dookie blaylock
doodoo brown
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,829
That may all be true Dude but at NO POINT IN TIME did I ever question her academically.
You guys and people like you use that to cover up her COMPLETE FAILURE representing the athletic department.
If push came to shove of course academic's come first. The U isn't a pro franchise, but I'll be damned if I don't want my school President representing every facet of the program somewhat equally.
There isn't a SINGLE alumnus or fan who can make an argument she has been successful in her tenure of our football team and athletic department in general.
No vision, no urgency, no care........
The notion she can't raise money for the football team is so laughable I won't even argue it.
first of all, raising money for athletics is not her job. that's the athletic director's job. there are people who work in athletics who are there solely to get donations. if she spent her time raising money for athletics, she would be doing the university a disservice.
and contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of donors to the university academically who don't like the football team or don't care for athletics in general. in the same way, there are donors to athletics that don't care about the university. the difference is, there are a lot more people with money to donate that care about the academic side.
Why are you still posting in this thread?
It's not her job to raise money for the athletic program? Ok fine. It is her job to HIRE SOMEONE who WANTS to be here and represent this university in a manner befitting its legacy of greatness.
She has absolutely FAILED in that regard.
Contrary to your belief there are even more people who aren't total tools and don't hate the football team that was essential for building the current academic institution.
Clearly you're not one of those guys.
3 athletic directors in 2 years: one was paul dee, who retired. one was kirby hocutt, who bailed out because he probably saw the **** storm that was coming. one was shawn eichorst, who got the job offer of a lifetime at nebraska.
no one wants to be the athletic director here because we don't have the money to keep a solid one. why?
1) because our revenues suck because we can't fill the stadium.
2) we don't have a lot of people with money that want to give it to athletics. with the exception of the schwartz brothers donating to build the athlete academic center and the rock, how many big-name boosters do we have?
3) what legacy? we weren't good until the 80s, dropped off the map in the mid 90s, and had 5 years of success in the 2000s. we're a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things.
find an athletic director who wants to come to a place with a small budget, with no facilities, with a small donor base compared to most major programs, that can't sell out its stadium unless florida state is in town, and that is going to pay him less.
i'm a realist and the reality of the situation, and that has always been the situation, is that we are not a destination job for a top-tier athletic director.