I hope the members of the committee are not the same people who sat on the Coach I committee.
Unfortunately, nobody on the committee has probably heard of Ludwig von Mises and the three elements necessary for change. A person must experience all three before making a change.
1. Uneasiness with the current state of affairs.
2. A vision of a better state.
3. A belief that a better state is achievable.
Before making Paul an offer, the committe/TW should have known the answers to these points.
Was Paul uneasy with his current situation? I would tend to say no based upon the available information because WSU just played for the national championship. Given Paul's age, some discussion with him should have focused on his age and ability to make a leap/take a risk at this point in his life. The older someone gets, the more risk averse they become.
Not scoring on point 1 is enough to not close a deal. However, is the vision of a better state UofA football coming off two 1-11 seasons and an Athletic Department with TW at the helm? My personal opinion is no, but others are free to argue.
Strikes 1 and 2 now have happened. A belief that a better state is achievable. With TW as the AD? I would say no. It doesn't matter though because Paul was never uneasy with his current situation.
Everyone thinks TW should have been able to easily "close the deal" with Paul. Nonsense. Even if TW is a good deal closer, von Mises would tell us there was no way Paul was going to accept the position. The best way to close a deal is to guide a person in a direction that creates points 1,2 and 3 to happen in the mind of the decision maker. That's what the best of the best salesmen do. Make them realize for themselves the change is necessary. Timing has to be right when closing a deal. It wasn't the right time for Paul so the timing was off.
I told you guys weeks ago, I should be on the hiring committee. They need someone who understands Ludwig von Mises.
Excellent analysis GP1.