BREAKING: Hauck returns to Montana as 37th Griz head coach

[The.Real.2506]

Something about this smells. I think there is a booster and likely an egrizzer with an agenda. First of all a booster told Haslam that their donations would dry up if Stitt was renewed, then Stitt was let go. No sooner was he let go then reports coming out saying Haslam was talking to Hauck. That was suspicious in and of itself. How could anyone but Haslam know so early on who was being interviewed. Soon after that reports came out that Hauck was the leading candidate "Per sources." Now it is being reported that Hauck got the job, none of this is coming from Haslam but rather some anonymous so called "source." It's all Hauck Hauck Hauck, no other interviews, no other considerations, just Hauck, Bobby Hauck, Bobby's back, Bobby ball is back.

It seems to me that someone behind the scenes is controlling the narrative behind this process and has an agenda to bring Hauck back at all cost. All other valid, competent, qualified candidates be damned. All we want is Hauck, someone bring back the good ol' days. Make griz football great again!

you saying Haslem is a puppet?

Not exactly a puppet but he allowed himself to be influenced by a wealthy and powerful booster. I think once Stitt's contract was not renewed that same booster has been pushing Hauck to both Haslam and the media.

I think that is pretty much the definition of a puppet.

Booster decides Stitt must go after 2 consecutive years of embarassing loss to Cats eliminates Playoff possibilities.

Halsem fires Stitt

Booster decides to Hauck is the best choice.

Halsem interviews Hauck, no other applicants are confirmed or made public.

Haslem offers Hauck.

All that is left is to see if Halsems ears wiggle when the booster moves his little finger.

 

[IdahoGrizFan]

It sounds like a done deal. Just not officially official.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PlayerRep]

Okay, I am going to parse the language to see if there may be explanations of the seeming different stories/statements. Excluding the Skyline headline, the first/main part says: "Bobby Hauck, the man who led UM to seven straight Big Sky Conference championships between 2003 and 2009, will be named the 37th head coach in University of Montana history, Skyline Sports confirmed through eight sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

It says Hauck "will be named". Not was named. Not was offered. Not was hired. I didn't look at rest of article just now, so maybe other wording is used later.

Shaun Rainey: "Told Hauck has been offered the job and that final paperwork is waiting to be done". So he uses the "has been offered" language. Would seem like he would have good info, and would likely have heard it from his sources in the athletic department, due to his job, and that he wouldn't want to irk the athletic department/Haslam.

Amie: "Just got off the phone with #GrizFB's athletic director Kent Haslam. He says this is "absolutely false" and "no final decision has been made."

Don't know what "this" means in this context. "No final decision." Seems definitive, but is he hanging his hat on the word "final"? Is there a way argue that the decision is made and the paperwork is being done, but until some other approval, or even that the document is signed, there is no final decision. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Note that Haslam used the "has not been offered" phrase when he denied the Stitt hiring too. Also, that he "had nothing to report".

KULR: "Multiple sources close to the Grizzly Athletics Department say former head coach Bobby Hauck has been offered the head coaching position at the University of Montana but paperwork has yet to be filed.

Athletic Director Kent Haslam has denied that any offer has been made to Hauck. An official announcement from UM is expected in the coming days."

So, sources close to the Athletic Dept say Hauck "has been offered". That contradicts what Haslam is saying, i.e. no offer made to Hauck.

Rachac: "Will Bobby Hauck be named coach of the Griz? From my perspective, yes. But I also know nothing is done yet. Kent Haslam told me tonight he is still in the thick of the vetting process. No offer made yet. Wants to get this 100% right."

Again, Haslam says no "offer made yet". Note the "yet". Note that Rachac, after just talking to Haslam, says he thinks Hauck will be hired. That seems like a huge clue. Also, note that Haslam says they are still in the vetting process. I wonder if it is really not vetting at this point, and whether it's more that they are still in the "hiring" process, i.e. documents and running it past perhaps the BOR, Stearns and Bodnar? And, Rachac says he knows nothing is done. I suppose that is correct because the contract presumably hasn't been signed.

Or, does Haslam have some odd view of what an "offer" is? Could he have made or discussed the offer, but feel that an offer really has not been made until others above him sign off on it? In my world, offers are made all the time that are subject to conditions, like approval of the board of directors or the shareholders or some regulatory body.

Okay, I don't think I can reconcile the language.

