As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
A dude here was taking up donations for gear to be used by the prison basketball team. I told him we needed more athletic supporters like him and he punched me in the nose.
TigerInPrisonWithALaptop Wrote:A dude here was taking up donations for gear to be used by the prison basketball team. I told him we needed more athletic supporters like him and he punched me in the nose.
Why don't you go and drop the soap?
(4) Goofballs who care more about the "correct" pantone colors than the win loss record.
athletic supporter= cup holder.....
the other Greg Childers Wrote:(4) Goofballs who care more about the "correct" pantone colors than the win loss record.
(5) Dumbasses who would fire good coaches and are too stupid to understand the importance of symbols.
This is good! Thanks for the laughs!!! What a hoot!
Wow! Yet another thread were a single person tries to define other individuals based on HIS BELIEFS. Like we haven't seen this act before, what is this like chapter 1,000,000,000,000+. But like Pressed, I'm amused. :lmfao:It has been pretty slow and look who tries to stir the pot.
I'm sure there is a reason for this thread but after reading several by the same author, the book (thread) seems pretty repetitive and lacking substance. Definitely not even coffee table good.
Gray Avenger Wrote:the other Greg Childers Wrote:(4) Goofballs who care more about the "correct" pantone colors than the win loss record.
(5) Dumbasses who would fire good coaches and are too stupid to understand the importance of symbols.
(6) Morons who would keep mediocre coaches, because they're too stupid to recognize the difference between good and bad coaching.
How about the BOTH of you ease off the jr. high name calling?
oh let the kiddies play for a bit, HTL. This board needs a little humor, it's getting REALLY tense around here
gotigers1 Wrote:oh let the kiddies play for a bit, HTL. This board needs a little humor, it's getting REALLY tense around here
Aw, who asked you, moron?
(7) Trolls who want you to believe they are fans.
HLT 2011 Wrote:How about the BOTH of you ease off the jr. high name calling?
Then they'd both go back to not posting. You gotta stick with what works.
I'll let everyone else pick which thing they'd prefer.
Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
oldtiger Wrote:Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
The players aren't looking beyond butts in the seats other than the HH or those close to them. The coach is aware who gives to the program and is involved in that effort. The Ambassadors are very aware as well. Some are getting restless about being asked for everything and seeing many do little or nothing. In this economy, some are at the max point, as are many people. I find it amusing that some of the most strident opponents to this type of deliniation are openly saying that they don't really donate or buy tickets. The numbers don't lie...1000 booster club members and barely 1/2% of season ticket holders giving to the weight room campaign. You can't argue away the fact that a few are paying for things. There is no snappy comeback out there. That is why it was a safe bet that the leadership went the other way on the OCS. They knew that the fan base lacked the economic and political will to do anything more than complain. I have heard this said verbatim. It really does boil down to what GA listed.
Strat57 Wrote:oldtiger Wrote:Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
The players aren't looking beyond butts in the seats other than the HH or those close to them. The coach is aware who gives to the program and is involved in that effort. The Ambassadors are very aware as well. Some are getting restless about being asked for everything and seeing many do little or nothing. In this economy, some are at the max point, as are many people. I find it amusing that some of the most strident opponents to this type of deliniation are openly saying that they don't really donate or buy tickets. The numbers don't lie...1000 booster club members and barely 1/2% of season ticket holders giving to the weight room campaign. You can't argue away the fact that a few are paying for things. There is no snappy comeback out there. That is why it was a safe bet that the leadership went the other way on the OCS. They knew that the fan base lacked the economic and political will to do anything more than complain. I have heard this said verbatim. It really does boil down to what GA listed.
I undrstand about the OCS and agree that it should be a long term goal, not a short term goal.
BUT
If our fanbase lacks the economic and political will to do anything more than complain, how do you explain the basketball progam being one of the highest revenue teams in the nation, It is definitely in the top 20 revenue producers in the ncaa. (I have seen the $s put forth by the school and they undestimate the revenue #s by at least 6 million per year})
Because we are talking football and not basketball.
There are BUNCHES of people that wear a different color, usually orange, in football season than they do in basketball season. Simply put, basketball has decades of success to point to for support, football... not so much.
It is a vicious circle and everyone should be able to see this. We will not get a whole lot better unless more effort is put into the program. Much more effort will not be put into the program unless we get better.
