Crossfire (6-27)

[streettopeschel]

I guess honest opinions are not appreciated or allowed here any longer. When did that change?

you stated an opinion in opposition to a previous post and she came back and rebutted it. what am i missing here? why the drama?

 

[UTK66]

you stated an opinion in opposition to a previous post and she came back and rebutted it. what am i missing here? why the drama?

No drama here from me so don't try and pull that crap with me. I was referring the the post that was apparently deleted because it didn't tow the company line like almost all of the posts do here now.

 

[BudreauReye]

No drama here from me so don't try and pull that crap with me. I was referring the the post that was apparently deleted because it didn't tow the company line like almost all of the posts do here now.

Would you mind defining the "company line"?

 

[streettopeschel]

No drama here from me so don't try and pull that crap with me. I was referring the the post that was apparently deleted because it didn't tow the company line like almost all of the posts do here now.

settle down. You were anything but clear about what you were referring to.

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

I've been around here for quite a while. If you aren't in the "in" group, the majority here now just don't have much use for you apparently. Just another one of my opinions.

Who's in?  Who's out?

and here I am posting randomly about topics that interest me. Guess I should be paying closer attention, but that goes against my "habitual nonchalance" mantra.  

 

[UTK66]

Would you mind defining the "company line"?

If you aren't in the "in" group, you are largely ignored here. Didn't used to be that way.

 

[texasdobbs]

If you aren't in the "in" group, you are largely ignored here. Didn't used to be that way.

Lol... I don't know about any of this.... but this sounds silly. ..

 

[streettopeschel]

If you aren't in the "in" group, you are largely ignored here. Didn't used to be that way.

ignored? the guy you're griping about for being banned got more responses than anybody. 

i minority opinion is just that...a minority opinion. nothing wrong with that but if you say the same tired bs over and over, day after day, it's not being a contrarian anymore, it's just annoying.

 

[BudreauReye]

ignored? the guy you're griping about for being banned got more responses than anybody. 

i minority opinion is just that...a minority opinion. nothing wrong with that but if you say the same tired bs over and over, day after day, it's not being a contrarian anymore, it's just annoying.

If MBHORNSFAN is the point of this discussion, I have to say that I have had some positive interactions with that poster.  I also have to say that I have never seen on any forum of any kind, a poster that so confuses a perpetual negative outlook with what he THINKS is a "critical perspective", especially of late.  He seems to have some very good things to say.  But, If you have some valid information and if you have some valid insights as to why things work the way they do, well, then, delivery is everything.  I hope he gets to come back at some point, but he needs to realize that his delivery is just a tad off putting - and I must say that I have never been accused by anybody of being an insider anywhere except in my Own Mind.  And, since I am an Olden Farte of the First Order! I must tell you that I wear that designation as a Badge of Honour!

 

[streettopeschel]

Agree with all that budreaureye.

 

[BudreauReye]

Agree with all that budreaureye.

Even the part about me being an insider in My Own Mind?

It is so nice to have a place to belong!

 

[Darrell McPhaul]

If you aren't in the "in" group, you are largely ignored here. Didn't used to be that way.

There is really in group and it is really pretty easy to make friends if you "want" to.

66, is not happy they I came along and brought on a lot you guys that make this board what it is.

I understand 66's loyalty to Mike and I admire it.  However, it 66 gave us us half a chance, I'm certain he would see we are not that bad.

And btw, I did not make any changes to this board that I was not ask to make so, 66 if you have a problem, take it up with Aaron.

You like the rest of our members already know that any of the staff will take your call and give you all the time you desire.

If you have a problem with any of of us, then why not take the initiative to fix it?

My # 936-202-7556.

 

[BudreauReye]

Darrell, I take issue with only one thing you said.  You said,  "... we are not that bad."

 

[Darrell McPhaul]

Bud,

As one that has taken the initiative to talk to when you had a issue, you go Bro!

 

[BudreauReye]

Who am I!  Cousin Schnitzel?  I always got issues!

 

[doc longhorn]

Well done, but I also feel McPhaul's contact inside Bellmont doesn't understand where some of the criticism of Bellmont and the expectations of reform are coming from.

I think if our friends in Bellmont were to conduct a survey to determine the common perception of their performance, the results would be a shock to them. Words such as "bureaucratic" and "bloated" are widely used to describe Bellmont. There is a great frustration among the fans that the image of UT is not what it once was and that the cow college down the road is seemingly head and shoulders above Bellmont in matters such as marketing their overall program and managing the image of their football program. I am not surprised that McPhaul's contact inside Bellmont was defensive and expressed that many of the employees had been performing at an exemplary level for decades. I have no doubt each and every one of them believe they are performing brilliantly and we should be thanking them for their efforts. The disconnect between how Bellmont employees see themselves and how outsiders see them is expansive. Personally, I am searching to identify what aspects of the program are examples of excellence. If any Bellmont employees would care to offer examples, I would be interested in their opinion.

