Crossfire (6-27)

[Randolph Duke]

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. . . .

Lol. I pretty much ignore you because I don't find you an enjoyable individual to interact with. Let's just agree to disagree, let's agree you will respect the rules of the forum and end the personal attacks and personal insults and let's just ignore each other. 

 

[Lukus Alderman]

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.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the premise that there is no red tape, paperwork and documentation to go through in order to achieve the goal of "trimming fat" from the athletic dept.

 

[PeteA422]

Duke, as I said in my post, I may be completely wrong and if so I will own up to it.  I just know that no matter what you agree to when you sign the dotted line, when it comes down to govt jobs, it is a bitch to get rid of someone.  I hope I am wrong and we see change sooner rather than later.  While it sucks for "Big Larry" we are already starting to see some changes, so I may be wrong on my timeline.  I don't think we disagree on what needs to be done within Belmont, we all agree there should be changes.  So raise a glass; here's to hoping for a bright future for our beloved Longhorns!  Cheers everyone! 

And don't worry Lukus, I have a root beer for you to partake in the toast!!

 

[echeese]

I would image you don't enjoy my posts. . . .

I like facts and opinions based on facts, opinions that enlighten not bullshit pulled out of someone's backside. . . .

I enjoy taking the wind out of the sails of the sanctimonious. . . . . .

I'm not going to ignore someone working so hard to screw up the board but you acting like a victim is a joke. .. . . here's an idea, why don't you take your own advice and when someone points out you are wrong. . .don't be a jerk. . . .admit it. . . or offer an intelligent counter instead of trying to spin semantic claims like LHN isn't a channel on the ESPN network .. . . .that was one of the funniest. . . .

It actually is OK to be wrong from time to time. . . . .we all are .. . .

 

[streettopeschel]

Clearly I'm not spending enough time fretting over personnel expense at Bellmont. I've large by been just a 'put a good product on the field(s) kinda guy' and if they do that I don't care a helluva lot if the AD has paid Geishas walking on his back.

I just only have so many hours to worry about shit that doesn't impact my daily life.

 

[Lukus Alderman]

Clearly I'm not spending enough time fretting over personnel expense at Bellmont. I've large by been just a 'put a good product on the field(s) kinda guy' and if they do that I don't care a helluva lot if the AD has paid Geishas walking on his back.

I just only have so many hours to worry about shit that doesn't impact my daily life.

^^^Obviously not a real fan.

 

[echeese]

Clearly I'm not spending enough time fretting over personnel expense at Bellmont. I've large by been just a 'put a good product on the field(s) kinda guy' and if they do that I don't care a helluva lot if the AD has paid Geishas walking on his back.

I just only have so many hours to worry about shit that doesn't impact my daily life.

My understanding is that Patterson has done a really good job at every stop. . . 

He's been here 7 months. . . .while I think his idea of playing in Mexico is questionable. . .you can't say he isn't working on expanding marketing. . . 

His willingness to be the first College Basketball team to play in China is freaking genius and will do wonders for our "brand".

Agree or disagree with the moves, to claim he hasn't done anything is silly. . . . .

I'm willing to give a guy with a proven record at least a couple years to turn things completely around. . . . 

 

[Topstarr]

I do not know what else I can say...... h34r:

 

[strick]

Clearly I'm not spending enough time fretting over personnel expense at Bellmont. I've large by been just a 'put a good product on the field(s) kinda guy' and if they do that I don't care a helluva lot if the AD has paid Geishas walking on his back.

I just only have so many hours to worry about shit that doesn't impact my daily life.

Yep.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Clearly I'm not spending enough time fretting over personnel expense at Bellmont. I've large by been just a 'put a good product on the field(s) kinda guy' and if they do that I don't care a helluva lot if the AD has paid Geishas walking on his back.

I just only have so many hours to worry about shit that doesn't impact my daily life.

In my mind, the University of Texas should be a leader in college sports on the field and off the field. Right now, arguably the best overall college athletics department in Stanford. They have won the Director's Cup for twenty years in a row. Their teams consistently perform at a high level in many sports. In spite of the fact their tuition is four and a half times that at UT, including the grant-in-aid (tuition, room, board), they still operate their program at an expense rate of just over $103,000 per athlete. Ohio State, which has a higher debt service than Texas, is at $160,000. I used the Arizona State number of $132,000 because that is the level of the program Steve Patterson ran before he came to Texas. As I said, Texas is at $240,000 per athlete.
The mission of the University of Texas is to prepare its students to have their opportunity in life. If the UT athletics department were to get control of its spending and operate at an expense ration equal to what Paterson delivered at ASU, that would free up enough money to send back to the academic side to give almost 2,000 students a free ride - books, tuition, room and board. If they wanted, they could give roughly 10,000 students a $5,000 check to help with college expenses. Alternatively, the athletics department could add almost 300 athletes in various sports while supplying equipment, facilities and offering a full grant-in-aid. Instead, Bellmont uses that money to fund a grossly inefficient athletics department.