 

[PlayerRep]

Something about this smells. I think there is a booster and likely an egrizzer with an agenda. First of all a booster told Haslam that their donations would dry up if Stitt was renewed, then Stitt was let go. No sooner was he let go then reports coming out saying Haslam was talking to Hauck. That was suspicious in and of itself. How could anyone but Haslam know so early on who was being interviewed. Soon after that reports came out that Hauck was the leading candidate "Per sources." Now it is being reported that Hauck got the job, none of this is coming from Haslam but rather some anonymous so called "source." It's all Hauck Hauck Hauck, no other interviews, no other considerations, just Hauck, Bobby Hauck, Bobby's back, Bobby ball is back.

It seems to me that someone behind the scenes is controlling the narrative behind this process and has an agenda to bring Hauck back at all cost. All other valid, competent, qualified candidates be damned. All we want is Hauck, someone bring back the good ol' days. Make griz football great again!

I don't see Haslam as a puppet. He's the CEO of a subsidiary of UM. He has to listen to "shareholders" (supporters) and "lenders" (donors), especially big shareholders/lenders, as well as his bosses at UM/BOR, as well as the public. This is the way it works. Haslam listened to these same people last time when he hired Stitt. A number of the supporters preferred Hauck, but Haslam went with Stitt.

Haslam must have gotten lots of feedback since the Cat loss a year ago, some during the season, some after the Cat game. Some people probably had strong feelings and strong suggestions. The word is that Hauck had strong support.

My impression is that a number of large supporters have provided input and suggestions. It's not just one. But what if Denny Washington himself called or met with Haslam? Should Haslam ignore him? What if 6 or 8 talked to him? Should he ignore them. What if some of these people were also talking to Stearns and Bodnar, or Christian, and they in turn were talking to Haslam?

It seems to me that Haslam is just doing his job. This is what AD's have to do. You listen to the constituents and stakeholders, and then you and your close advisors made a decision.

 

[yellowstone60]

even the coach's tree lists him as coach.....

https://www.thecoachestree.com/coaches/bobby-hauck

 

[grizatwork]

Something about this smells. I think there is a booster and likely an egrizzer with an agenda. First of all a booster told Haslam that their donations would dry up if Stitt was renewed, then Stitt was let go. No sooner was he let go then reports coming out saying Haslam was talking to Hauck. That was suspicious in and of itself. How could anyone but Haslam know so early on who was being interviewed. Soon after that reports came out that Hauck was the leading candidate "Per sources." Now it is being reported that Hauck got the job, none of this is coming from Haslam but rather some anonymous so called "source." It's all Hauck Hauck Hauck, no other interviews, no other considerations, just Hauck, Bobby Hauck, Bobby's back, Bobby ball is back.

It seems to me that someone behind the scenes is controlling the narrative behind this process and has an agenda to bring Hauck back at all cost. All other valid, competent, qualified candidates be damned. All we want is Hauck, someone bring back the good ol' days. Make griz football great again!

I don't see Haslam as a puppet. He's the CEO of a subsidiary of UM. He has to listen to "shareholders" (supporters) and "lenders" (donors), especially big shareholders/lenders, as well as his bosses at UM/BOR, as well as the public. This is the way it works. Haslam listened to these same people last time when he hired Stitt. A number of the supporters preferred Hauck, but Haslam went with Stitt.

Haslam must have gotten lots of feedback since the Cat loss a year ago, some during the season, some after the Cat game. Some people probably had strong feelings and strong suggestions. The word is that Hauck had strong support.

My impression is that a number of large supporters have provided input and suggestions. It's not just one. But what if Denny Washington himself called or met with Haslam? Should Haslam ignore him? What if 6 or 8 talked to him? Should he ignore them. What if some of these people were also talking to Stearns and Bodnar, or Christian, and they in turn were talking to Haslam?

It seems to me that Haslam is just doing his job. This is what AD's have to do. You listen to the constituents and stakeholders, and then you and your close advisors made a decision.

Haslam absolutely got feedback after the cat loss last year at home. I know he made the trip to at least the Great Falls and Helena GSA chapters and made it clear that he was not happy with that game. I assume he heard from other boosters and felt the need to reach out and comfort the GSA chapters in a preemptive move to keep is phone and email from burning up.

 

[THE BETCH]

Good work Jack.

 

[hilinegrizfan]

Something about this smells. I think there is a booster and likely an egrizzer with an agenda. First of all a booster told Haslam that their donations would dry up if Stitt was renewed, then Stitt was let go. No sooner was he let go then reports coming out saying Haslam was talking to Hauck. That was suspicious in and of itself. How could anyone but Haslam know so early on who was being interviewed. Soon after that reports came out that Hauck was the leading candidate "Per sources." Now it is being reported that Hauck got the job, none of this is coming from Haslam but rather some anonymous so called "source." It's all Hauck Hauck Hauck, no other interviews, no other considerations, just Hauck, Bobby Hauck, Bobby's back, Bobby ball is back.

