BIGTIMER88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 45
- Likes
- 119
Sure, but by that logic, the other sports will have to wait 3-4 years for football to be "fixed" to get what they need today/ If it's 3-4 years before the baseball and softball stadiums are addressed, Vitello will be gone and SPL will be even lower on the SEC pecking list than it already is. He's not going to attract a track coach next year when he has to fire Alford-Sullivan next year if Tom Black Track still has no plan to upgrade from being one of the worst in the conference and no indoor facility even on the long-term drawing board. If you tell a donor that gave six figures to the planned revamp of the outdoor tennis facility that they just aren't going to do that project anymore, then that person is going to think hard about whether he wants to give anything else.
There's nothing wrong with "fixing" football first. It should be the priority of any AD with a struggling football program. But to call up donors that have thousands committed to non-football projects and to not only ask them to re-direct those funds, but to provide pushback when you decline shows me where the priority is. And that's fine. But I'm not moving my money from needed facility upgrades at other sports to help Danny White tear out a couple thousand seats and put in another jumbotron at Neyland.
If he wants to do that, that's fine. But those things won't help football win a single game. A new hitting facility at softball will. Doubling the seating at baseball will. Functional locker rooms at tennis will. That's why I give my money to those type of projects, not vanity improvements at football. I told my Tennessee Fund rep five years ago to not call me about the Neyland project until they're ready to tear out the east side that still looks like it's 1950 and I'll stand by that. I'll just keep spending that money on my Braves season tickets and drive over to Truist after work 50 or 60 times a year instead.
Great insight. Thank you