Crossfire (6-27)

[Lukus Alderman]

Fantastic Crossfire! Well done, Darrell!

 

[LinuxHorn]

Well done McPhaul. The season can't get here soon enough. It's the off season so a lot of fans are on an emotional roller coaster with each article out about Texas. None of that crap will matter when the boys suit up this fall. #HookEm

 

[Randolph Duke]

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

 

[Darrell McPhaul]

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

No,no, no my man,  

You took it all wrong.  He was anything but defensive.  He was trying to share with you the level of work involved to make the changes "YOU" expect to see.  Do you understand that?

You and I need to be on the same page concerning that perspective before I go any further.   I'm not going to argue apples & oranges.

Darrell

 

[Randolph Duke]

No,no, no my man,

You took it all wrong. He was anything but defensive. He was trying to share with you the level of work involved to make the changes "YOU" expect to see. Do you understand that?

You and I need to be on the same page concerning that perspective before I go any further. I'm not going to argue apples & oranges.

Darrell

Maybe I am misreading what your contact said. I don't see how anyone can argue Bellmont needs reform and now. I am just disappointed we aren't seeing dynamic change. I was expecting Patterson had a plan to change things and that he was going to effect change sooner as opposed to later. I would be surprised to see much change in Bellmont during the football season, simply because the level of activity. The prospect of having had a leader in place for a year and not having personnel changes already made is going to be disappointing.
By the way, I forgot to add in my numbers discussing average spending per athlete. Texas is at $240,000/ athlete. Stanford, who has won the Director's Cup twenty straight years and has a far greater grant-in-aid cost than UT, is at $103,500. Where are we spending all the money, other than salaries and benefits?

 

[Darrell McPhaul]

Maybe I am misreading what your contact said. I don't see how anyone can argue Bellmont needs reform and now. I am just disappointed we aren't seeing dynamic change. I was expecting Patterson had a plan to change things and that he was going to effect change sooner as opposed to later. I would be surprised to see much change in Bellmont during the football season, simply because the level of activity. The prospect of having had a leader in place for a year and not having personnel changes already made is going to be disappointing.

By the way, I forgot to add in my numbers discussing average spending per athlete. Texas is at $240,000/ athlete. Stanford, who has won the Director's Cup twenty straight years, is at $103,500. Where are we spending all the money, other than salaries and benefits?

My Brother,

No one is argue with you that changes need to be made.  You say NOW!  And, YOU want to see DYNAMIC changes.

My source was trying to educate you on what is involved in making those changes.

He said, you don't make DYNAMIC changes in six months when the culture has been built the last thirty two years,  It is impossible.  

Do you you understand what you are asking for?

  I need to know that you and I are talking rationally before I get into a discussion with you.  

 

[Donald Boyles]

Here is my understanding on this deal surrounding an etension for Augie..

That there has to be an exit stragey in place.. In order for this to work, there is a coach that I have been keeping an eye on that needs to booster his resume..

This will be a domino effect...

 

[Los Corralles]

Everyone needs to be patient regarding Augie and our next coach.  All I can say is that FOB is very "warm" with his comments.  This really is Skip's team.

 

[doc longhorn]

Thank you Admin!

Someone was banned?  From what thread?  Hope I didn't cause it.

 

[echeese]

Someone was banned?  From what thread?  Hope I didn't cause it.

"You arrogant bastid. . . . now you have killed us all"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIni1I7KxZc

 

[echeese]

My Brother,

No one is argue with you that changes need to be made.  You say NOW!  And, YOU want to see DYNAMIC changes.

My source was trying to educate you on what is involved in making those changes.

He said, you don't make DYNAMIC changes in six months when the culture has been built the last thirty two years,  It is impossible.  

Do you you understand what you are asking for?

  I need to know that you and I are talking rationally before I get into a discussion with you.  

I can only chuckle. . . . .

 

[doc longhorn]

"You arrogant bastid. . . . now you have killed us all"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIni1I7KxZc

LOL!  Sh*t!

 

[Bear19]

I am a sunshine pumper from way back. My glass is always half full.

I have a different opinion of Randolph Dukes posts. I agree he is drawing conclusions too early but he always gives reasons for his opinions and offers suggestions for improvement. I do not think he is being negative just for the sake of being negative like so many assholes on other boards. And he does not come across to me as a "look at me" poster.

I think he is wrong and I hope he is wrong. If so I'll bet he will admit it.

But I think he adds value to this site.

PS. I did not realize he and echeese were married.

 

[PeteA422]

Thinking about the Belmont situation rationally, knowing that it is a government entity and can be a bureaucratic nightmare, here is what I would expect a reasonable timeline to look like:

First month on the job: Keep things running smoothly and learn current staff functions. (Also had to deal with the hiring of new head coach)

Month 2: Articulate vision of future operations to staff and begin counseling staff on expectations and performance evaluation criteria

Month 3-6: Based off of new vision begin to make moves toward achieving goals established as per that vision (i.e. moving UT brand into new marketplaces).  Also, begin to develop plan for any potential restructuring.  (Note on restructuring: If it is only moving current positions within Belmont to a new job function, this should be fairly simple.  If it is to cut redundant positions, it will require much more time)

Month 6-12: Continue with evaluations of current staff.  Submit a restructuring plan that requires either more or less positions within Belmont to the UT President and/or Board of Regents.

