I am not certain that a "national search" has the weight or meaning you are ascribing to it. What candidates were considered? Who was interested in working at a small school in Olean? They ended up with a guy from Rochester - not very national.

Search firms make a ton of money but no one has ever demonstrated that they yield better results. Mainly their function is to make the search easier by putting someone in front. I've been involved in athletics searches with and without search firms. Can't say one is better than the other. It just depends on the position and what candidates you can attract otherwise. I would imagine it would be tough to attract many to Olean. Washington, DC not so much.

I also disagree that using a search firm "demonstrates a commitment to sports.". Many here believe GW doesn't have the requisite commitment to sports. Yet GW has used search firms before most notably in the hires of JC, ML and PN. GW did not use search firms in the hires of TV, MJ, KH or TP largely because search firms either weren't relevant or did not exist to the extent they do today.

Finally, as for a fundraiser as AD, it helps in some ways and can be a liability in other areas particularly day to day department leadership. I've seen great fundraisers become sub-par ADs and I won't mention any names but one some of you may know.

Last edited by GWRising (8/19/2021 11:29 am)

GWRising, suffice it to say that my comments were in regard to our own situation, with TV being appointed as a replacement for PN.  I get the sense that the only real priority for LeBlanc was to get rid of the whole ML/PN mess.  Once a settlement with ML was reached, more attention was paid to PN.  Once these facts, complete with video, surfaced, PN was shown the door.  It would have been to name TV Acting AD through the end of the school year and then conduct a broader search.  If TV emerged as the best candidate after such a search was completed, great.  Instead, LeBlanc gave her the permanent job after TV served three months as the Acting AD, without considering any other alternatives.

While I don't believe that one should be made to pay for someone else's mistakes, one can theorize how much TV knew about PN's irreprehensible behavior and remained silent about.  Similar to the decision to hire MoJo (and certainly to extend him), one can feel like this department needed to be blown up and start fresh with a new regime.

You have no way of knowing that SBU's search wasn't national.  Just because they hired someone who is from their region does not mean they didn't speak to a number of candidates from throughout the country.  And, they end up hiring someone who enjoyed great success at a major program (Duke). 

There are obviously no guarantees of hiring successfully no matter the process.  However, what's important is to put your best foot forward and enhance your chances for making a successful hire.  Whether or not a search firm should have been utilized is secondary to the importance of interviewing or considering a wide range of candidates. 

Finally, I would contend that having an AD without a significant fundraising background is less of a mistake at schools with major athletic programs because these schools have large enough support staffs that you can make this up by bringing in several skilled fundraisers.  At schools like SBU and GW, fundraising is critical.  AD's at these schools ought to be leading the charges when it comes to fundraising, IMO.        

Gwmayhem wrote:

GWRising, suffice it to say that my comments were in regard to our own situation, with TV being appointed as a replacement for PN.  I get the sense that the only real priority for LeBlanc was to get rid of the whole ML/PN mess.  Once a settlement with ML was reached, more attention was paid to PN.  Once these facts, complete with video, surfaced, PN was shown the door.  It would have been to name TV Acting AD through the end of the school year and then conduct a broader search.  If TV emerged as the best candidate after such a search was completed, great.  Instead, LeBlanc gave her the permanent job after TV served three months as the Acting AD, without considering any other alternatives.

While I don't believe that one should be made to pay for someone else's mistakes, one can theorize how much TV knew about PN's irreprehensible behavior and remained silent about.  Similar to the decision to hire MoJo (and certainly to extend him), one can feel like this department needed to be blown up and start fresh with a new regime.

You have no way of knowing that SBU's search wasn't national.  Just because they hired someone who is from their region does not mean they didn't speak to a number of candidates from throughout the country.  And, they end up hiring someone who enjoyed great success at a major program (Duke). 

There are obviously no guarantees of hiring successfully no matter the process.  However, what's important is to put your best foot forward and enhance your chances for making a successful hire.  Whether or not a search firm should have been utilized is secondary to the importance of interviewing or considering a wide range of candidates. 

Finally, I would contend that having an AD without a significant fundraising background is less of a mistake at schools with major athletic programs because these schools have large enough support staffs that you can make this up by bringing in several skilled fundraisers.  At schools like SBU and GW, fundraising is critical.  AD's at these schools ought to be leading the charges when it comes to fundraising, IMO.        

1. Fundraising has increased under TV not decreased.
2. Not true that LeBlanc considered no other alternatives and handed the job to TV. Just because they didn't make that public doesn't mean it didn't happen. LeBlanc considered others in different athletic departments from around the country. I can't tell you his exact decision-making process but he must have decided TV was the best candidate among the options.
3. When I speak of SBU's search, I am not saying it wasn't national. I am saying people use "national" as a broad term that can mean all sorts of things. It can truly mean "national" as in we affirmatively searched the land for the best qualified candidates. It can also mean we opened it up and advertised it "nationally" and then took what applied and determined the best candidate. All "national" searches are not the same and the cost of the search firm depends on how it is organized.

Last edited by GWRising (8/19/2021 12:43 pm)

Rising, I've been around this program possibly before you were born - since the early 80's.

I'm not judging TV on just men and womens basketball but on the athletic program as a whole. I disagree with you that fundraising has increased on her watch - and I mean that athletic fundraising has NOT increased every year for the last 4 years - in fact, we (like many schools) had to CUT our athletic budget and cut out entire sports programs. Most (if not all) of our A-10 partners did not have to do the same.

I also disagree that our athletic program performances has increased. Not sure what programs you are referring to but our program as a whole has not improved from where we were before 2017 when she took over. 