This IS starting to change. We have a VERY strong class of talent coming in for '09. We are also starting to get serious about upgrading some facilities around here. I am very interested in seeing if this circle can produce growth, both on the facilities and support side as well as results on the field.
oldtiger Wrote:Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
They also have a category known as Brown Nosed Geeks or Asskissers. The coaches get a good laugh talking about those types.
i swear some people on this friggin board are third generation retards, that's the only explanation i can think of for these sh!tacular posts, particularly by the color whore GA and the TW circle jerkers... i like to TYPE random words CAPITALIZED for EMPHASIS, SEE how SERIOUS i am?????????
BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:oldtiger Wrote:Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
The players aren't looking beyond butts in the seats other than the HH or those close to them. The coach is aware who gives to the program and is involved in that effort. The Ambassadors are very aware as well. Some are getting restless about being asked for everything and seeing many do little or nothing. In this economy, some are at the max point, as are many people. I find it amusing that some of the most strident opponents to this type of deliniation are openly saying that they don't really donate or buy tickets. The numbers don't lie...1000 booster club members and barely 1/2% of season ticket holders giving to the weight room campaign. You can't argue away the fact that a few are paying for things. There is no snappy comeback out there. That is why it was a safe bet that the leadership went the other way on the OCS. They knew that the fan base lacked the economic and political will to do anything more than complain. I have heard this said verbatim. It really does boil down to what GA listed.
I undrstand about the OCS and agree that it should be a long term goal, not a short term goal.
BUT
If our fanbase lacks the economic and political will to do anything more than complain, how do you explain the basketball progam being one of the highest revenue teams in the nation, It is definitely in the top 20 revenue producers in the ncaa. (I have seen the $s put forth by the school and they undestimate the revenue #s by at least 6 million per year})
According to the school in 2007 we made $4.6 million while the Street & Smith Sports Business Daily(Dec.5, 2007) reported $4.7 million from tickets, ads, and other revenue. Our budget is more than the bottom two CUSA schools combined. We have more than one donor giving at least $500,000 for hoops alone. Football has none of those. Not just now, but never. We debate this often but we have hoops fans that are devoted to other schools and can't be seen near the Liberty Bowl. It is a fact of life for the university. The increases in TSF money is directly tied to basketball. Meanwhile, we have less than 1/2% of season ticket holder and donors pledging for a weight room campaign to update that area after 18 years. If the posts here were legitimate then we would have double that number. People talk but don't want to pay for football. They spend their money on basketball. A coach at Memphis can get whatever he needs to compete...like a Duster, lol, for basketball. I wish that it would change and more people would spend their donations on football exclusively and help the Highland Hundred with what they do for the staff. Many don't grasp the mascot is totally finded and cared for by the group, not the school.
To answer your question, it should be apparent that most people give to the TSF for better seats. It is also obvious by the low number donating for football what the reality is. I wish that it would change.
Strat57 Wrote:BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:oldtiger Wrote:Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
The players aren't looking beyond butts in the seats other than the HH or those close to them. The coach is aware who gives to the program and is involved in that effort. The Ambassadors are very aware as well. Some are getting restless about being asked for everything and seeing many do little or nothing. In this economy, some are at the max point, as are many people. I find it amusing that some of the most strident opponents to this type of deliniation are openly saying that they don't really donate or buy tickets. The numbers don't lie...1000 booster club members and barely 1/2% of season ticket holders giving to the weight room campaign. You can't argue away the fact that a few are paying for things. There is no snappy comeback out there. That is why it was a safe bet that the leadership went the other way on the OCS. They knew that the fan base lacked the economic and political will to do anything more than complain. I have heard this said verbatim. It really does boil down to what GA listed.
I undrstand about the OCS and agree that it should be a long term goal, not a short term goal.
BUT
If our fanbase lacks the economic and political will to do anything more than complain, how do you explain the basketball progam being one of the highest revenue teams in the nation, It is definitely in the top 20 revenue producers in the ncaa. (I have seen the $s put forth by the school and they undestimate the revenue #s by at least 6 million per year})
According to the school in 2007 we made $4.6 million while the Street & Smith Sports Business Daily(Dec.5, 2007) reported $4.7 million from tickets, ads, and other revenue. Our budget is more than the bottom two CUSA schools combined. We have more than one donor giving at least $500,000 for hoops alone. Football has none of those. Not just now, but never. We debate this often but we have hoops fans that are devoted to other schools and can't be seen near the Liberty Bowl. It is a fact of life for the university. The increases in TSF money is directly tied to basketball. Meanwhile, we have less than 1/2% of season ticket holder and donors pledging for a weight room campaign to update that area after 18 years. If the posts here were legitimate then we would have double that number. People talk but don't want to pay for football. They spend their money on basketball. A coach at Memphis can get whatever he needs to compete...like a Duster, lol, for basketball. I wish that it would change and more people would spend their donations on football exclusively and help the Highland Hundred with what they do for the staff. Many don't grasp the mascot is totally finded and cared for by the group, not the school.