End of First Year: Performance evaluations should be made.  Also of note, any lack of performance throughout the year must be annotated and thoroughly documented, noting deficiencies of personnel and plan of action to correct deficiency.

Month 12-18: Lobbying for new restructuring plan with UT President/BOR all while maintaining operations within Belmont.  Continue with performance evaluations of current staff, noting any deficiencies, documenting them, etc. etc.

Month 18-24: Approval of restructuring plan.  Movement of personnel within Bellmont, hiring/firing where needed.

To me, this would be a dynamic change in a real world bureaucratic office.  When it comes to government jobs, it is not very easy to fire someone, unless they have done something completely stupid as to leave no shadow of a doubt that this would be the only option.  When it comes to restructuring of a government entity, that too is going to take at least 18 months to two years, with someone pushing for change and fighting an uphill battle the whole way.  

I know in the business and corporate world it is not this difficult.  When a new CEO, wants to restructure or change, it can usually be done within 3-6 months.  But at a government job, much more difficult.  I would consider the timeline above to be a dynamic rapid change within Belmont.  Realistically, I could see it taking as long as three years to "cut the fat" sort of speak.  

Just my opinion, and I may be completely wrong.  But I will own it if I am.

 

[echeese]

PS. I did not realize he and echeese were married.

LOL

He makes my wife look rational. . . .

 

[Lukus Alderman]

Thinking about the Belmont situation rationally, knowing that it is a government entity and can be a bureaucratic nightmare, here is what I would expect a reasonable timeline to look like:

First month on the job: Keep things running smoothly and learn current staff functions. (Also had to deal with the hiring of new head coach)

Month 2: Articulate vision of future operations to staff and begin counseling staff on expectations and performance evaluation criteria

Month 3-6: Based off of new vision begin to make moves toward achieving goals established as per that vision (i.e. moving UT brand into new marketplaces). Also, begin to develop plan for any potential restructuring. (Note on restructuring: If it is only moving current positions within Belmont to a new job function, this should be fairly simple. If it is to cut redundant positions, it will require much more time)

Month 6-12: Continue with evaluations of current staff. Submit a restructuring plan that requires either more or less positions within Belmont to the UT President and/or Board of Regents.

End of First Year: Performance evaluations should be made. Also of note, any lack of performance throughout the year must be annotated and thoroughly documented, noting deficiencies of personnel and plan of action to correct deficiency.

Month 12-18: Lobbying for new restructuring plan with UT President/BOR all while maintaining operations within Belmont. Continue with performance evaluations of current staff, noting any deficiencies, documenting them, etc. etc.

Month 18-24: Approval of restructuring plan. Movement of personnel within Bellmont, hiring/firing where needed.

To me, this would be a dynamic change in a real world bureaucratic office. When it comes to government jobs, it is not very easy to fire someone, unless they have done something completely stupid as to leave no shadow of a doubt that this would be the only option. When it comes to restructuring of a government entity, that too is going to take at least 18 months to two years, with someone pushing for change and fighting an uphill battle the whole way.

I know in the business and corporate world it is not this difficult. When a new CEO, wants to restructure or change, it can usually be done within 3-6 months. But at a government job, much more difficult. I would consider the timeline above to be a dynamic rapid change within Belmont. Realistically, I could see it taking as long as three years to "cut the fat" sort of speak.

Just my opinion, and I may be completely wrong. But I will own it if I am.

^^^This is very good information from someone who has experience within the government.

 

[texasdobbs]

^^^This is very good information from someone who has experience within the government.

Being a government employee. .. I concur...

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you...

 

[Randolph Duke]

LOL

He makes my wife look rational. . . .

I must have missed the memo that announced we were going to start with the personal attacks on the site.

If you want to disagree with my opinion and how I substantiate my point of view, no problem. If you want to be an asshole and get personal, I can handle that also.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Thinking about the Belmont situation rationally, knowing that it is a government entity and can be a bureaucratic nightmare, here is what I would expect a reasonable timeline to look like:

First month on the job: Keep things running smoothly and learn current staff functions. (Also had to deal with the hiring of new head coach)

Month 2: Articulate vision of future operations to staff and begin counseling staff on expectations and performance evaluation criteria

Month 3-6: Based off of new vision begin to make moves toward achieving goals established as per that vision (i.e. moving UT brand into new marketplaces).  Also, begin to develop plan for any potential restructuring.  (Note on restructuring: If it is only moving current positions within Belmont to a new job function, this should be fairly simple.  If it is to cut redundant positions, it will require much more time)

Month 6-12: Continue with evaluations of current staff.  Submit a restructuring plan that requires either more or less positions within Belmont to the UT President and/or Board of Regents.

End of First Year: Performance evaluations should be made.  Also of note, any lack of performance throughout the year must be annotated and thoroughly documented, noting deficiencies of personnel and plan of action to correct deficiency.