It seems to me that someone behind the scenes is controlling the narrative behind this process and has an agenda to bring Hauck back at all cost. All other valid, competent, qualified candidates be damned. All we want is Hauck, someone bring back the good ol' days. Make griz football great again!

I don't see Haslam as a puppet. He's the CEO of a subsidiary of UM. He has to listen to "shareholders" (supporters) and "lenders" (donors), especially big shareholders/lenders, as well as his bosses at UM/BOR, as well as the public. This is the way it works. Haslam listened to these same people last time when he hired Stitt. A number of the supporters preferred Hauck, but Haslam went with Stitt.

Haslam must have gotten lots of feedback since the Cat loss a year ago, some during the season, some after the Cat game. Some people probably had strong feelings and strong suggestions. The word is that Hauck had strong support.

My impression is that a number of large supporters have provided input and suggestions. It's not just one. But what if Denny Washington himself called or met with Haslam? Should Haslam ignore him? What if 6 or 8 talked to him? Should he ignore them. What if some of these people were also talking to Stearns and Bodnar, or Christian, and they in turn were talking to Haslam?

It seems to me that Haslam is just doing his job. This is what AD's have to do. You listen to the constituents and stakeholders, and then you and your close advisors made a decision.

I agree with PR. Also, why is it so hard to believe that both the boosters and Haslam are on the same page? Hauck is obvisouly a great coach and the best choice.

 

[RayWill]

Something about this smells. I think there is a booster and likely an egrizzer with an agenda. First of all a booster told Haslam that their donations would dry up if Stitt was renewed, then Stitt was let go. No sooner was he let go then reports coming out saying Haslam was talking to Hauck. That was suspicious in and of itself. How could anyone but Haslam know so early on who was being interviewed. Soon after that reports came out that Hauck was the leading candidate "Per sources." Now it is being reported that Hauck got the job, none of this is coming from Haslam but rather some anonymous so called "source." It's all Hauck Hauck Hauck, no other interviews, no other considerations, just Hauck, Bobby Hauck, Bobby's back, Bobby ball is back.

It seems to me that someone behind the scenes is controlling the narrative behind this process and has an agenda to bring Hauck back at all cost. All other valid, competent, qualified candidates be damned. All we want is Hauck, someone bring back the good ol' days. Make griz football great again!

I don't see Haslam as a puppet. He's the CEO of a subsidiary of UM. He has to listen to "shareholders" (supporters) and "lenders" (donors), especially big shareholders/lenders, as well as his bosses at UM/BOR, as well as the public. This is the way it works. Haslam listened to these same people last time when he hired Stitt. A number of the supporters preferred Hauck, but Haslam went with Stitt.

Haslam must have gotten lots of feedback since the Cat loss a year ago, some during the season, some after the Cat game. Some people probably had strong feelings and strong suggestions. The word is that Hauck had strong support.

My impression is that a number of large supporters have provided input and suggestions. It's not just one. But what if Denny Washington himself called or met with Haslam? Should Haslam ignore him? What if 6 or 8 talked to him? Should he ignore them? What if some of these people were also talking to Stearns and Bodnar, or Christian, and they, in turn, were talking to Haslam?

It seems to me that Haslam is just doing his job. This is what AD's have to do. You listen to the constituents and stakeholders, and then you and your close advisors made a decision.

I agree with PR. Also, why is it so hard to believe that both the boosters and Haslam are on the same page? Hauck is obviously a great coach and the best choice.

Agreed. However, I feel that those that are putting him on an unreachable pedestal will be sorely disappointed his first year or two.

 

[The_Real_Chief]

Skyline sports is trying soooooo hard to be the first to break this...

Trying? Looks like they are the first to break it.....

I mean, are we really that shocked? Everyone knew this was coming, not really rock science. Just Skyline Sports trying to advertise on Egriz some more. After this is done, they can go back to doing what they really love to do which is cover the cats.

 

[StittHappened]

Skyline sports is trying soooooo hard to be the first to break this...

Trying? Looks like they are the first to break it.....

I mean, are we really that shocked? Everyone knew this was coming, not really rock science. Just Skyline Sports trying to advertise on Egriz some more. After this is done, they can go back to doing what they really love to do which is cover the cats.

