There was some interesting Twitter discussion on this topic a couple of days ago and I've finally gotten around to listening to the almost 17 and a half minute interview. I've been very vocal about the current state of the AD and that an internal hire that would emphasize the status quo would be a giant mistake.
TL, DR Summary: Cohen makes a handful of comments that vary between cringe worthy and making my blood boil ranging from it being understandable why fans stay home, citing poor AD departmental revenue, and some views of what a leader is that painfully illustrates to me that she's at her best as a top lieutenant for an AD carrying out the message of a visionary leader compared to carrying out her own message.
Key/Detailed takeaways from Cohen's comments and my thoughts as follows:
Initial thought since this is the first time I've ever heard Jen Cohen speak is that she sounds like she had an all nighter from the night before ... definitely some cigar and whisky in the voice.
Cohen comment: We have a lot of momentum in the AD ... transitions can be hard ... our AD is used to change, we thrive in change and get excited about it.
Tequilla comment: Something tells me that @CokeGreaterThanPepsi would disagree with that.
Softy Question: What is Washington looking for in an AD and the challenges for the AD going forward?
Cohen Answer: Landscape issues in college sports like NCAA reform, deregulation, litigation on likeness and licensing; providing more for student athletes; managing the cost side ... matching revenue stream with it. Competing with TV deals and the fans choice to stay home versus coming to the games ... which is totally understandable.
Tequilla Comment: The last comment made about fans having the choice to stay home being understandable SHOULD BE a disqualifying comment for the job IMO. I can't even fathom giving this answer.
Softy Question: Game start times and comparing to NFL that has known game times
Cohen Answer: It's understandable the frustration; need to get arms around this more and into AD meetings; have had game time discussions at AD level that they know there is a problem
Tequilla Comment: "It's understandable" is Cohen's go to response akin to Petersen's "it's hard"
Softy Question: Let's talk about the Zone
Cohen Answer: Tailgating at halftime is a tradition ... have discussed whether there should be changes ... optics "doesn't look great" ... have surveyed the season tickets ... the Zone isn't a great money maker ... responses have been 50/50 in terms of who views it as value added or not ... there are some contractual considerations to consider ... a lot of the issues are tied to demographic mix of season ticket holders, age, etc. ... we're having a lot of internal discussions on it
Cohen Comment: Basketball facility is the #1 capital project on the list ... plan has been to have a donor + department revenue package in place ... major donor identified ... department revenue right now is $0
Cohen Comment: Talks about Romar's body of work over his career as a sign that "he gets it" and has a "fire in his belly" ... cites his recruiting over the next few years ... the kids are choosing Washington because of Romar ... we all know how great the University of Washington and we need to continue to invest and show how important the basketball program is at the University of Washington
Tequilla Comment: Nobody questions or argues that Romar is an asset to the University of Washington ... it's his coaching acumen that gets questioned. More importantly though, the comment about investing and showing the importance of programs and/or the University of a whole is a staggeringly telling comment for me.
Cohen Comment: She's asked by Softy about what she would bring to the table as an AD and cites how he likes that she has "spunk" ... she replies that it isn't about one person or there being a magic pill or how much experience someone has and whether the fit is right and how you work across multiple platforms whether it be coaches, students, fans, donors, alumni, etc. ... people will sell you on a lot of different things ... some people will be more polished ... none of that stuff really matters ... at the heart of it you have to find somebody that is a great leader, great communicators, has passion, cares for the right reasons, will do the right things, and will work in a selfish and team oriented way.
Softy Comment: She has a big ass set of balls on her and has an unbelievable grasp of what the program needs
Tequilla Thoughts and Summary: Where in the world do I start? I didn't realize that I was tuning into an episode of the Bachelor in hearing someone say that they are there for the right reasons. Four things really stood out to me during this interview (from least to most important):
1) With respect to the hoops capital project, the fact that the AD has $0 department revenue in place for the project (and I can't imagine that there's anything on the horizon in this regard) is really telling to me not only about how poor the current AD has been in terms of spurring engagement with butts in the seat, but also how painfully thin the donor base is for the UW.