Month 12-18: Lobbying for new restructuring plan with UT President/BOR all while maintaining operations within Belmont.  Continue with performance evaluations of current staff, noting any deficiencies, documenting them, etc. etc.

Month 18-24: Approval of restructuring plan.  Movement of personnel within Bellmont, hiring/firing where needed.

To me, this would be a dynamic change in a real world bureaucratic office.  When it comes to government jobs, it is not very easy to fire someone, unless they have done something completely stupid as to leave no shadow of a doubt that this would be the only option.  When it comes to restructuring of a government entity, that too is going to take at least 18 months to two years, with someone pushing for change and fighting an uphill battle the whole way.  

I know in the business and corporate world it is not this difficult.  When a new CEO, wants to restructure or change, it can usually be done within 3-6 months.  But at a government job, much more difficult.  I would consider the timeline above to be a dynamic rapid change within Belmont.  Realistically, I could see it taking as long as three years to "cut the fat" sort of speak.  

Just my opinion, and I may be completely wrong.  But I will own it if I am.

Before I discuss Pete's posting, I have an email out to a former UT employee who was involuntarily let go during a pervious campus restructuring. I will try to get some info on the steps necessary for the University of Texas to let someone go for non-disciplanary reasons. 

As soon as Patterson reasonably believed his name might be in the list of possible candidates, he made the decision whether he would be interested in talking. Any talks would unquestionably include a prospective plan for restructuring Bellmont. Before he even agreed to talk with Bill Powers, Patters would have looked at Bellmont's financial reports. Patterson is an experience AD at a public university. He knows how athletic departments function. He doesn't need to learn staff functions, he knows them. As an AD at a public university, he would have know the average in the country for expenses per athlete at a public university was around $107,000. He would have known the figure for his school was $132,500 and he would have known why is expenses were higher than the national average. He would have known that at Stanford (arguably the best run athletic department in the nation) the figure was just over $103,500. Doing a quick calculation, we would have known the figure for UT was above $240,000. Before he even agreed to talk to Bill Powers, he would have known expenses at UT were out of control. Understanding the expense rations for functions, sports and departments, he would have known where the problem was. In his talk, he would have told Bill Powers what Bill's problem in managing Bellmont was, not the other way around. Patterson is one of the most experienced sports administrators in the nation. He can quickly assess the problems within an organization. 

What you have set for a two year timeline would have essentially have been done before the first meeting between Patterson and Powers. The two of them would have agreed upon a vision for Bellmont and whether Powers thought he could handle the political considerations of Patterson executing the overall strategy that was agreed upon. No way would Patterson have agreed to take on a job he didn't understand the scope or objectives of. Likewise, Bill Powers wasn't going to hire someone he thought might not be capable of driving the program to a clear objective. Experienced individuals like Patterson don't take risk with their careers that they can't quantify. Execution risk is worth taking when it is your ability to execute that is the issue, but no pro is going to walk into a job like the AD of Texas without understanding what the President of the university expects the AD to achieve. 

As far as staffing levels, Patterson would know proper staffing levels as soon as he worked the financial ratios and knew roughly what the budget should be. Again, Patterson wouldn't be submitting a plan with various details for Powers to consider a year and a half after Patterson was hired. Neither Powers nor the BOR are going to negotiate with Patterson whether there should be 10 or 11 people in the media group or whether game day operating expenses are 3% too low. If Powers is willing to stand up to the BOR over their meddling in the hiring of the head football coach, he surely isn't going to allow them to involve themselves in low level decisions inside Bellmont. Expense ratios drive the budget which drive staffing levels. Again, Patterson isn't a rookie. He is one of the most experienced sports administrators in the nation. He knows what needs to be done. Or at least he better. 

I simply don't believe Bellmont, the most financially complex athletic department in college sports would be allowed to drift aimlessly for two years, neither running Deloss' operating plan nor Patterson's until the there was a plan in place that would then take at least an additional year to implement. Patterson joined the ASU staff as COO in July 2011 and took over as AD in March 2012. He left ASU in November 2013, spending roughly 20 months as AD. If he is going to take longer to develop a plan of restructuring at Texas than his entire tenure as AD over at ASU, we have a huge problem. Two years to develop a plan, another year to get it implements and still another year to begin to see results is simply unimaginable. 2018 is way too long of a time to see results.

 

[echeese]

I must have missed the memo that announced we were going to start with the personal attacks on the site.

If you want to disagree with my opinion and how I substantiate my point of view, no problem. If you want to be an asshole and get personal, I can handle that also.

Duke,

You've largely been an asshole to anyone who had the audacity to disagree with you. . . 

From refusing to admit you were wrong

To building strawmen . .. which is insulting. . . 

To refusing to address issues others have raised. . . .

To talking down to everyone who points out your silliness. . . 

Now you want to play the victim card???   Really. . . . .. 

You have made two points I agree with .. . 

You have admitted you don't know dick about what is going on .. . ..not that reality would change your opinion. . .

And you claim I think you are a f*cking Moron (a quote) .. . . 

BTW, you might want to take your mini rant up with Bear,.. . .I was responding to his comment. . . .