Why didn't you break it then? I mean..if everyone knew, it should have been easy for you to do right?

 

[IdahoGrizFan]

even the coach's tree lists him as coach.....

https://www.thecoachestree.com/coaches/bobby-hauck

Well...... that does it for me. If the coach's tree says so, they wouldn't print it if it weren't true.
Would they? Really, would they?? :?

 

[TCCGRIZ]

Okay, I am going to parse the language to see if there may be explanations of the seeming different stories/statements. Excluding the Skyline headline, the first/main part says: "Bobby Hauck, the man who led UM to seven straight Big Sky Conference championships between 2003 and 2009, will be named the 37th head coach in University of Montana history, Skyline Sports confirmed through eight sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

It says Hauck "will be named". Not was named. Not was offered. Not was hired. I didn't look at rest of article just now, so maybe other wording is used later.

Shaun Rainey: "Told Hauck has been offered the job and that final paperwork is waiting to be done". So he uses the "has been offered" language. Would seem like he would have good info, and would likely have heard it from his sources in the athletic department, due to his job, and that he wouldn't want to irk the athletic department/Haslam.

Amie: "Just got off the phone with #GrizFB's athletic director Kent Haslam. He says this is "absolutely false" and "no final decision has been made."

Don't know what "this" means in this context. "No final decision." Seems definitive, but is he hanging his hat on the word "final"? Is there a way argue that the decision is made and the paperwork is being done, but until some other approval, or even that the document is signed, there is no final decision. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Note that Haslam used the "has not been offered" phrase when he denied the Stitt hiring too. Also, that he "had nothing to report".

KULR: "Multiple sources close to the Grizzly Athletics Department say former head coach Bobby Hauck has been offered the head coaching position at the University of Montana but paperwork has yet to be filed.

Athletic Director Kent Haslam has denied that any offer has been made to Hauck. An official announcement from UM is expected in the coming days."

So, sources close to the Athletic Dept say Hauck "has been offered". That contradicts what Haslam is saying, i.e. no offer made to Hauck.

Rachac: "Will Bobby Hauck be named coach of the Griz? From my perspective, yes. But I also know nothing is done yet. Kent Haslam told me tonight he is still in the thick of the vetting process. No offer made yet. Wants to get this 100% right."

Again, Haslam says no "offer made yet". Note the "yet". Note that Rachac, after just talking to Haslam, says he thinks Hauck will be hired. That seems like a huge clue. Also, note that Haslam says they are still in the vetting process. I wonder if it is really not vetting at this point, and whether it's more that they are still in the "hiring" process, i.e. documents and running it past perhaps the BOR, Stearns and Bodnar? And, Rachac says he knows nothing is done. I suppose that is correct because the contract presumably hasn't been signed.

Or, does Haslam have some odd view of what an "offer" is? Could he have made or discussed the offer, but feel that an offer really has not been made until others above him sign off on it? In my world, offers are made all the time that are subject to conditions, like approval of the board of directors or the shareholders or some regulatory body.

Okay, I don't think I can reconcile the language.

Maybe Haslam is trying to skirt around the fact he is just waiting on the BOR to put the stamp of approval on his decision to hire Hauck .
I'm sure little bits and pieces are going to leak . Kent is just buying a little time maybe ???

 

[IdahoGrizFan]

When it does become officially, official the Subject should be named......

BOOM!!!

(The Griz Cannon firing after a score)

 

[ordigger]

Okay, I am going to parse the language to see if there may be explanations of the seeming different stories/statements. Excluding the Skyline headline, the first/main part says: "Bobby Hauck, the man who led UM to seven straight Big Sky Conference championships between 2003 and 2009, will be named the 37th head coach in University of Montana history, Skyline Sports confirmed through eight sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

It says Hauck "will be named". Not was named. Not was offered. Not was hired. I didn't look at rest of article just now, so maybe other wording is used later.

Shaun Rainey: "Told Hauck has been offered the job and that final paperwork is waiting to be done". So he uses the "has been offered" language. Would seem like he would have good info, and would likely have heard it from his sources in the athletic department, due to his job, and that he wouldn't want to irk the athletic department/Haslam.

Amie: "Just got off the phone with #GrizFB's athletic director Kent Haslam. He says this is "absolutely false" and "no final decision has been made."