2) It's totally understandable that fans choose to stay home instead of coming to games given some of the decisions that they are making. This is the type of comment that makes my blood boil. That's a fucktarded answer. The conference gave away their ability to dictate start times when they whored themselves out to the highest bidder. Decisions have consequences and what the ADs are picking up in TV revenue they are losing in ticket revenue. The ADs should be pushing for more start times defined prior to the season starting as a lot of the top games will generally be known in advance. Allow the option for some flex game times but limit the potential for radical flip flopping. It's actually not that difficult.
3) The commentary about continuing to invest in and spread the message of what the University of Washington is about hits a deep nerve in me. As I point out from time to time, TCU is EXCELLENT in this regard. The University of Washington if properly focused brings more to the table than what TCU could ever hope to bring. From a University standpoint, the UW should be one of the more identified brands across the nation given its standing academically and historical success athletically (notably football). Go around the country and see how much Oregon gear you see compared to UW ... that's been a long term failure from the UW Athletic Department. Cohen's been involved in the AD for years ... not sure that this is an issue that has changed for the better over that time period. Bold strategies are needed here.
4) Cohen's comments about what she brings to the table, what she views as being important, and most importantly by trying to downplay the "experienced" individuals and it not being that important just amplifies the fact that she's never sat in the big chair and in a position where she has total accountability. This is precisely why you work your way up from lower responsibility positions where you move up after demonstrating a mastery of the duties and responsibilities in those roles. Take the comments as to what she views as being important and consider how many of those attributes Chris Petersen actively practices? They all sound great in theory but the reality is that when you're the top dog there's a fine line between being selfish and operating in a team oriented manner versus being indecisive and directionless. My gut from Cohen's comments is that she's more the latter than the former. The next leader of the UW AD needs to be decisive in their decisions after considering all relevant information. It's perfectly fine to have discussions about what is going on and trying to use the collective to find parts of the solution. But the ownership of the decision rests with one person after considering all the factors.
Jesus H. Christ. I clicked on this link hoping to learn about Jen Cohen's remarks.
Cohen Comment: Basketball facility is the #1 capital project on the list ... plan has been to have a donor + department revenue package in place ... major donor identified ... department revenue right now is $0
Cohen Comment: Talks about Romar's body of work over his career as a sign that "he gets it" and has a "fire in his belly" ... cites his recruiting over the next few years ... the kids are choosing Washington because of Romar ... we all know how great the University of Washington and we need to continue to invest and show how important the basketball program is at the University of Washington
Tequilla Comment: Nobody questions or argues that Romar is an asset to the University of Washington ... it's his coaching acumen that gets questioned. More importantly though, the comment about investing and showing the importance of programs and/or the University of a whole is a staggeringly telling comment for me.
Tequilla Thoughts and Summary: Where in the world do I start? I didn't realize that I was tuning into an episode of the Bachelor in hearing someone say that they are there for the right reasons. Four things really stood out to me during this interview (from least to most important):
1) With respect to the hoops capital project, the fact that the AD has $0 department revenue in place for the project (and I can't imagine that there's anything on the horizon in this regard) is really telling to me not only about how poor the current AD has been in terms of spurring engagement with butts in the seat, but also how painfully thin the donor base is for the UW.
4) Cohen's comments about what she brings to the table, what she views as being important, and most importantly by trying to downplay the "experienced" individuals and it not being that important just amplifies the fact that she's never sat in the big chair and in a position where she has total accountability. This is precisely why you work your way up from lower responsibility positions where you move up after demonstrating a mastery of the duties and responsibilities in those roles. Take the comments as to what she views as being important and consider how many of those attributes Chris Petersen actively practices? They all sound great in theory but the reality is that when you're the top dog there's a fine line between being selfish and operating in a team oriented manner versus being indecisive and directionless. My gut from Cohen's comments is that she's more the latter than the former. The next leader of the UW AD needs to be decisive in their decisions after considering all relevant information. It's perfectly fine to have discussions about what is going on and trying to use the collective to find parts of the solution. But the ownership of the decision rests with one person after considering all the factors.
Paraphrasing the original post here given its relevance to Cohen's decision to firing Romar ...
