Why Cottingham?

Why Cottingham? Some will say why not. Some will say it's about time. Others will say why. Why? Count me as part of the last group.

Look, I have nothing personal against Cottingham. I worked with him a smidge while in the athletic department in the late 1990's. He's a very charming fellow, nice guy, solid lawyer. Overall, a solid guy, solid employee at MU (yes, he is a UW-Madison graduate leading the MU Athletic Department...makes you a bit squeemish doesn't it), smart fellow, understands the MU mission, has a strong legal background to navigate today's more complex collegiate athletic landscape, etc, etc. In today's college athletics world, that legal acumen will serve him well, especially with the potentially rough and tumble scenarios that could present themselves down the road with any potential Big East re-alignments.

Here's the one thing we don't know, and it's big. How is he at picking a coach? How is he at understanding that part of the job...the student-athlete and coaching relationship? Is that a learned skill that he can hone? Or do you just have it? Makes you wonder when 30 minutes ago someone like Kelvin Sampson was fired (according to Fox Sports) at Indiana. Hmmmm. As dominoes fall, will Cottingham be able to pick the right "next guy" if that decision came about?

Bill Cords, who I had the pleasure of working with for many years, didn't have Cottingham's legal background or some of those other business skills that are so badly needed in today's environment. I never felt he was comfortable at the fund raising aspect required today, either. But the one attribute that he had as a given was the coaching factor. Cords was a football coach for many years, he understood the recruiting process, the teaching process, the scheduling process, etc. That was a tremendous asset for him when it came to hiring coaches and dealing with them.

So, like many things in life, there are trade-offs. We now have an AD well positioned in some areas of the business, but there is that glaring unknown. For that reason I ask why. Why? Cottingham has been the interim AD for over a year...why now make him the AD? Was it based on his efforts over the last 14 months? Certainly plausible and perhaps likely. Or was it the inability to attract any other good candidates? On one hand, I'm thrilled we actually have an AD permanently in place, on the other hand it really makes one scratch their head that an outside placement firm couldn't find anyone else (nobody leaked anyway) with some serious AD experience as a candidate. Perhaps Cottingham just beat them all out. I don't know and doubt any of us will ever know what the "process" was in selecting the AD, but it always fascinates me when firms or schools have this much time and spend money on outside firms only to settle on an inside candidate. Sometimes it works out to be a terrific hire. Sometimes it's simply about settling. I hope it's not the latter.

One additional comment....how does this effect Crean? One could argue Crean has been a defacto AD for a few years now....certainly the CEO of the only product line in the athletic department that is profitable. That is to say, his voice is loud and is heard. Does this hire, especially with 14 months working with Crean, mean that it has Crean's blessing? Does this hire mean Crean is likely to remain at MU for many years to come as he continues to orchestrate from a top his perch? The implication by some, certainly, will be that Crean remains essentially in control of his domain while Cottingham runs "the rest of the department". Again, all just guesses and innuendo at this point.

I would argue that on one hand, the hiring of Cottingham may solidify Crean's tenure at MU even longer. It keeps everything status quo. In some athletic departments there is a strong AD organization, much like a strong Mayoral government system in some cities. While other departments or cities use a committee approach without a strong singular head. In this case, Crean remains the most important person in the MU athletic department and I don't see Cottingham as someone that equals that power. Sure, if NCAA transgressions were to occur on Crean's watch then that's a different story where Cottingham suddenly becomes the guy. But from my perch 2000 miles away, Crean is CEO of hoops with Cottingham as AD over the other sports and passive oversight over basketball. Not a bad setup if you have an ethical coach who runs a tight ship (which I believe we do), but it does allow for more freedom then some folks are comfortable with. I could be dead wrong on my interpretation, but that's my guess....Crean still remains essentially the guy.

On the other hand, some might argue that this is an AD that will function like other ADs across the country who will do their best to help their coaches and programs, but ultimately has the final word on everything...including hoops. I don't see that, but who knows.

Let's hope after a 14 month process they got it right....despite having him there all this time right under their nose...despite the fact he's a UW-Madison badger....despite the fact he's never been in an athletic department role other then the last 14 months....let's hope. Nothing in the previous 14 months screams he shouldn't have the job...then again we haven't gone through one of those pinnacle moments either.

Good luck. Fingers crossed. We want nothing but success for you and the department.