Apparently you don't get it, because you keep repeating crap like Freeman has "abandoned his mantra" and took the "easy hire".
No, I’ve maintained for a couple of days, across several threads, that something in the initial report about Ludwig seemed fishy and we needed more info or context. But your mantra for several hours, across several threads has been,
“Admin bad, Freeman good. Admin wrong, Freeman right. Admin to blame, Freeman blameless.”
Despite you bringing up rogue agents and phantom Utah office menaces, I’ve even conceded that the admin deserves some blame and your responses are more drivel about “Admin bad, Freeman good. Admin wrong, Freeman right. Admin to blame, Freeman blameless.”
Now you’re telling us that Parker was always a serious candidate and one MF was always going to seriously consider. Ok, fine. But if so, then why did he wait to interview the dude until yesterday? That would have been easy! It’s his buddy and his office is around the corner. Why would he not have just interviewed him last week? Or what is it we’re missing about Parker as an OC candidate that has led to no other interest from other programs about him? But yet again, it’s “Admin bad, Freeman good. Admin wrong, Freeman right. Admin to blame, Freeman blameless.”
Freeman reportedly valued experience as a play caller. Parker barely has more experience than you calling plays, but somehow your mantra of “Admin bad, Freeman good. Admin wrong, Freeman right. Admin to blame, Freeman blameless” doesn’t even allow you wonder why others find the contradiction confusing.
Your mantra of “Admin bad, Freeman good. Admin wrong, Freeman right. Admin to blame, Freeman blameless” has blinded you to at least some confusion, or perhaps even doubt about the entire process of hiring Parker. You selectively use reports (that have been thin and few) that fit your mantra and dismiss any of the reports that don’t meet your mantra.
Some of us have just been trying to read the reports, make sense of them, then factor in what we know about MF to draw conclusions. It’s ok to admit that the admin hasn’t handled this well, and acknowledge that Freeman himself hasn’t handled it well. Both things can be true. But I, and many others, aren’t married to the belief of “Admin bad, Freeman good. Admin wrong, Freeman right. Admin to blame, Freeman blameless.”
You’re so committed to your mantra that I’ve brought this up to you now for the 3rd time, yet you won’t respond to it.
Who else did Freeman offer that Swarbrick (or the BoT) balked on him hiring? If MF limits his coaching searches to 3 guys, that’s on him. That’s not on the administration. He’s known HH has been leaving for awhile. TR almost left last year. He’s known he may leave again for awhile. So the timeline of interviews and hirings are somewhat on Freeman. He doesn’t receive absolution because it’s been difficult. As I pointed out earlier, the timeline with these hirings isn’t far out of the norm in college or pro football.
When MF hired Parker last year, there were rumors it was an insurance policy against TR leaving. It was well-known TR would leave sooner rather than later. So MF was thinking about Rees leaving a year ago. But now, in the present, his search for an OC was basically Klein, Ludwig, and Parker- the guy he hired a year ago as an insurance policy about the eventuality that did, in fact, occur.
So again, I don’t absolve MF for “being stuck” with Parker when he should have already had some candidates in mind and/or interviewed more guys.
If you want to believe MF was screwed over on Ludwig, fine. But nobody at ND screwed him over for not having other candidates to interview.
Respond to it. Or don’t. But quit preaching to us about “Admin bad, Freeman good. Admin wrong, Freeman right. Admin to blame, Freeman blameless” if you can’t or won’t even entertain the notion that MF has had some role in the hiring of Parker…and the confusion and doubts people have of the hire.