That person needs to be hired first, so a coach will be comfortable with his boss. Or do we throw so much money at a coach with guarantees he might not care. After all, the coach is going to make a lot more money than the AD. This reminds me of the NBA where the players make a ton more than the coach. It is a crazy world where the employee makes 3-4 times the money his boss does…
Can a coach not be comfortable with an AD that he has provided input about during the hiring process?
Seems to me it can work in either order.
I think Wally is right on this one. If you hire a coach before the AD that basically states that the new AD has little power and that all big decisions run through the BOT. Not many quality AD candidates would want that environment.
Not necessarily. Mike Perrin has been the interim AD at Texas for a couple of years now. He oversaw both the firing of Charlie Strong and hiring of Tom Herman.
If someone is interim for 2 years, something is wrong at the top. Regardless, I’d think our coach would want to know who our AD is or at least want input.
Another possibility is that the HC would answer directly to the Chancellor. That’s not a good arrangement, but I think that was a provision of Nolan’s last contract with the UA. He & Frank had been at odds badly enough that Nolan insisted that only the Chancellor have the authority to fire him. Of course, that’s eventually what John White did although Frank was on board with it.