Hey, Look at My Guy

As Notre Dame prepares to make its choice for the next athletic director, it's confronted with enviable problem: seemingly, too many good candidates. The comforting thing is that this time around there are so many talented candidates with real Notre Dame connections.

That's the good, but also the bad. The hard part for those who are connected with the candidates is to separate friendship and relationships from reality; to have some dispassionate distance to evaluate candidates free of lobbying.

I just read Tim Prister's articles shilling for Rick Chryst and now find myself feeling a little dirty. Prister interviews Gene Corrigan ostensibly about all the candidates for the Notre Dame AD job, but then procedes to ask Corrigan only about Chryst knowing full well Corrigan is a Chryst backer. In fact, Corrigan is forced to give Prister "the journalist" some perspective in the article.

The basis for Prister's argument, that ND is a conference unto itself and therefore needs a conference commissioner with a seat at the table sounds good in theory, but on further review seems less applicable if applicable at all. Negotiating on behalf of the MAC does not equal representing Notre Dame. In fact, whoever is the Notre Dame AD will have a "seat at the table" and a no one's yet defined why Chryst has a good working relationship with the BCS committee, why that would translate to Notre Dame or why another candidate couldn't better establish such relationships. The fact is that the candidate with the right amount of credibility, knowledge, emotional intelligence and influencing skills will likely do well at the bargaining table. As we've seen from White, years of experience at the table don't necessarily translate into positive results.

Now, to be clear Chryst sounds like a great guy, a smart guy and like someone who has performed well and Corrigan's endorsement carries weight. He looks like a great candidate on paper, but so do others like Steve Orsini and half-cocked relationship driven endorsements masquerading as journalism don't help enlighten anyone, nor to they necessarily help Chryst.

My purpose isn't to endorse one candidate over another here (not that it would matter,) but everyone should heed such advice for the moment. Certainly more depth and understanding is necessary and Prister's already handicapping the race for AD like it's the Belmont.

Slow down, Big Brown.

After what seems like decades in purgatory, it looks like Notre Dame is in a no lose situation. Shills should holster their lobbying and instead engage in thoughtful discussion over candidate attributes. After so many years of struggle in ND athletics, we're finally at a point in time where ND can tab strong leaders who can credibly influence others in the larger community. This is no time for friend lobbying, but for doing what's best for Notre Dame and that, at a minimum, involves some careful analysis of all of the candidates before devolving into personal lobbying. If he's worth his salt, Chryst would agree.

Anyone who followed the Michigan coaching search process, where powerful alumni lined up into factional camps, should realize such power broker activity is counter-productive and leads to unhealthy criteria being weighted into the process. How many ND super-delegates do you have? It shouldn't matter. I know it does, but it shouldn't.

And as a bonus, most people would probably read such a dispassionate analysis and think better of both Chryst and Prister.

For Love and Money: Replacing Kevin White

The Rock Report - As we understand it, Kevin White has been shopping around for sometime with the University's blessing. Now that he's found a willing buyer, it's time to turn the page in Notre Dame history, but what should the Irish be looking for?

There are many more ways to get a hire wrong than to get one right. As I wrote in Define Who You Are , an Athletic Director at Notre Dame has to understand what Notre Dame means, but also the role that plays in creating value and ultimately revenue:

"What ND has to protect, above all else, is its unique branding, uncompromised and steeped in tradition. What we keep hearing is how necessary it is to "be like everyone else" yet that thinking is exactly what will ruin the uniqueness, the marketability of the ND experience and ultimately make Notre Dame less dollars.

You usually don't get a second chance once you compromise. If you dilute the brand, you limit the corporate opportunities. If your opportunities become limited (see the BCS negotiations) you're forced to make choices that probably will dilute the brand. So diluting the brand more, limits more opportunities... and around and around the toilet bowl we go.

Here's where emphasizing tradition and experience pays off in both the revenue and branding: Once you commit to this thought process, it raises your level of thinking and creates more and unique options. If one only looks at the landscape that is revenue generation based on current methods, then you, by default, will be picking an option that dilutes the brand. If you focus on enhancing the game day experience, there are a myriad of corporate opportunities that will flow from taking this approach that will ultimately have greater value as a marketing channel for corporations and build the brand that will create still greater value. Building the brand yields greater and unique options for marketing. Having unique options allows you to enhance the brand. Enhancing the brand...

ND needs to think outside of the toilet bowl. Many companies are forced into bad choices by the market or private equity pressure. Notre Dame doesn't have that liability.

Under White, it seemed as if Notre Dame was constantly scheming new marketing and revenue generation methods that brought in small dollars at the expense of the Golden Goose. What Notre Dame's incoming Athletic Director has to understand is that Notre Dame's market value is ultimately found in the uniqueness of Notre Dame. So, yes, we absolutely need someone who "gets it."

We also need someone who understands what that means in the larger, changing landscape of college football and our other sports. Whomever the new AD is, he (or she) will have to be able to navigate an increasingly factionalized world of athletics dominated by superconferences, which means the new AD will have to bring a very CEO like level of skills to the table (after all it is akin to running a small company.)

Along with that understanding of Notre Dame and its place in the landscape and competence in athletic administration, the new AD will have to quickly build credibility both within Notre Dame and in the larger NCAA community in order to wield influence. As we've seen before, the blunt hammer doesn't work and neither did the "let's all be friends" approach of White. That's why being able to bring credibility into many situations is a key component in this equation. Arrogance is not an asset, but neither is acquiescence.

In a recent seminar I worked on with executives we focused on the differentiating factors of great leaders. In the world of credibility, character and competence are of course paramount, but the key differentiating features for credibility were courage, emotional intelligence and the ability to influence others.

We need athletic administration competence, someone who gets Notre Dame, understands the strategic landscape now and where we're headed in the future, changing media and marketing and someone who will be viewed at as a leader both internally at Notre Dame and externally in the world of college athletics.

As we've found with the coaching searches, it's easy to find what you don't want or see what doesn't work, but much harder to find the perfect fit.