To answer your question, it should be apparent that most people give to the TSF for better seats. It is also obvious by the low number donating for football what the reality is. I wish that it would change.
the difference is that basketball is a winner
it was winnning BEFORE any reall COMMITMENT was made to it,
there was very little COMMITMENT to basketball when Cal came here, he has won and he has demanded more commitment, Cal has bult the basletball PROGRAM
the reality is that Football wil not get a basketball like COMMITMENT until it wins. You can jump up and down and demand a commitment, you can demean our fanbase all you want but this is the reality.
Now, if we had a an administration that had a little vision ......
Not true. It was decided back in the 50s to push money toward basketball and to move up to the major college division in 57(???).
The move to major college football came a few years later and the money never really came about until the late 60s/early 70s. The problem there was that we got hit hard by the NCAA for using that money,,,,um..... a little unsrupously? lol
Truth is we landed on NCAA probation in basketball a year or two after moving up to major college basketball. They left us alone though more in basketball because the powers that be didn't care much about basketball at the time.
BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:oldtiger Wrote:Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
The players aren't looking beyond butts in the seats other than the HH or those close to them. The coach is aware who gives to the program and is involved in that effort. The Ambassadors are very aware as well. Some are getting restless about being asked for everything and seeing many do little or nothing. In this economy, some are at the max point, as are many people. I find it amusing that some of the most strident opponents to this type of deliniation are openly saying that they don't really donate or buy tickets. The numbers don't lie...1000 booster club members and barely 1/2% of season ticket holders giving to the weight room campaign. You can't argue away the fact that a few are paying for things. There is no snappy comeback out there. That is why it was a safe bet that the leadership went the other way on the OCS. They knew that the fan base lacked the economic and political will to do anything more than complain. I have heard this said verbatim. It really does boil down to what GA listed.
I undrstand about the OCS and agree that it should be a long term goal, not a short term goal.
BUT
If our fanbase lacks the economic and political will to do anything more than complain, how do you explain the basketball progam being one of the highest revenue teams in the nation, It is definitely in the top 20 revenue producers in the ncaa. (I have seen the $s put forth by the school and they undestimate the revenue #s by at least 6 million per year})
According to the school in 2007 we made $4.6 million while the Street & Smith Sports Business Daily(Dec.5, 2007) reported $4.7 million from tickets, ads, and other revenue. Our budget is more than the bottom two CUSA schools combined. We have more than one donor giving at least $500,000 for hoops alone. Football has none of those. Not just now, but never. We debate this often but we have hoops fans that are devoted to other schools and can't be seen near the Liberty Bowl. It is a fact of life for the university. The increases in TSF money is directly tied to basketball. Meanwhile, we have less than 1/2% of season ticket holder and donors pledging for a weight room campaign to update that area after 18 years. If the posts here were legitimate then we would have double that number. People talk but don't want to pay for football. They spend their money on basketball. A coach at Memphis can get whatever he needs to compete...like a Duster, lol, for basketball. I wish that it would change and more people would spend their donations on football exclusively and help the Highland Hundred with what they do for the staff. Many don't grasp the mascot is totally finded and cared for by the group, not the school.
To answer your question, it should be apparent that most people give to the TSF for better seats. It is also obvious by the low number donating for football what the reality is. I wish that it would change.
the difference is that basketball is a winner
it was winnning BEFORE any reall COMMITMENT was made to it,
there was very little COMMITMENT to basketball when Cal came here, he has won and he has demanded more commitment, Cal has bult the basletball PROGRAM
the reality is that Football wil not get a basketball like COMMITMENT until it wins. You can jump up and down and demand a commitment, you can demean our fanbase all you want but this is the reality.
Now, if we had a an administration that had a little vision ......
Demean the fan base, lol? How is the truth demeaning? If they post "yeah I wrote my check to the weight room" and then you see that they clearly didn't, that is fact. Nothing that I said is not tue. If it hits close to home, then so be it. If winning was going to make football rake in some huge influx of season tickets and donations, the DeAngelo Williams years should have done that...it did not. It brought in the walkup crowd which did not increase those two major things to any large degree. They didn't come on board and clearly did not stay once DW left(which was before that season became a disaster). The one significant monetary advance was the raise in pay for the coaching staff as well as West. As for Cal, he received committment before he was hired. Surely, giving someone four times what the last guy got is a major step up, lol? I could list more but why waste my time and yours. The modus operandi at Memphis is to promise things to a coach and never deliver...for football.
