DD says that the PTB's would have given Mike another year, but.................

…they are supporting the AD who decided it was time to change. Let’s hope they have an AD that knows what he is doing and who will deliver a home run. :expressionless:

Who are the “powers that be”? Is that the board and the president? Is this the boosters who have clout? I am just curious.

Yes, yes, and yes

Dudley will have to answer that one. All he posted was PTB.

So, here’s another of those friend of a friend stories, but a good friend of mine works with someone who consistently feeds him solid info (no clue what his connection is). I got a text from my buddy breaking the Anderson firing about 30 minutes before it was anywhere on the internet.

According to his source, Mike and Hunter’s meeting at the golf course actually went well and then the board voted 9-1 to keep him another year. This was on a Monday, and then something changed overnight to where they fired him the next day. Speculation was that an influential potential donor, who had not donated to the program in years, would switch course and start donating again if Mike was let go.

I usually don’t try to bring rumors to the board, but since he’s already been let go and the internet is slammed with rumors anyway, why not add another.

I do not think the meeting went well at the golf course. Bury that one.

Not surprised as everything anywhere on the internet said that meeting did not go well.

Clay my assumption is HY asked CMA his plan for the future and HY was underwhelmed by the answer. Do you have any more specifics on how things changed so fast?

The team played relatively well down the stretch and would have returned 4 of 5 statrters. On the surface it wasn’t a desparate situation.

Since we are dissecting rumors, was the vote against from Boyer? And has it ever been revealed or discussed why Boyer was “anybody but Mike”? I’ve never seen anything here or even on Hogville, which is really odd.

One of the rumors that seems to have legs is when MIKE was asked about his recruiting plan going forward he didn’t have a solid plan laid out. That was troublesome to the AD and he left then to terminate.

I’m told an earlier vote was 7-3 to keep and then 9-1 formally.

That sounds like AD was just looking for supporting information, having made up his mind before the meeting to fire Mike. Otherwise the proper response would have been to say go get me a plan and we will talk again.

I hate to agree with Jerry, but there seems to be a lot of speculation that recruiting (or lack there of) played a part. Supposedly, it’s been over a year since Mike landed a commitment. Now, I think Ibby may be less than a year, but most of the other guys were indeed over a year ago. Thats a long time between commits

That is just not true.

Dudley, that’s why I said it was a rumor!