Don't know what "this" means in this context. "No final decision." Seems definitive, but is he hanging his hat on the word "final"? Is there a way argue that the decision is made and the paperwork is being done, but until some other approval, or even that the document is signed, there is no final decision. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Note that Haslam used the "has not been offered" phrase when he denied the Stitt hiring too. Also, that he "had nothing to report".

KULR: "Multiple sources close to the Grizzly Athletics Department say former head coach Bobby Hauck has been offered the head coaching position at the University of Montana but paperwork has yet to be filed.

Athletic Director Kent Haslam has denied that any offer has been made to Hauck. An official announcement from UM is expected in the coming days."

So, sources close to the Athletic Dept say Hauck "has been offered". That contradicts what Haslam is saying, i.e. no offer made to Hauck.

Rachac: "Will Bobby Hauck be named coach of the Griz? From my perspective, yes. But I also know nothing is done yet. Kent Haslam told me tonight he is still in the thick of the vetting process. No offer made yet. Wants to get this 100% right."

Again, Haslam says no "offer made yet". Note the "yet". Note that Rachac, after just talking to Haslam, says he thinks Hauck will be hired. That seems like a huge clue. Also, note that Haslam says they are still in the vetting process. I wonder if it is really not vetting at this point, and whether it's more that they are still in the "hiring" process, i.e. documents and running it past perhaps the BOR, Stearns and Bodnar? And, Rachac says he knows nothing is done. I suppose that is correct because the contract presumably hasn't been signed.

Or, does Haslam have some odd view of what an "offer" is? Could he have made or discussed the offer, but feel that an offer really has not been made until others above him sign off on it? In my world, offers are made all the time that are subject to conditions, like approval of the board of directors or the shareholders or some regulatory body.

Okay, I don't think I can reconcile the language.

lol....but still nice that you put it all together, and the confusion becomes more clear.

 

[reinell30]

Okay, I am going to parse the language to see if there may be explanations of the seeming different stories/statements. Excluding the Skyline headline, the first/main part says: "Bobby Hauck, the man who led UM to seven straight Big Sky Conference championships between 2003 and 2009, will be named the 37th head coach in University of Montana history, Skyline Sports confirmed through eight sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

It says Hauck "will be named". Not was named. Not was offered. Not was hired. I didn't look at rest of article just now, so maybe other wording is used later.

Shaun Rainey: "Told Hauck has been offered the job and that final paperwork is waiting to be done". So he uses the "has been offered" language. Would seem like he would have good info, and would likely have heard it from his sources in the athletic department, due to his job, and that he wouldn't want to irk the athletic department/Haslam.

Amie: "Just got off the phone with #GrizFB's athletic director Kent Haslam. He says this is "absolutely false" and "no final decision has been made."

Don't know what "this" means in this context. "No final decision." Seems definitive, but is he hanging his hat on the word "final"? Is there a way argue that the decision is made and the paperwork is being done, but until some other approval, or even that the document is signed, there is no final decision. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Note that Haslam used the "has not been offered" phrase when he denied the Stitt hiring too. Also, that he "had nothing to report".

KULR: "Multiple sources close to the Grizzly Athletics Department say former head coach Bobby Hauck has been offered the head coaching position at the University of Montana but paperwork has yet to be filed.

Athletic Director Kent Haslam has denied that any offer has been made to Hauck. An official announcement from UM is expected in the coming days."

So, sources close to the Athletic Dept say Hauck "has been offered". That contradicts what Haslam is saying, i.e. no offer made to Hauck.

Rachac: "Will Bobby Hauck be named coach of the Griz? From my perspective, yes. But I also know nothing is done yet. Kent Haslam told me tonight he is still in the thick of the vetting process. No offer made yet. Wants to get this 100% right."

Again, Haslam says no "offer made yet". Note the "yet". Note that Rachac, after just talking to Haslam, says he thinks Hauck will be hired. That seems like a huge clue. Also, note that Haslam says they are still in the vetting process. I wonder if it is really not vetting at this point, and whether it's more that they are still in the "hiring" process, i.e. documents and running it past perhaps the BOR, Stearns and Bodnar? And, Rachac says he knows nothing is done. I suppose that is correct because the contract presumably hasn't been signed.

Or, does Haslam have some odd view of what an "offer" is? Could he have made or discussed the offer, but feel that an offer really has not been made until others above him sign off on it? In my world, offers are made all the time that are subject to conditions, like approval of the board of directors or the shareholders or some regulatory body.

Okay, I don't think I can reconcile the language.

lol....but still nice that you put it all together, and the confusion becomes more clear.

Clear as flippin MUD! Lawyers......

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Are you sure about that "0.000" batting average, PR?

UM made a contract offer to Hauck.

[Remainder of my bullshit "Hauck theory" deleted due to lack of relevance to this post.]

Am I close, PlayerRep?

Nope. You are batting 0.000, but still equal to your usual percentage.

Okay, I am going to parse the language to see if there may be explanations of the seeming different stories/statements. Excluding the Skyline headline, the first/main part says: "Bobby Hauck, the man who led UM to seven straight Big Sky Conference championships between 2003 and 2009, will be named the 37th head coach in University of Montana history, Skyline Sports confirmed through eight sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

It says Hauck "will be named". Not was named. Not was offered. Not was hired. I didn't look at rest of article just now, so maybe other wording is used later.

Shaun Rainey: "Told Hauck has been offered the job and that final paperwork is waiting to be done". So he uses the "has been offered" language. Would seem like he would have good info, and would likely have heard it from his sources in the athletic department, due to his job, and that he wouldn't want to irk the athletic department/Haslam.

Amie: "Just got off the phone with #GrizFB's athletic director Kent Haslam. He says this is "absolutely false" and "no final decision has been made."

Don't know what "this" means in this context. "No final decision." Seems definitive, but is he hanging his hat on the word "final"? Is there a way argue that the decision is made and the paperwork is being done, but until some other approval, or even that the document is signed, there is no final decision. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Note that Haslam used the "has not been offered" phrase when he denied the Stitt hiring too. Also, that he "had nothing to report".

KULR: "Multiple sources close to the Grizzly Athletics Department say former head coach Bobby Hauck has been offered the head coaching position at the University of Montana but paperwork has yet to be filed.

Athletic Director Kent Haslam has denied that any offer has been made to Hauck. An official announcement from UM is expected in the coming days."

So, sources close to the Athletic Dept say Hauck "has been offered". That contradicts what Haslam is saying, i.e. no offer made to Hauck.

Rachac: "Will Bobby Hauck be named coach of the Griz? From my perspective, yes. But I also know nothing is done yet. Kent Haslam told me tonight he is still in the thick of the vetting process. No offer made yet. Wants to get this 100% right."

Again, Haslam says no "offer made yet". Note the "yet". Note that Rachac, after just talking to Haslam, says he thinks Hauck will be hired. That seems like a huge clue. Also, note that Haslam says they are still in the vetting process. I wonder if it is really not vetting at this point, and whether it's more that they are still in the "hiring" process, i.e. documents and running it past perhaps the BOR, Stearns and Bodnar? And, Rachac says he knows nothing is done. I suppose that is correct because the contract presumably hasn't been signed.

Or, does Haslam have some odd view of what an "offer" is? Could he have made or discussed the offer, but feel that an offer really has not been made until others above him sign off on it? In my world, offers are made all the time that are subject to conditions, like approval of the board of directors or the shareholders or some regulatory body.

Okay, I don't think I can reconcile the language.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Kyle just tweeted that it is not the BOR but the Commissioner of Higher Education that must approve.

kyle sample
@kyle_sample
Replying to @kyle_sample
Clayton Christian, the commissioner of higher education, was involved in Montana's interview process and is expected to approve the contract. Sources have told us the feeling with Hauck and the administration was the Hauck interviewed very well

 

[AZGrizFan]

Kyle just tweeted that it is not the BOR but the Commissioner of Higher Education that must approve.

kyle sample
@kyle_sample
Replying to @kyle_sample
Clayton Christian, the commissioner of higher education, was involved in Montana's interview process and is expected to approve the contract. Sources have told us the feeling with Hauck and the administration was the Hauck interviewed very well

Not sure of the chain of command here, and may have missed a few along the way:

Coach reports to AD
AD Reports to School President
School President reports to Commissioner of HE
Commissioner reports to BOR

Why in the holy fuck does the Commissioner of HE have to "bless" a hire made three levels down in the organization? it's no goddamned wonder shit can't get done at these red tape factories. :roll: :roll:

You're telling me the president of the university does not have the authority to hire a coach? Eff that. There's no WAY I'd ever want to be that hamstrung.

 

[Ringneck]

Kyle just tweeted that it is not the BOR but the Commissioner of Higher Education that must approve.

kyle sample
@kyle_sample
Replying to @kyle_sample
Clayton Christian, the commissioner of higher education, was involved in Montana's interview process and is expected to approve the contract. Sources have told us the feeling with Hauck and the administration was the Hauck interviewed very well

Ah, bureaucracy. It's amazing that anything gets done.