Question? Why is it demeaning to state the truth? History has shown that football has never been given committment. It shows a fan base that has grown only slightly. It has a season ticket base that has grown only marginally in four decades. It has a donation base that is only noticable because a few seem to be willing to give. The incredible majority of fans seem unable or unwilling to give for football. In the world of politics, many would rail at the thought of socialism, lol, but seem to be fine with that concept when it comes to the football program. The "let someone else pay for it" attitude is clearly at play here. Some posters admit to it. Of course, they also bash the people who do give to football and are those who are fighting to get us into the Big East(and who also give to Cal. One such person was listed in the Street and Smith article).
DeAngelo Williams and the first bowl appearance in forever didn't move things much at all. If winning was the only answer, then why did that not translate into thousands of season tickets and more donations? It is because beyond the 15,000 to 20,000 that are always there, they are not as excited about our football program. The largest gripes in the last two decades were "we play boring football" and the "schedule is a killer". Both were addressed. Now we see griping about the changes, lol. The numbers don't lie. I listed the season tickets, we have 1000 or so Highland Hundred members, and the weight room campaign speaks for itself. People are willing to pony up for basketball. Football, not so much. As I say, if winning is the only thing at play, then we should have 30,000 season tickets and double the donors for football. We don't. Winning isn't the panancea that most think, I guess. Some of the problem is the school but you can't ignore the lack of fan involvement. I know people who went to San Antonio and spent thousands of dollars but won't give a nickel for the weight room campaign. They said that they spent too much last year and don't have it right now. I accept that. That is honest. Posting that you sent a donation to a campaign and then clearly didn't is not honest. That goes to the heart of the matter as Don Henley would say, lol. If people want things to be better then it takes their committment as well as the school's. If the fans want a winner and won't commit to helping but only complain about things should be asked what they expect. Do they really believe that someone who gives $100,000 doesn't deserve some voice? Do they really think that they should have their opinions become reality when they have refused to join those who do give? These are real issues. When people here accuse people of "accepting mediocrity" and call people like Fred Smith "eggplants" then those people need to be scrutinized. And, yes, he has seen those remarks...and was not amused. Memphis football could be great. It won't without new money.
The shocker is that almost none of the Highland Hundred Members pledged a cent. That is a shocker. Even $150 spread over 3 years would have helped.
Strat57 Wrote:BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:oldtiger Wrote:Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
The players aren't looking beyond butts in the seats other than the HH or those close to them. The coach is aware who gives to the program and is involved in that effort. The Ambassadors are very aware as well. Some are getting restless about being asked for everything and seeing many do little or nothing. In this economy, some are at the max point, as are many people. I find it amusing that some of the most strident opponents to this type of deliniation are openly saying that they don't really donate or buy tickets. The numbers don't lie...1000 booster club members and barely 1/2% of season ticket holders giving to the weight room campaign. You can't argue away the fact that a few are paying for things. There is no snappy comeback out there. That is why it was a safe bet that the leadership went the other way on the OCS. They knew that the fan base lacked the economic and political will to do anything more than complain. I have heard this said verbatim. It really does boil down to what GA listed.
I undrstand about the OCS and agree that it should be a long term goal, not a short term goal.
BUT
If our fanbase lacks the economic and political will to do anything more than complain, how do you explain the basketball progam being one of the highest revenue teams in the nation, It is definitely in the top 20 revenue producers in the ncaa. (I have seen the $s put forth by the school and they undestimate the revenue #s by at least 6 million per year})
According to the school in 2007 we made $4.6 million while the Street & Smith Sports Business Daily(Dec.5, 2007) reported $4.7 million from tickets, ads, and other revenue. Our budget is more than the bottom two CUSA schools combined. We have more than one donor giving at least $500,000 for hoops alone. Football has none of those. Not just now, but never. We debate this often but we have hoops fans that are devoted to other schools and can't be seen near the Liberty Bowl. It is a fact of life for the university. The increases in TSF money is directly tied to basketball. Meanwhile, we have less than 1/2% of season ticket holder and donors pledging for a weight room campaign to update that area after 18 years. If the posts here were legitimate then we would have double that number. People talk but don't want to pay for football. They spend their money on basketball. A coach at Memphis can get whatever he needs to compete...like a Duster, lol, for basketball. I wish that it would change and more people would spend their donations on football exclusively and help the Highland Hundred with what they do for the staff. Many don't grasp the mascot is totally finded and cared for by the group, not the school.