She was unqualified for the job back in 2017 and she has proven why. Her future (and that of JC) will come to light after this season. No more excuses.

ML and PN weren't fired after 2 seasons. Neither were JC or TV. Big difference between the 2 groups were ML improved each season and we put a quality product on the court every game, despite injuries, transfers, etc. JC hasn't done the same so lets see what he can do in year 3?

First off, bully for St Bona on getting an AD with "major conference" pedigree. Given SUNY-Buffalo´s attempt to become a figure in big time sports, Olean faces a real challenge (aside from the ones it already faced).
Second, St Bona´s hire has nothing to with the way GW hired Vogel or the metrics by which either AD will be evaluated. At GW, winning is nice but I would argue that the key indicators are academic standings of the student-athletes, meeting budget mandates and contribution to community and student engagement across the entire University (and yes, I am cynical enough to grant you that item two might be the most important one to Rice Hall).
Given the disruptions caused by the Pandemic, it seems to me Vogel has done an admirable job on points one and three. Sure, no one has been able to attend an event, but the sports teams have done a better job than many academic departments in ensuring the GW brand is presented to the public (including an NCAA appearance by the softball team).
Both baskeball coaches are Vogel hires who have yet to fully get their "plan" in motion, but we have to assume the working environment is positive (then again, we did not know about the bad blood between Nero and ML until the final days of that adventure, so who are we to say?) and that the job standards set by the University are being met. In fact, I would argue that her desire to win was a driving factor in firing a well-know and highly-respected women´s basketball coach who delivered modest results here. 
Are the facilities falling apart? Are the athletes flunking out? Is the school laying off professors to pay for coaches and to fend off legal claims? All those things are going on at other schools. Perspective people. The 2021-22 basketball team is indeed winless as of today, but then again so is St Bona´s.

Last edited by GW Alum Abroad (8/19/2021 4:04 pm)

I like Tanya.  This is no easy job, as the Legal function at GWU runs the show.  I think given the circumstances, she has done and continues to do a good job.  Just one person's opinion.

Joel Joseph wrote:

Rising, I've been around this program possibly before you were born - since the early 80's.

I'm not judging TV on just men and womens basketball but on the athletic program as a whole. I disagree with you that fundraising has increased on her watch - and I mean that athletic fundraising has NOT increased every year for the last 4 years - in fact, we (like many schools) had to CUT our athletic budget and cut out entire sports programs. Most (if not all) of our A-10 partners did not have to do the same.

I also disagree that our athletic program performances has increased. Not sure what programs you are referring to but our program as a whole has not improved from where we were before 2017 when she took over. 

She was unqualified for the job back in 2017 and she has proven why. Her future (and that of JC) will come to light after this season. No more excuses.

ML and PN weren't fired after 2 seasons. Neither were JC or TV. Big difference between the 2 groups were ML improved each season and we put a quality product on the court every game, despite injuries, transfers, etc. JC hasn't done the same so lets see what he can do in year 3?

Joel, I appreciate the fact that you think I'm 20 years younger than I am lol.

Of course, during the height of the pandemic (at least I hope we aren't about to reach new heights) donations went down. I am talking the 2 years pre-pandemic and so far this year.

You said TV was unqualified. Let's see, She was a college athlete. Check. A Division I coach, Check. A Senior Women's Administrator at two different Division I schools. Check. And a GW graduate to boot. Check. Not sure what makes you think she was unqualified. Perhaps you think there were others who were more qualified (your entitled to your opinion) but to say TV was unqualified is simply not true.

Again, how has she proven to be unqualified? Has there been a scandal? Has GW's overall athletic program declined in performance? Are we not recruiting student-athletes befitting GW? Has she not taken action to try to rectify the two basketball coaching positions? Please give us the specifics as to why she has "proven" to be unqualified.

keithgreene wrote:

I like Tanya.  This is no easy job, as the Legal function at GWU runs the show.  I think given the circumstances, she has done and continues to do a good job.  Just one person's opinion.

base upon?

GWRising wrote:

Skittles wrote:

She absolutely knew about nero and if that video hadn't leaked she would've swept it under the rug

Not sure what she was supposed to do as a relatively new employee if the powers that be weren't inclined to do anything. If you think there weren't GW employees with severe misgivings about what went down with ML and about PN you are very wrong. The problem was none of them were in a position to do anything.

Again, this goes to my larger point above. The beef with all these issues isn't with the athletic department or TV. It's with those at the top. They allowed this entire situation to occur. 

She obviously was supposed to call a press conference to personally apologize to ML, call PN a predator, demand the school rehire ML, and then resign /sarc

Anyway, you hit the nail on the head that all this angst about whether our AD is doing enough is a big waste of time if there's no buy-in from the powers that be at the top.  It's like getting mad at the GM of the Orioles for not doing enough to win.  If you're an up-and-coming assistant AD who wants to win more than anything, why would you go to a school where the administration's goals are not that? 

Conversely, if you're the administration, why pour more money into an athletics program where students barely show up and alumni engagement is anemic?  The school badly squandered the student enthusiasm of the 05-06 season by capitulating to the Post after Omar-gate.  We actually had students lined up outside for hours before game-time and you pretty much had to be a dues-paying member of the Colonial Army to get a chance of getting a good seat.  Those are the alumni, who like me are in our mid 30s, who should be sustaining the program with season tickets and donations, yet everything completely collapsed by the time we graduated in 2009. Even during the BEST stretch of the ML years I never saw a situation where students were turned away at the gate.

Right now we're basically operating like a newspaper where the only thing that can save us at this point is getting a benefactor (either the new president or booster) who dumps money into athletics without regard for the underlying fundamentals.