It is wrong for Bellmont to waste tens of millions of dollars simply because they know so few people care about the issue. They can't run the athletics department simply to maintain a bloated payroll. With tens of millions of dollars wasted every year, it is wrong to hike ticket prices to fund ever higher spending levels. Thousands of students are being adversely affected because no one cares enough to get Bellmont's spending down to the levels of most other universities.

I'm not saying $132,000 per athlete is the right number, but there is a number less than $240,000 per athlete that allows the athletic department to function and either opens up opportunities for more student athletes or is transferred over to assist the mission of the academic side. Texas will never be a leader in college athletics until the entitlement attitude inside Bellmont is a thing of the past and accountability is demanded of those running Bellmont and not just of the athletes on the field. Otherwise, you get a sense of entitlement that starts at the top and gets picked up on by the coaches and athletes.

 

[BudreauReye]

In my mind, the University of Texas should be a leader in college sports on the field and off the field. Right now, arguably the best overall college athletics department in Stanford. They have won the Director's Cup for twenty years in a row. Their teams consistently perform at a high level in many sports. In spite of the fact their tuition is four and a half times that at UT, including the grant-in-aid (tuition, room, board), they still operate their program at an expense rate of just over $103,000 per athlete. Ohio State, which has a higher debt service than Texas, is at $160,000. I used the Arizona State number of $132,000 because that is the level of the program Steve Patterson ran before he came to Texas. As I said, Texas is at $240,000 per athlete. 

The mission of the University of Texas is to prepare its students to have their opportunity in life. If the UT athletics department were to get control of its spending and operate at an expense ration equal to what Paterson delivered at ASU, that would free up enough money to send back to the academic side to give almost 2,000 students a free ride - books, tuition, room and board. If they wanted, they could give roughly 10,000 students a $5,000 check to help with college expenses. Alternatively, the athletics department could add almost 300 athletes in various sports while supplying equipment, facilities and offering a full grant-in-aid. Instead, Bellmont uses that money to fund a grossly inefficient athletics department.

It is wrong for Bellmont to waste tens of millions of dollars simply because they know so few people care about the issue. They can't run the athletics department simply to maintain a bloated payroll. With tens of millions of dollars wasted every year, it is wrong to hike ticket prices to fund ever higher spending levels. Thousands of students are being adversely affected because no one cares enough to get Bellmont's spending down to the levels of most other universities.

I'm not saying $132,000 per athlete is the right number, but there is a number less than $240,000 per athlete that allows the athletic department to function and either opens up opportunities for more student athletes or is transferred over to assist the mission of the academic side. Texas will never be a leader in college athletics until the entitlement attitude inside Bellmont is a thing of the past and accountability is demanded of those running Bellmont and not just of the athletes on the field. 

Randolf, we all might get a little tired of hearing the different sides of all these arguments seemingly drone on for ever ... but some of these issues are very important and should be considered in great depth.  I would ask every Longhorn on this board to re-read this post that I quoted above, and dwell a while of that paragraph that I highlighted and underlined there - and then re-read it again.  Hmmm!  Seems to me that this is worthy of some serious consideration.

Randolf, everybody may not always agree with everything you say, but thank you for bringing things like this to our attention.

 

[streettopeschel]

In my mind, the University of Texas should be a leader in college sports on the field and off the field. Right now, arguably the best overall college athletics department in Stanford. They have won the Director's Cup for twenty years in a row. Their teams consistently perform at a high level in many sports. In spite of the fact their tuition is four and a half times that at UT, including the grant-in-aid (tuition, room, board), they still operate their program at an expense rate of just over $103,000 per athlete. Ohio State, which has a higher debt service than Texas, is at $160,000. I used the Arizona State number of $132,000 because that is the level of the program Steve Patterson ran before he came to Texas. As I said, Texas is at $240,000 per athlete.

The mission of the University of Texas is to prepare its students to have their opportunity in life. If the UT athletics department were to get control of its spending and operate at an expense ration equal to what Paterson delivered at ASU, that would free up enough money to send back to the academic side to give almost 2,000 students a free ride - books, tuition, room and board. If they wanted, they could give roughly 10,000 students a $5,000 check to help with college expenses. Alternatively, the athletics department could add almost 300 athletes in various sports while supplying equipment, facilities and offering a full grant-in-aid. Instead, Bellmont uses that money to fund a grossly inefficient athletics department.

It is wrong for Bellmont to waste tens of millions of dollars simply because they know so few people care about the issue. They can't run the athletics department simply to maintain a bloated payroll. With tens of millions of dollars wasted every year, it is wrong to hike ticket prices to fund ever higher spending levels. Thousands of students are being adversely affected because no one cares enough to get Bellmont's spending down to the levels of most other universities.

