-
John 3:3
-
Maybe in his first stint 20 years ago. In his second stint at Oklahoma, the defense got steadily worse until he was let go, and then it got better after he left. Oklahoma gave up over 33 points a game in his last year as DC.
Even if the guy looked like a sure fire success, he should not be hired at UK to work under his brother. Coaches on staff will know they won’t get a fair shake. If and when things go poorly the finger pointing will be sooner and louder than usual. Other potential hires will stay away. His performance won’t be measured by a disinterested and unbiased manager. There are plenty of reasons nepotism is a bad idea. He should coach elsewhere, but not at UK under his brother.Comment
-
Part of the problem is that the person who decides if he’s competent is his brother. That won’t be undertaken objectively or impartially, no matter how hard either of them tries. And the sssessment, work assignments, etc. of others on staff will be made under those same circumstances: fault or credit assigned either to them or the boss’s brother. It isn’t a fair situation to anyone. It is a situation to avoid.
The whole situation is asking for unnecessary trouble and problems. The best policy is to never allow it in the first place. Family members can go work elsewhere. They’ll be fine if they’re good at what they do.Last edited by Old School; 01-28-2020, 09:26 AM.Comment
-
Do you manage people? Find me the "disinterested and unbiased" manager in that industry, or anywhere people work in such close quarters. You think Gran or Morrow are held to the same standard as say, Shannon Dawson? And yet coaches are able to soldier on...
The handwringing over this issue of all things is amazing! Theoretical problems associated with something that has not happened.
Originally posted by John Stuart MillRIP: Charlie Munger​Originally posted by Robert “Hoot†GibsonComment
-
Yes, though what I or anyone else on the board does is 100% irrelevant.
Family members are a completely different proposition than the examples you cite.
It isn’t handwringing. It’s common sense. They’re not theoretical problems, they’re common and obvious problems, and easily (and wisely) avoided.
Conversely, what is the upside in any of this? Does anyone who’s not related to the guy really think this is the best possible candidate for this position, and so much so that the certain downsides are outweighed?Comment
-
If he could hire Bob I would do backflips of joy. I don't know who you would hire to replace White. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets poached. The biggest drawback on Mike, for me, are the hypercritical comments I'll have to move through if there is the slightest drop off on the field. Nepotism is not a good idea for the reasons touched on above, and more. I know the Stoop brothers are close and have been through the "wars" together. I'm sure they are aware of all of the drawbacks.Comment
-
I dont particularly like the thought of hiring relatives due to simply some day you may have to fire them.
Is anyone here up to date on the Nepotism rules for hiring staff at UK? I think Louisville ran through it because...well...Louisville, mainly.
Just curious. Stoops has earned the right to go out on a limb or two for coaching hires.Comment
-
This a a bad idea, lots of very competent coaches out there who would kill for an SEC coaching job and bring none of the baggage and possible conflict of interests his brother would.Comment
-
At this point is there any evidence this "idea" aver existed? It seems like another chance for Stoops haters to complain about something that doesn't exist.Originally posted by John Stuart MillRIP: Charlie Munger​Originally posted by Robert “Hoot†GibsonComment
-
If you mean has Mark addressed this publicly, not that I know of. Here's proof that I didn't just make it up though.
https://www.aseaofblue.com/2020/1/26...coaching-staffPhilippians 4:11-4:13Comment
-
Originally posted by John Stuart MillRIP: Charlie Munger​Originally posted by Robert “Hoot†GibsonComment
Comment