Why was the MSU assoc. AD eliminated?

[Guest bullman33]

He had me sold with his comments in the paper.  That guy seemed to have great vision for USF and where we could go.   He seemed to have a focus on marketing the program to  a much greater extent and creating partnerships with the local pro teams.  I am not as impressed with the other two candidates.  I dont want a SLU ad, they don't even have football, so what would he bring to the table?    I think USF is once again making a mistake.  What are the needs of the Athletic Dept, and who can best meet those needs is hopefully the focus of this search.

[Apis Bull]

I think USF is once again making a mistake.

Which recent hire has USF made a mistake on?

[Guest S.  Bien]

Actually, outside of the comments in the paper, Hollis was very, very uninspiring was the words I heard.

First, did you know he isn't even the #2 Associate AD at MSU?  Furthermore, many of his marketing stratagies, i.e. marketing events., were absolute no-brainers, and he wasn't exclusive in devising them.  Come on, MSU, and Mich are already top 10 in the nation for Hockey Attendance, they are in-state rivals, perennially in the top 10 in hockey.  So, they play a big publicized game in Detroit, that drew 70k fans.  Well, heck the two school's average home hockey attendance was already near 40k.  It wasn't a stretch in the least bit.  

The the basketball game that vied a top 10 UK team, against a top 5 MSU team in 2001.  That MSU team was averaging more than 20k in attendance that season.  WOW, a real leap of faith those MSU faithful had to make.  Actually, MSU, despite not being UM, still is top 20 in the nation for attendance for hockey, basketball, football, and probably other sports.  They still pack over 77k for football annually, of which Hollis did zero to obtain.  MSU has been great in attendance long before Hollis ever showed up.

Also, our search committee, and casual observers expected this self-proclaimed, master promoter, to show up all high energy and with great ideas.  Nothing was further from that, he was extremely uninspiring, showed little emotion, and seemed intimidated at times.  He typically fell back on marketing when discussing the AD position, skimming over the management, fundraising, and relationship aspects.  Furthermore, the coaching staffs all felt the same way, many wondered if he should have been a finalist.

Hollis was all hype, and no substance.  Many of his accomplishments were things Veit could do with a sufficient budget, and team in-place.  Hollis seemed to lack the leadership, vision, and goals.  All his vision were very broad, and brought up things like helping USF get things we either already had, or something that wouldn't be a stretch for any AD to obtain.  Hollis needs more time, the current two are the right group for the job.

[BullDoug]

Which recent hire has USF made a mistake on?

Think he's referring to Coach McCullum.

[Apis Bull]

Think he's referring to Coach McCullum.

He must be good then.  How else would he know that was a mistake already?

[Guest bullman33]

How about our recent associate ad from Colorado I think that was involved some sort of inappropriate behavior and then did something similar here as well.  

[bulls96go]

ref my SETH- like comment

once burned twice shy. i was not sold on this guy

thanks for the insight S. Bien

[bullsmania]

Actually, outside of the comments in the paper, Hollis was very, very uninspiring was the words I heard. Hollis was all hype, and no substance.    Hollis seemed to lack the leadership, vision, and goals.  

That is exactly what I heard Bien.  He kept looking down at the table rather than looking up and giving some exciting answers.  He was nothing like they expected.  He is a marketer, maybe, but not a leader.  

[smazza]

don't know