I'm not saying $132,000 per athlete is the right number, but there is a number less than $240,000 per athlete that allows the athletic department to function and either opens up opportunities for more student athletes or is transferred over to assist the mission of the academic side. Texas will never be a leader in college athletics until the entitlement attitude inside Bellmont is a thing of the past and accountability is demanded of those running Bellmont and not just of the athletes on the field. Otherwise, you get a sense of entitlement that starts at the top and gets picked up on by the coaches and athletes.

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 ?

 

[SFlonghorngirl]

I'm sorry you feel this way. 

I thought the Bellmont insider gave good insight to Patterson's tasks. 

*bear hugs*

 

[Chris Flanagan]

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

Well with any organization, public and private, everyone has an opinion and wants to have input on how to run things.

You ever have an idea at work about changing something. If it's little, it's usually easy. But to make drastic, dynamic change; it gets lots of pushback and gives someone a lot of headaches. Then to get anything, you have to compromise. So what you thought would be great and turned into something you don't like.

That's the reality of Bellmont's situation. UT attracts the best because of it's size and reputation. So the people you hire are alphas. You put a number of alphas in a room and because of pride, nothing gets done. It's a lot like Congress. Too many type A personalities that don't want to look weak and want to leave a legacy.

Massive change is tough to attain.

 

[Darrell McPhaul]

BTW Assistant Athletic Director Larry Falk was laid off last week.  Falk has been in the department since 1985.

Larry was well like by a lot of folks.

 

[Chitownhorn]

Great stuff this week. That's exactly why we pay to be here. Hookem

 

[UTK66]

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

 

[BudreauReye]

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

I have only been around here about seven months, and I really do not know anything about the events that lead to the creation of this forum.  I really do like the effort made around here to keep the tenor respectful for all who choose to participate. 

Sometimes I think they seem a little quick to pull the plug on threads that they find uncomfortable, but if truth be told, the few threads that I have seen that happen to, have not been about sports, which I assume is the ostensible reason that this forum was formed..  Frankly, I think that that salacious thread about ice scream may just be the next thread to get yanked  But, then again, they didn't stop that thread about liquor when we were talking about what scotch goes best with ice scream, so who knows.  I must say that I am a "let all work itself out" kind of guy, but I might have a different perspective if it were my forum.  Honestly, the thing that bothers me the most is not that they pull the thread that they have every right to do, but that the content is lost and I am then unable to save a copy of my brilliant contribution to the discourse.

With regards to honest opinions, I see a lot of opinions being expressed, honest and otherwise.  It seems to me that the overriding factor is the manner in which they are offered, and whether those of others are respected, honest or otherwise.

 

[UTK66]

I have only been around here about seven months, and I really do not know anything about the events that lead to the creation of this forum. I really do like the effort made around here to keep the tenor respectful for all who choose to participate.

Sometimes I think they seem a little quick to pull the plug on threads that they find uncomfortable, but if truth be told, the few threads that I have seen that happen to, have not been about sports, which I assume is the ostensible reason that this forum was formed.. Frankly, I think that that salacious thread about ice scream may just be the next thread to get yanked But, then again, they didn't stop that thread about liquor when we were talking about what scotch goes best with ice scream, so who knows. I must say that I am a "let all work itself out" kind of guy, but I might have a different perspective if it were my forum. Honestly, the thing that bothers me the most is not that they pull the thread that they have every right to do, but that the content is lost and I am then unable to save a copy of my brilliant contribution to the discourse.

With regards to honest opinions, I see a lot of opinions being expressed, honest and otherwise. It seems to me that the overriding factor is the manner in which they are offered, and whether those of others are respected, honest or otherwise.

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.

 

[BudreauReye]

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.

Maybe so.  Thinking on that, aren't most groups of people based on social organization, kind of like that?  Absolutely no offense intended, but the last time I used the term "in group" was in Junior High.  Truth be told, I tend to find that I am equally ignored by everyone, and that very fact allows me to pretty much say whatever I want.  There is a lot of freedom in that.  And I have to tell you, sometimes I even pretend that somebody actually listens!  But, I also have to tell you,  I am not here to make friends.  I am here to entertain myself, and hopefully some others will find what I have to say sometimes entertaining to, in the same way that I sometimes, though very seldomly, find some of what they have to say entertaining.  I have the most difficulty when folks take themselves so gosh darn seriously.  The good thing is that I can exercise my right to ignore them.  Hell!  When I get to the point that I am ignoring everybody, then I guess it is time to hang it up and go talk to my Catahoulas - they are good listeners and they always seem to like me, though I am suspicious that they nay only like me because I feed them really well.  Honestly, even when some of those folks are insufferable, sometimes they actually have something good to say ... you just have to watch for it.