Earlier this month, Kristi Dosh published a piece about various college athletics programs and their levels of spending. The link is provided below. It is an interesting read. One of the charts listed various AAC member schools and examined their spending on individual sports, both men's and women's, as well as each school's average spending per athlete. Among the college coaches quoted in the article is Jerritt Elliott of Texas. The article mentions the average spending per athlete by all public FBS schools. It was $107,677. I looked at the financial reports and noticed the average spending per athlete for aggy was $132,826. For OU, the figure was $195,000. For UT, the number was $233,108. For the life of me, I can't understand how an efficiently run athletic program is spending more than twice the national average and far outspending its peers. If anyone inside Bellmont wants to explain why the average spending per athlete is as high as it is, I would be interested in their opinion.

The money is being spent, but other schools are seemingly doing a far better job at managing their brand and the public perception of their program. I look for the areas of excellence. I clearly see the areas of perceived excess.

Maybe the spending in Bellmont will continue for years to come, unabated by restructuring or reforms. Maybe McPhaul's contact within Bellmont is correct and we shouldn't expect anything to change anytime soon. If that is the case, I hope Steve Patterson tempers his insistence that the game day experience is not being priced high enough. At the very least, i would love for him to give a number for average spending per athlete he feels reasonable and consistent with what he considers a responsibly managed program. Maybe managing the department to such a number would blunt public opinion the budget of UT athletics department is bloated and excessive.

Personally, I want words like "dynamic", "innovative" and "creative" to come to mind when I think of the leader of the athletic department of the University of Texas. McPhaul's contact within Bellmont certainly doesn't believe we should expect dynamic change anytime soon. I hope we can see "innovative" or "creative" soon.

I am not trying to be negative. I am trying to offer the basis for an opinion that the athletics department needs to be reformed without delay. It is just a matter of until Patterson will come to the donors and fans seeking more money. If he wants us to support such a request, maybe he can make the request having, since he first took over the program, managed the department with fiscal responsibility and with an eye to minimizing the need for additional funds.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/06/09/Colleges/College-spending.aspx

Interesting opinions and worth some discussion.  (and not personal character attacks)

However, I must ask you again - what were you expecting from Patterson?  For that matter, had Luck been hired, what would have been your expectations of him?

Honestly, Randolph, I don't think you understand how deeply imbedded the bureaucracy of this monster university has become.  We are a government unto ourselves and it takes the cumulative power of several entities to effect principal changes. I've always believed that even Patterson didn't understood the ramifications of his job, when he was hired.

Patterson is a hatchet man and that is well known as the the principal reason he was hired in the first place.  However, it is hard to hatchet when your boss, esteemed donors and money men aren't fully as invested as you are.  This is especially true when the cronies and "leakers" are as imbedded as ticks on a dog.

Where do you think all the so called insider leaks come from?  Puppets and bureaucrats that have been working there for decades.  All of these blogs have contacts and "insiders" that pony up enough information to sustain them.  What no one, including the blog owners, have known is a huge amount of information was "leaked" for ulterior purposes.  And, the laughable thing is - the Saban debacle was one of them.  There are some really smart money men that love and donate to our school - but they can be as dumb as a stump as well.  I, personally, know one that was used badly by manipulative agents and so called colleague "friends".  Just to gain his support should the hiring of favored prospective coaches be needed.

Am I an "insider" to this blog?  Hell, I don't even know what one is.  I can tell you that I am a poster that likes the mods on here and I can't think of a single poster that hasn't contributed intelligent and interesting opinions on here.

Other than the fact that they both would rather have a gasoline enema than be proven wrong , you have to admit that echeese and Randolph Duke have provided us with intelligent and interesting dialog.

RD's treatise about TAMU was golden and well worth the read and e-cheese has provided us with fundamentally sound opinions. 

I like 'em both, but it is time to move on to our favorite subject - the Texas Longhorns. 

I may have a little nugget of news shortly, that I will pass on to McPhaul for confirmation with his guys.  I will only say it may have something to do with (RD are you listening?) Pattersons handling of the womens side of athletics.

 

[Randolph Duke]

fair enough, but let me ask you this. from 02-09 the football team was consistent top-10, won a NC and played for another. baseball won 2 NCs and was runner-up twice more. Basketball had a final four, two elite eights and two more sweet 16s.

were ANY of the concerns you raise now on your radar then? i'm going to assume like the other 99% of us, you didn't give a shit and had no idea what the the numbers were and were just enjoying the good times.

if you, and presumably you alone, were banging the drum against athletic dept bloat and waste when we were winning big i'll shut up. if you weren't when we were winning but now are because we're not winning big, you shut up., deal ?

