD's and coaches were successfully hired for years without search firms. All of these search firms are now offering up many of the same candidates for each job. The AD's are afraid not to hire them for a coach search because then they will be shunned when the next AD search comes around. It's a nice little one hand washes the other approach. We've used the same search firms for multiple hires at GW and several haven't worked out. 

Also, you can hire firms to do complete background checks of identified candidates. The thought used to be find 3-5 that you like, run a background check on each and if one gets knocked out so be it. Then bring the rest to campus. If there is one person you really like then maybe you bring them only and see if there are any objections. 

Finally, the discretion argument is nonsense. Everyone knows how to contact everyone indirectly to gauge interest. It's been going on for years well before search firms existed in this space. As long as people in the search don't leak stuff to the media you are fine.

That all said, please tell me what makes search firms uniquely qualified to determine what GW wants or needs? Again, funny how coaches and AD's were hired for years without them. I've seen nothing that suggests they are any better at finding candidates than the school itself. The cost is often ridiculous. To me it's really a smokescreen for "leaders" to hide behind in case stuff goes bad. I've hired or helped hire many people in a wide variety of capacities. I've made good hires and bad ones. But they were on me. I couldn't blame a headhunter or search firm. Examine closer the USC hire. Carol Folt made the hire of Bohn...for your reading pleasure ... USC used a search firm.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2023-08-21/usc-carol-folt-silent-mike-bohn  

creeksandzeeks wrote:

Basically, I think that the incoming AD has two jobs:
1. Make GW Men's Basketball a legitimate NCAA Tournament contender every 3 years, and
2. Restore GW to the top half of the Atlantic 10 Conference across virtually all sports. I'm tired of GW being the program that other A-10 programs propose throwing overboard the way we used to with Fordham, La Salle, and Bonaventure.

As much as I would love for GW to consistantly field winners in all sports, as with all departments the AD's job is to further the University in its mission. And the mission statement says nothing about winning games and cutting down nets.

https://www.gwu.edu/university-mission-statement