I'm not in the mood to get into an extended debate at the moment, but i will respond.
1) The argument that save and except for Steve Patterson, Mack Brown would still be head football coach at UT is a non-starter. The program's decline at the end of his tenure is what got rid of Mack Brown.
Calling it a "non-starter": is meaningless and not applicable to my contention. And that is he got rid of Mack - which he was hired to do.
2) For all he has done, Charlie Strong has not delivered results on the field as of yet. Patterson certainly gets no credit for hiring a coach that to date hasn't even delivered a winning season. Bob Weltlich was also an assistant that won a championship at a major program (the '76 32-0 Indiana team), did well leading a mid major and came to Texas, instilling a discipline oriented approach.
Patterson absolutely gets credit for hiring Strong. which, for the majority of the UT fans, admins and bmd's was a home run hire.
3) And he also gave him a contract extension just 5 months before firing him. Not much of a visionary when it comes to evaluating coaches, is he?
Your speculation of his vision smacks a little of being a little snarky. He got rid of him - end of story.
4) Patterson wants to be lauded for money whipping an obvious coaching hire who hasn't even won a game yet? A bit early, % would say.
Once again, you are in the minute minority on this hire - which was lauded, by those in the know, as another home run hire.
5) Polling season ticket holders is your idea of "substantive and innovative change?!" Is asking people whether they want to spend $2,800 for a tailgaiting spot and a few bags of ice for a single game substantive or innovative?
Yes, I would say it was substantive and innovative. Changes were made, as a result, and Dodds sure wasn't that innovative, was he? Your rebuttals are beginning to be even more snarky now.
6) Again, is telling aggy "no" substantive or innovative? As I remember, that has been the company line since before Patterson was even AD at Arizona State.
In my book it damn sure was. But maybe you are more of an aggy fan than me. What the company line was before Patterson was hired is irrelevant to Pattersons position for UT today. Red herring.
7) So what!? Does anyone really think Dubai is is a brilliant marketing move? Seriously, Dubai!?
Anyone that is innovative and forward thinking, yes. Obviously sales and marketing are not your expertise.
8) "Closed the behind the scenes pipeline." You must be kidding. That is Patterson's signature "substantive and innovative" achievement after 18 months on the job and pulling down $1.4 mil/year?! We hired Patterson to "close down a pipeline?!"
It damn sure is part of it. Where were you when the Saban debacle occurred? And you need to tap the brakes on the snark and sarcasm.
9) The BMD are the ONLY people who have any influence over the athletic department. He is kissing the asses of the 30,000 west side season ticket holders and giving the finger to the other 450,000 alumni precisely because he wants the BMDs to finance the $1.2 billion wish list he has drawn up. That crap about "ticket prices only being raised an average of 6%" was an insult to the intelligence of the rank and file alumni. He certainly hasn't delivered anything "substantive and innovative" to enhance the gameday atmosphere for the rank and file alumni, yet the BMDs are catered to without reservation.
I'm very good friends with a few BMD's and you are patently wrong with how much influence they have over the AD. Now, if they are polled or invited to participate is another story. I see now where your angst comes from (I'm betting, however, you aren't even a season ticket holder). You object to ticket increases from where they were 30 years ago.
10) No, he hasn't. For a year and a half we have been hearing excuse after excuse about why Steve Patterson has utterly failed to install responsible management over Bellmont's spending. "It's coming any day!" "The people inside Bellmont are scared!" Bullshit. Patterson ran UT athletics at a loss last year for the first time in decades. He has more revenue than any program in college sports and he can't make ends meet. Every other athletic director in the nation finds a way to get by with less than Patterson. He has raised the price of everything he can think of. "Expenses not allocated to any specific program" is where the bloat is in the financial reports. My two question to Steve Patterson are what expense-per-athlete figure he thinks would reflect responsible management of Bellmont's finances and when does he intend to get Bellmont to that figure. In reigning in the waste and bloat that is rampant inside Bellmont, Patterson has been inept and a failure, certainly not "substantive and innovative."
Please link where you have been hearing excuse after excuse. I suspect this bilge probably came from another message board - right? I'm, also, betting I know more about what is happening inside Bellmont than you do. You are simply wrong and I will leave it at that. By-the-way, you are now in full roar with your condescension, sarcasm and snark. all based on ignorance, I might add.
Bottom line - after 18 months, Patterson has failed to deliver one substantive or innovative accomplishment that would justify his having been selected as AD or anything that stands as a "substantive and innovative" signature achievement. The president of the United States can be judged on his first 100 days in office, but after 18 months the athletic director of UT needs "understanding and patience because of the complexity of his job." A lot of people wanted to support Patterson as he took over the program. A lot of people were wanting him to deliver substantive and innovative change. Patterson has delivered nothing for the overwhelming majority of UT fans and alumni and a lot of people have quite believing Patterson has the ability to deliver what was promised.