In the 02-09 period Texas wasn't enjoying the revenue numbers we are today. Schools like Alabama and Ohio St were leading the nation in revenue. Texas also wasn't leading the nation in expenses. Since 2008, spending has run out of control. It costs UT $65 million in direct expenses for all teams in all sports (coaches salaries, equipment, travel, recruiting, etc). Bellmont spends $73 mil in "unallocated expenses." These figures are from the Aug 2013 DOE filings.
The short answer is while we were doing well on the field, when we were investing heavily in facilities upgrades and Bellmont's spending wasn't wildly out of control, I wasn't complaining that Bellmont's spending was out of control. When it wasn't a problem that was holding back the program, I didn't complain that it was a problem that was holding back the program.

Like I have said, Stanford supports 300 more athletes than Texas on $50 million less each year, even though their grant-in-aid is more than twice ours, and not only are they not suffering in accomplishments, they have won the Director's Cup twenty years running.

Texas should be a leading program on the field as well as off the field. We demand excellence from the athletes, but the adults running the athletics program aren't living up to the standards we demand from the kids. If there is an entitlement attitude at the top of the program, don't you think it might explain the entitlement attitude throughout the program?

 

[java]

In the 02-09 period Texas wasn't enjoying the revenue numbers we are today. Schools like Alabama and Ohio St were leading the nation in revenue. Texas also wasn't leading the nation in expenses. Since 2008, spending has run out of control. It costs UT $65 million in direct expenses for all teams in all sports (coaches salaries, equipment, travel, recruiting, etc). Bellmont spends $73 mil in "unallocated expenses." These figures are from the Aug 2013 DOE filings.

The short answer is while we were doing well on the field, when we were investing heavily in facilities upgrades and Bellmont's spending wasn't wildly out of control, I wasn't complaining that Bellmont's spending was out of control. When it wasn't a problem that was holding back the program, I didn't complain that it was a problem that was holding back the program.

Like I have said, Stanford supports 300 more athletes than Texas on $50 million less each year, even though their grant-in-aid is more than twice ours, and not only are they not suffering in accomplishments, they have won the Director's Cup twenty years running.

Texas should be a leading program on the field as well as off the field. We demand excellence from the athletes, but the adults running the athletics program aren't living up to the standards we demand from the kids. If there is an entitlement attitude at the top of the program, don't you think it might explain the entitlement attitude throughout the program?

RD,

I have stated before that I respect the manner in which you normally present arguments, but in this one, I must admit to being confused. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you were/are an attorney. If so, you certainly understand UT is not going to terminate employees without going through proper channels.

If Dodds was simply rubber-stamping reviews and giving fat raises, Steve needed documentation, and a great deal of it, or the department would have been fighting lawsuits for years. If you want an efficient, streamlined department, and if you want to keep deserving employees, then it takes time. If you simply want to make the numbers work, it's a little easier.

One more thing, UT does spend money on items other schools don't. For example, recall the twin brothers from Texas that played football at FSU? I believe it was about 10 years ago that one of the brothers died during offseason workouts of a congenital heart problem. At that time, the test that would have detected that problem was run on athletes entering UT, but it was not required. I don't know if it's required at all Division I schools now, or not.

Anyway, I agree that bloat should be cut, but not medical expenses for athletes, academic support for athletes, or other programs directly benefit their health, education, or fitness.

 

[Darrell McPhaul]

No, RD is not an attorney.

 

[Randolph Duke]

RD,

I have stated before that I respect the manner in which you normally present arguments, but in this one, I must admit to being confused. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you were/are an attorney. If so, you certainly understand UT is not going to terminate employees without going through proper channels.

If Dodds was simply rubber-stamping reviews and giving fat raises, Steve needed documentation, and a great deal of it, or the department would have been fighting lawsuits for years. If you want an efficient, streamlined department, and if you want to keep deserving employees, then it takes time. If you simply want to make the numbers work, it's a little easier.

One more thing, UT does spend money on items other schools don't. For example, recall the twin brothers from Texas that played football at FSU? I believe it was about 10 years ago that one of the brothers died during offseason workouts of a congenital heart problem. At that time, the test that would have detected that problem was run on athletes entering UT, but it was not required. I don't know if it's required at all Division I schools now, or not.

Anyway, I agree that bloat should be cut, but not medical expenses for athletes, academic support for athletes, or other programs directly benefit their health, education, or fitness.

I have no problem with Texas spending the money if it establishes us as a leader in something other than spending. The money is going to get spent somewhere, but $500 throw pillows from Old Mill are not consistent with the mission of the university to prepare the students and student athletes to be the next generation of leaders. $500 throw pillows from Old Mill are consistent with the entitlement issues of individuals working inside Bellmont. 

Steve Patterson has spending at a level of $132,000 per athlete in his program at ASU. As I said, Ohio State sends $170,000 per athlete and their game day atmosphere in the Horseshoe (football being the sport with the most expenses) wasn't lacking for anything. I've mentioned Stanford's spending. 

Texas should be a leader on the field as well as off the field. With new leadership for the first time in 30 years, we have the opportunity to make some changes in out program. I think we should take advantage of that opportunity. 

And, for the record, the revenue and expense numbers I am using are coming from the Aug 2013 DOE filings. http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx