Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

And never forget that the first words out of RV's mouth after JJ's 200th victory at the Super Pit against Ark St. was, "when WE got here ten years ago." When WE, not when JJ got here ten years ago but when WE got here ten years ago. RV has no shame including himself in someone else's success but isn't it amazing that he blames everyone and everything else for the years of failure during his tenure as Athletic Director. Unbelievable!

  • Upvote 4
Posted
9 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

And never forget that the first words out of RV's mouth after JJ's 200th victory at the Super Pit against Ark St. was, "when WE got here ten years ago." When WE, not when JJ got here ten years ago but when WE got here ten years ago. RV has no shame including himself in someone else's success but isn't it amazing that he blames everyone and everything else for the years of failure during his tenure as Athletic Director. Unbelievable!

Narcassist narcassisting...

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Christopher Walker said:

OMFG. It's your job, Rick -YOUR F'ING JOB- to find out and correct course. You know where this line wouldn't fly? My own staff position in the College of Music. The expectation of me -and has been all year- would be me to respond with, "Why does it not here? I wasn't sure, but I did some research and found these points out. Here's how we can do better / better inform people of XY & Z in the future..." Nope, apparently it's fine to make more than 10x what I do and have zero % accountability. 

Jesus H.

BOOYAH!! 

And he's openly telling the administration he has no clue as to what he's doing but the administration is so inept themselves they can't even see it.

Edited by meangreenbob
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Posted
3 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

That's because the leadership at the university cares GREATLY about the College of Music. Athletics is a whole other deal, obviously/

Right you are, Sir! That explains why the  2015 line item for athletics was 18.2M while the COM budget was 12.9M.  Then of course we add the student fees to arrive at the true figure of about 21M.

Once again, let me say the COM is not the source of the athletic department problems. If someone has proof to the contrary, please present this for all of us to consider.

  • Upvote 3
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, letsgiveacheer said:

Right you are, Sir! That explains why the  2015 line item for athletics was 18.2M while the COM budget was 12.9M.  Then of course we add the student fees to arrive at the true figure of about 21M.

Once again, let me say the COM is not the source of the athletic department problems. If someone has proof to the contrary, please present this for all of us to consider.

You are correct. Just not caring about performance in athletics is the issue.

And at this point, is pretty undeniable that performance isn't a criteria for keeping an athletic department job, unless you suffer the worse loss in modern football history while also behaving in an extremely unethical manner that could have got you fired for cause and the AD is trying to cover his own ass.

Edited by UNT90
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2
Posted
55 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

You are correct. Just not caring about performance in athletics is the issue.

And at this point, is pretty undeniable that performance isn't a criteria for keeping an athletic department job, unless you suffer the worse loss in modern football history while also behaving in an extremely unethical manner that could have got you fired for cause and the AD is trying to cover his own ass.

and it's weird that no one shined a light on this. Instead, Rick actually pays out the buyout to avoid him from looking like a dumbass for hiring him in the first place. This place, in my honest opinion, has to be at an all time athletic low. Yet, the idiot that led us there is stillllll freakin employed. I just don't get it. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Posted
14 hours ago, letsgiveacheer said:

Right you are, Sir! That explains why the  2015 line item for athletics was 18.2M while the COM budget was 12.9M.  Then of course we add the student fees to arrive at the true figure of about 21M.

Once again, let me say the COM is not the source of the athletic department problems. If someone has proof to the contrary, please present this for all of us to consider.

Never said that the COM was the problem--its the primary window for the university and its what they hold very high, in terms of pride and expectations.

All I have ever said was that I wish the university held the same viewpoint for revenue athletics. I have absolutely nothing against the COM--its the one thing that UNT is known nationally for. But the cost for the COM versus athletics is much cheaper--which makes the numbers apples to oranges for budgeting. Results and expectations for both are also apples to oranges, which most people can easily see.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

Never said that the COM was the problem--its the primary window for the university and its what they hold very high, in terms of pride and expectations.

All I have ever said was that I wish the university held the same viewpoint for revenue athletics. I have absolutely nothing against the COM--its the one thing that UNT is known nationally for. But the cost for the COM versus athletics is much cheaper--which makes the numbers apples to oranges for budgeting. Results and expectations for both are also apples to oranges, which most people can easily see.

My apologies if I misread your intended message. I do know the the COM struggles every year to get as much as they do. In fact, the budget I quoted was 350,000 less than they received in 2014.  The University of Michigan, which has a music school  much smaller than ours but roughly equal in terms of prestige, has a budget of about 44M a year!  

  • Upvote 1
Posted
2 hours ago, letsgiveacheer said:

My apologies if I misread your intended message. I do know the the COM struggles every year to get as much as they do. In fact, the budget I quoted was 350,000 less than they received in 2014.  The University of Michigan, which has a music school  much smaller than ours but roughly equal in terms of prestige, has a budget of about 44M a year!  

No worries on the misunderstanding.

But the Michigan budget is easy for them because of the revenues they get from their athletics. Granted, we wont ever be like that, but we certainly can strive to be like Houston, another urban-area public school that does put an emphasis on winning and it shows up in their academics and endowment.

But, at this point, its probably too late anyway for it all to matter.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

A vote to rescind the fee will more than likely not take place. Student wide votes like that are proposed through the campus SGA and students, on average, don't have enough of an issue with the current athletic state to go through all the trouble of writing legislation for SGA, getting it passed within the organization, and then taking it to a student vote at the next election cycle. 

Not to say that it should or should not happen. Just way less likely than the majority of people on this forum make it seem.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.