1) In hindsight, and given what we've seen from Cohen since she took the job, there's a certain "fuck you" that she gives to the media for their stupidity that is similar to what Pete does. There was a point in her press conference today where she channeled her inner Trump and complaining about the media and their creation of "fake news" for saying that there were decisions made previously on Romar. She'll say what she needs publicly to get people off the trail or to defuse the situation but what she thinks/does behind the scenes is a different manner. Whether she believed Romar had "fire in his belly" or "got it" a year ago it's pretty clear that she didn't believe either of those things to be true today and going forward regardless of his recruiting abilities (which were debatable to start with). The comment in hindsight that really deserves a call out is her comment about how great the UW is and the need to continue to invest in the basketball program to show its importance at the UW ...
This is really a key comment. You don't fire Romar and pay a $3.2M buyout to go pull away Leon Rice from Boise State. You don't pay the $3.2M to go pull Eric Mussleman away from Nevada. Both are solid coaching options ... but neither move the needle and go down the path of investing and showing the importance of basketball at the University of Washington. You do that by hiring somebody like Gregg Marshall or Archie Miller (even though I'd be SHOCKED if he ever coached in the same conference as his brother).
2) Prior to this year, there was no $$$ in place for an investment in the hoops program only that there was a donor identified. I'd imagine that this is the same donor that paid the $3.2M buyout and is being vocal about going after Marshall.
3) Have to give credit where credit is due. My biggest fear with Cohen taking the head AD position was that she'd be indecisive and just a continuation of the same tired AD strategy that has been in place for over a decade. Specifically, with respect to making tough decisions, the fear was that she just wouldn't pull the trigger on Romar and hide behind either the buyout or whatnot. But give her credit ... she made the RIGHT DECISION. On MERIT, Lorenzo Romar DESERVED to be fired ... as much as Tryone Willingham DESERVED to be fired after 2007. Yet unlike what happened in 2007 where the decision to retain Willingham was driven by everything but on-field performance, this move was made with only the idiotic fringe calling out the move for being anything but on merit. She made the tough decision that NEEDED to be made. Now, all that is left is for her to show that she can close the deal by pulling in a coach (Marshall) that most of the talking idiots think she has no chance of pulling in.
Cohen Comment: Basketball facility is the #1 capital project on the list ... plan has been to have a donor + department revenue package in place ... major donor identified ... department revenue right now is $0
Cohen Comment: Talks about Romar's body of work over his career as a sign that "he gets it" and has a "fire in his belly" ... cites his recruiting over the next few years ... the kids are choosing Washington because of Romar ... we all know how great the University of Washington and we need to continue to invest and show how important the basketball program is at the University of Washington
Tequilla Comment: Nobody questions or argues that Romar is an asset to the University of Washington ... it's his coaching acumen that gets questioned. More importantly though, the comment about investing and showing the importance of programs and/or the University of a whole is a staggeringly telling comment for me.
Tequilla Thoughts and Summary: Where in the world do I start? I didn't realize that I was tuning into an episode of the Bachelor in hearing someone say that they are there for the right reasons. Four things really stood out to me during this interview (from least to most important):
1) With respect to the hoops capital project, the fact that the AD has $0 department revenue in place for the project (and I can't imagine that there's anything on the horizon in this regard) is really telling to me not only about how poor the current AD has been in terms of spurring engagement with butts in the seat, but also how painfully thin the donor base is for the UW.
4) Cohen's comments about what she brings to the table, what she views as being important, and most importantly by trying to downplay the "experienced" individuals and it not being that important just amplifies the fact that she's never sat in the big chair and in a position where she has total accountability. This is precisely why you work your way up from lower responsibility positions where you move up after demonstrating a mastery of the duties and responsibilities in those roles. Take the comments as to what she views as being important and consider how many of those attributes Chris Petersen actively practices? They all sound great in theory but the reality is that when you're the top dog there's a fine line between being selfish and operating in a team oriented manner versus being indecisive and directionless. My gut from Cohen's comments is that she's more the latter than the former. The next leader of the UW AD needs to be decisive in their decisions after considering all relevant information. It's perfectly fine to have discussions about what is going on and trying to use the collective to find parts of the solution. But the ownership of the decision rests with one person after considering all the factors.
Paraphrasing the original post here given its relevance to Cohen's decision to firing Romar ...
