I have this sneaking suspicion the new committee looking for the new AD is going to be swayed by what I call "shiny objects." As an example, looking at Ballard, Colts GM, and Michael Finley who is in the GM room with the Dallas Mavericks. I prefer looking at guys who are at the college level and have taken weak programs and turned them into winners by surrounding themselves with people who can make things happen without being micro-managed. This is something that happens on the college level, not on the pro level because in the pros there are draft and free agent rules, whereas in the college ranks it's a donnybrook of money dictating where the best players hang their hats, and for how long.
Granted, both deal with budgets but in the pros, the budgets are balanced for teams, in college, a good AD has to go out and scare up the money to make things happen in sports.
I look at it just like I did when they decided to bring in Bo Ryan as head basketball coach. He wasn't the guy who had a track record of high-level success in a top level school, and who would look like the sure thing to turn a program into a winner, but when you look at his coaching history, you saw a guy who was turning pigs ears into silk purses because he knew how to get the players who could be part of a system and would adapt to playing with each other as a team, not as individual stars. From that, stars emerged and stars wanted to join the Badgers because Bo made them better players.
A GM has to do essentially the same thing, at a higher level, and he needs to recruit sponsors and donors to get players that can develop into stars of the future. That's why I believe they need to search through the college ranks and find someone who has a dynamic personality, can recruit the best people to work with him, and understands what it takes to reach out in all sports to get the NIL support needed to create winning teams.
But, I have this sinking feeling that's not going to happen.