Like I said, most kids at this level are taking their best offer, but we don't think a single recruit was coming for Brian now? Not one? [/QUOTE]That's not a critique of Smith; I'm just looking at the fact pattern. We didn't lose recruits, and it is hard to see many logic at all in an approach where it's known Smith is coming back, but nothing is communicated to him about it, and the University isn't downplaying the situation and supporting Smith publicly.
"You're on paid leave, we're not telling you why, but we're gonna call every recruit and tell them you're fired", and that info doesn't leak - and not one recruit decommits. To me, THAT is the illogical piece.
But I don't see the same smoke you do.
Aren't we way past smoke and to fire already? You don't suspend somebody without detail because there's a little bit of smoke.
I don't think they told anybody he was going to be fired. I suspect it was basically "we had to do this in the best interest of the program and university, and I assure you you have a place here, and that we'll make sure the right person is leading this program, whether it's Smith or Hauser."
We've all heard the same noise. It's all bad. If even a portion is true, I would've fired him from the jump.
If you have the documentation to do so. It's a $2.5m mistake if you handle this wrong. Paid leave is much safer than firing somebody too quickly.
[QUOTE=M.D.W.S.T]
But I don't see the same smoke you do. My opinion has softened. Certainly, I don't think you do this with the idea you're bringing him back - but did they make all the kids and parents sign an NDA also? And then no one decommits based on the level of secrecy they're attempting? 'Please wait until we win the bowl game so we can announce we're hiring a guy you've probably never met.' We're taking a lot of leaps here.