1) In hindsight, and given what we've seen from Cohen since she took the job, there's a certain "fuck you" that she gives to the media for their stupidity that is similar to what Pete does. There was a point in her press conference today where she channeled her inner Trump and complaining about the media and their creation of "fake news" for saying that there were decisions made previously on Romar. She'll say what she needs publicly to get people off the trail or to defuse the situation but what she thinks/does behind the scenes is a different manner. Whether she believed Romar had "fire in his belly" or "got it" a year ago it's pretty clear that she didn't believe either of those things to be true today and going forward regardless of his recruiting abilities (which were debatable to start with). The comment in hindsight that really deserves a call out is her comment about how great the UW is and the need to continue to invest in the basketball program to show its importance at the UW ...
This is really a key comment. You don't fire Romar and pay a $3.2M buyout to go pull away Leon Rice from Boise State. You don't pay the $3.2M to go pull Eric Mussleman away from Nevada. Both are solid coaching options ... but neither move the needle and go down the path of investing and showing the importance of basketball at the University of Washington. You do that by hiring somebody like Gregg Marshall or Archie Miller (even though I'd be SHOCKED if he ever coached in the same conference as his brother).
2) Prior to this year, there was no $$$ in place for an investment in the hoops program only that there was a donor identified. I'd imagine that this is the same donor that paid the $3.2M buyout and is being vocal about going after Marshall.
3) Have to give credit where credit is due. My biggest fear with Cohen taking the head AD position was that she'd be indecisive and just a continuation of the same tired AD strategy that has been in place for over a decade. Specifically, with respect to making tough decisions, the fear was that she just wouldn't pull the trigger on Romar and hide behind either the buyout or whatnot. But give her credit ... she made the RIGHT DECISION. On MERIT, Lorenzo Romar DESERVED to be fired ... as much as Tryone Willingham DESERVED to be fired after 2007. Yet unlike what happened in 2007 where the decision to retain Willingham was driven by everything but on-field performance, this move was made with only the idiotic fringe calling out the move for being anything but on merit. She made the tough decision that NEEDED to be made. Now, all that is left is for her to show that she can close the deal by pulling in a coach (Marshall) that most of the talking idiots think she has no chance of pulling in.
TLDR x 2
After the 2016 bb season, Jen talked about the state of the program, and essentially said to Romar "this isn't working, fix it" in her pc, but blunt/direct way that I like and why I thought her press conference yesterday was really good. Romar's idea/hail mary was to hire Porter senior and hope that Fultz along with Dickerson, Crisp, Thybulle could get them to the dance this year and buy him another year, and we saw what happened.
Jen used her head in making the coaching change instead of her heart which would have been the easy way in giving him another year and seeing what happens.
While I would love for the next coach to be a Marshall/Miller/WIlliams level hire, I just don't see them having the $ for that. 3.2M is a big dollar amount for the buyout no doubt, but those guys are going to be at a 20M dollar level to get them here, and unless she has found a new group of whales I just don't see it.
For me, she came to the conclusion that the bb program had and was going nowhere under Romar, and therefore it was time for a change which was step one.
Part two is to find the best candidate she can, using whatever money is avail at her disposal whether it's a home run hire, or a guy that is just using us as a stepping stone program which is where are at right now.
JAs an aside, can you imagine being the AD and watching how Pete does things from top to bottom and comparing that to how the BB program was ran? She probably went home and both laughed and cried at the end of the day.
What we don't know is what she has in the bank for this hire ...
The fact that she was publicly acknowledged to have been doing some fundraising prior to announcing the firing at least suggests to me that the budget may be a little larger than we are thinking is realistic.
Comments
Jen used her head in making the coaching change instead of her heart which would have been the easy way in giving him another year and seeing what happens.
While I would love for the next coach to be a Marshall/Miller/WIlliams level hire, I just don't see them having the $ for that. 3.2M is a big dollar amount for the buyout no doubt, but those guys are going to be at a 20M dollar level to get them here, and unless she has found a new group of whales I just don't see it.
For me, she came to the conclusion that the bb program had and was going nowhere under Romar, and therefore it was time for a change which was step one.
Part two is to find the best candidate she can, using whatever money is avail at her disposal whether it's a home run hire, or a guy that is just using us as a stepping stone program which is where are at right now.
JAs an aside, can you imagine being the AD and watching how Pete does things from top to bottom and comparing that to how the BB program was ran? She probably went home and both laughed and cried at the end of the day.
The fact that she was publicly acknowledged to have been doing some fundraising prior to announcing the firing at least suggests to me that the budget may be a little larger than we are thinking is realistic.