Ivan Maisel's 3 point stance

#1

Plano Vol

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
4,974
Likes
4,403
#1
He talks about UT's administration using the sports program as an ATM.......where is this coming from? I understand about the $6 million contribution but all of the recent upgrades to the stadium and the new football complex lead me to believe that football was well taken care of at UT.

Any thoughts?
 
#2
#2
He talks about UT's administration using the sports program as an ATM.......where is this coming from? I understand about the $6 million contribution but all of the recent upgrades to the stadium and the new football complex lead me to believe that football was well taken care of at UT.

Any thoughts?

Most ADs don't contribute to the academic side of their school like our AD does. Sir Butt Cheek has now come to expect this sort of like a tax instead of a gift. The AD needs to be placed back under the president as it used to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3
#3
He talks about UT's administration using the sports program as an ATM.......where is this coming from? I understand about the $6 million contribution but all of the recent upgrades to the stadium and the new football complex lead me to believe that football was well taken care of at UT.

Any thoughts?
Hamilton gave many millions from the AD to the academic side. His weakness led to many of the current problems.
 
#4
#4
He talks about UT's administration using the sports program as an ATM.......where is this coming from? I understand about the $6 million contribution but all of the recent upgrades to the stadium and the new football complex lead me to believe that football was well taken care of at UT.

Any thoughts?

Those recent upgrades certainly weren't paid for by the academic side either. The AD has been giving them millions per year. Today the academic side said we won't be giving you any more money. To which I'd hope the AD said, "What money were you ever giving us?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6
#6
He talks about UT's administration using the sports program as an ATM.......where is this coming from? I understand about the $6 million contribution but all of the recent upgrades to the stadium and the new football complex lead me to believe that football was well taken care of at UT.

Any thoughts?

It's really not good the precedent that was set with Hamilton. Tens of millions were "gifted" to the academic side and many promises were made to continue this. Now we are struggling due to the same person who hired Kiffin and Dooley, the UT brass want to strap the AD publicly about their use of UT funds which is ridiculous. UT's AD has contributed more to the academic side than 95% of Division I colleges in the last 10 years.

Public perception is that the UT AD took a loan from the academic sector which is completely false since it was not their money to begin with. These issues with understanding that UT athletics drives money for all things UT must come to the forefront.

3-point stance: Changing Vols' culture - College Football Nation Blog - ESPN
 
#7
#7
Football makes the big bucks in Knoxville. That's why Cheek has been going nuts, he saw his cash cow drying up.
 
#8
#8
I guess the $6M per annum could have gone to the type of $50M to $100M nest egg that some of our sister schools enjoy but I'm not seeing where we were at a competitive disadvantage. Maybe we could have fired Hammy and paid for a better AD.
 
#9
#9
Essentially, Hart made a hire of a FB coach who has won every where he has coached. Now if he can't win here, Hart will use it as a way to vocalize the deeper issues that have troubled even good coaches that come here. It's a tough way to get people to realize the severity of divide at UT now.
 
#11
#11
It's really not good the precedent that was set with Hamilton. Tens of millions were "gifted" to the academic side and many promises were made to continue this. Now we are struggling due to the same person who hired Kiffin and Dooley, the UT brass want to strap the AD publicly about their use of UT funds which is ridiculous. UT's AD has contributed more to the academic side than 95% of Division I colleges in the last 10 years.

Public perception is that the UT AD took a loan from the academic sector which is completely false since it was not their money to begin with. These issues with understanding that UT athletics drives money for all things UT must come to the forefront.

3-point stance: Changing Vols' culture - College Football Nation Blog - ESPN

I understand but where is the competitive disadvantage. Is he saying we could have bought a better coach than Kiffin or Dools if we had the bucks?
 
#12
#12
Football makes the big bucks in Knoxville. That's why Cheek has been going nuts, he saw his cash cow drying up.

A man that eats a booger in front of millions of people should be deemed an embarrassment to the university & should be dismissed immediately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#13
#13
I understand but where is the competitive disadvantage. Is he saying we could have bought a better coach than Kiffin or Dools if we had the bucks?

Kiffin and Dooley both had losing records coming to UT. Kiffin had the rockstar staff to lure Hamilton to hire him. Dooley was our last chance of a coach without naming an interim for a year and putting a better search together.

The competitive disadvantages start with academics. Our standards at UT have increased dramatically not only for students, but for student athletes. We treat a C- as a D, which many athletes hover around GPA wise. This makes them ineligible. We also do not offer a 4 year curriculum for student athletes of which are also offered at competing SEC schools.

Hart, like many who think about it, realize that Butch has won 65% of his games as a HC at two Division I universities. If Butch can't turn it around given the new $48 million dollar facilities, the push for more fair academic standards for many student athletes, and money to hire a competent and successful staff, then there is not much that needs to be said. He is using Butch as a marker on and off the field to the UT brass that if this guy can't win here, no one will until we fix these issues that were not present in 1993-2005.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#15
#15
Babyavi, i said this earlier in another thread, and this is why i think cheek needs to be gone now. Its a public school, not private, so why treat it as one?.. he has to go now if this football program wants tp be competitive..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
Kiffin and Dooley both had losing records coming to UT. Kiffin had the rockstar staff to lure Hamilton to hire him. Dooley was our last chance of a coach without naming an interim for a year and putting a better search together.

The competitive disadvantages start with academics. Our standards at UT have increased dramatically not only for students, but for student athletes. We treat a C- as a D, which many athletes hover around GPA wise. This makes them ineligible. We also do not offer a 4 year curriculum for student athletes of which are also offered at competing SEC schools.

Hart, like many who think about it, realize that Butch has won 65% of his games as a HC at two Division I universities. If Butch can't turn it around given the new $48 million dollar facilities, the push for more fair academic standards for many student athletes, and money to hire a competent and successful staff, then there is not much that needs to be said. He is using Butch as a marker on and off the field to the UT brass that if this guy can't win here, no one will until we fix these issues that were not present in 1993-2005.

:thumbsup: Great summary Babyavi, this is exactly the explanation I was looking for.
 
#17
#17
Babyavi, i said this earlier in another thread, and this is why i think cheek needs to be gone now. Its a public school, not private, so why treat it as one?.. he has to go now if this football program wants tp be competitive..

Cheek believes that you can have a TOP 25 Research Institution and be successful at athletics especially Football. That might apply to a program like UF where the recruiting is easier, and standards are very much different along with the overall culture.

He is basically the Lane Kiffin of Chancellor's. His model of success is Florida's, and he will implement it at all costs regardless of our failures on the field. We are not UF and never have been and his model just simply does not work at other schools.

It will not work here, and that's been very apparent. Tennessee is a different brand, different students, different environment. He is trying to put a square peg in circular hole and costing us a lot of money trying to do so.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#18
#18
I have two kids there now so I don't want the academics to go to hell in a handbag but I don't see how anything Babyavi suggests negatively impacting anything at a significant level. In fact, it may give a few kids a chance.
 
#20
#20
UT football had a more than $3 million dollar budget shortfall in 2008 and that sum did NOT include capital (building/facilities) expenditures. Something very, very, fishy has been going on within the athletic dept. for a looong time, imo. We simply haven't been told of it -- yet.
 
#21
#21
I have two kids there now so I don't want the academics to go to hell in a handbag but I don't see how anything Babyavi suggests negatively impacting anything at a significant level. In fact, it may give a few kids a chance.

The numbers don't lie. If you look at Cheek's tenure here and where we represent "academically" amongst other SEC schools we are near the bottom of the list.

It's no secret that 85% of SEC athletes playing Football are not the greatest students, and require extra help to succeed with the transition to college, of which many will be the first in their family to do so. Without football, they wouldn't go to such prestigious schools.

Academics were not hell in a handbag back when we won consistently. We just focused more on letting the athletic side of the university drive the UT brand. Now the reverse is happening, and reporters like Ivan Maisel are taking notice, since they are seeing the transformation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
I have two kids there now so I don't want the academics to go to hell in a handbag but I don't see how anything Babyavi suggests negatively impacting anything at a significant level. In fact, it may give a few kids a chance.

Yes the academic side wants to be proud of their programs and successful, so do the alumni, it makes their degrees stand out more. But from what I read and hear, kids that qualify to play SEC football via standards set for all SEC schools, they cannot get into UT. Cheek will not budge on any border kids. This is new problems UT is having, in the past years, kids with lower grades than the avg. UT student but eligible via SEC standards could get in. Now UT athletics withdraws the yearly donation for a few years, and the athletic side gets thrown under the bus in the Knox News Sentinel story.
 
#23
#23
UT football had a more than $3 million dollar budget shortfall in 2008 and that sum did NOT include capital (building/facilities) expenditures. Something very, very, fishy has been going on within the athletic dept. for a looong time, imo. We simply haven't been told of it -- yet.

Hamilton did not manage finances well.
 
#24
#24
Having experienced both the public and private side, for my interests I got the better education at UT. But that was many moons ago.

I hope both sides can work back to a more symbiotic relationship but it seems Cheek is the speedbump to progress.
 
#25
#25
Having experienced both the public and private side, for my interests I got the better education at UT. But that was many moons ago.

I hope both sides can work back to a more symbiotic relationship but it seems Cheek is the speedbump to progress.

I think there are plenty of ways to compromise, while addressing these academic issues specific to football. Cheek is unwilling to do so. There has been some push publicly by Hart, but Butch's success will say a lot about it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top