To answer your question, it should be apparent that most people give to the TSF for better seats. It is also obvious by the low number donating for football what the reality is. I wish that it would change.
the difference is that basketball is a winner
it was winnning BEFORE any reall COMMITMENT was made to it,
there was very little COMMITMENT to basketball when Cal came here, he has won and he has demanded more commitment, Cal has bult the basletball PROGRAM
the reality is that Football wil not get a basketball like COMMITMENT until it wins. You can jump up and down and demand a commitment, you can demean our fanbase all you want but this is the reality.
Now, if we had a an administration that had a little vision ......
Demean the fan base, lol? How is the truth demeaning? If they post "yeah I wrote my check to the weight room" and then you see that they clearly didn't, that is fact. Nothing that I said is not tue. If it hits close to home, then so be it. If winning was going to make football rake in some huge influx of season tickets and donations, the DeAngelo Williams years should have done that...it did not. It brought in the walkup crowd which did not increase those two major things to any large degree. They didn't come on board and clearly did not stay once DW left(which was before that season became a disaster). The one significant monetary advance was the raise in pay for the coaching staff as well as West. As for Cal, he received committment before he was hired. Surely, giving someone four times what the last guy got is a major step up, lol? I could list more but why waste my time and yours. The modus operandi at Memphis is to promise things to a coach and never deliver...for football.
Question? Why is it demeaning to state the truth? History has shown that football has never been given committment. It shows a fan base that has grown only slightly. It has a season ticket base that has grown only marginally in four decades. It has a donation base that is only noticable because a few seem to be willing to give. The incredible majority of fans seem unable or unwilling to give for football. In the world of politics, many would rail at the thought of socialism, lol, but seem to be fine with that concept when it comes to the football program. The "let someone else pay for it" attitude is clearly at play here. Some posters admit to it. Of course, they also bash the people who do give to football and are those who are fighting to get us into the Big East(and who also give to Cal. One such person was listed in the Street and Smith article).
DeAngelo Williams and the first bowl appearance in forever didn't move things much at all. If winning was the only answer, then why did that not translate into thousands of season tickets and more donations? It is because beyond the 15,000 to 20,000 that are always there, they are not as excited about our football program. The largest gripes in the last two decades were "we play boring football" and the "schedule is a killer". Both were addressed. Now we see griping about the changes, lol. The numbers don't lie. I listed the season tickets, we have 1000 or so Highland Hundred members, and the weight room campaign speaks for itself. People are willing to pony up for basketball. Football, not so much. As I say, if winning is the only thing at play, then we should have 30,000 season tickets and double the donors for football. We don't. Winning isn't the panancea that most think, I guess. Some of the problem is the school but you can't ignore the lack of fan involvement. I know people who went to San Antonio and spent thousands of dollars but won't give a nickel for the weight room campaign. They said that they spent too much last year and don't have it right now. I accept that. That is honest. Posting that you sent a donation to a campaign and then clearly didn't is not honest. That goes to the heart of the matter as Don Henley would say, lol. If people want things to be better then it takes their committment as well as the school's. If the fans want a winner and won't commit to helping but only complain about things should be asked what they expect. Do they really believe that someone who gives $100,000 doesn't deserve some voice? Do they really think that they should have their opinions become reality when they have refused to join those who do give? These are real issues. When people here accuse people of "accepting mediocrity" and call people like Fred Smith "eggplants" then those people need to be scrutinized. And, yes, he has seen those remarks...and was not amused. Memphis football could be great. It won't without new money.
Strat,
Winning is not a guarantee of a commitment being made, but, it is a prerequesite of any major new commitment being made.
Trying to push through a bunch of new projects while we are losing is not going to work, that is all I am saying.
I am not saying if you win, they will build it.(make the commitment)
I am saying, If you dont win, they will NOT build it (make the commitment)
You are just wrong.
If you were right, how did nothing change after the success from '03 to '05. You simply can not use basketball as a measuring stick for anything in regards to football. At the start there is no chance for a non-BcS school to ever win a championship in football. It simply will not happen. Second, there is no rich tradition in the football program. Everyone can say that Cal built the program, but you have decades of success in basketball. We are not considered a major program by the success of the last three years alone.
And yes, squidlet, I do like to capitalize words for emphasis, because retards around here obviously can't read or understand, so I try to enhance their comprehension skills by pointing to what I would think are obvious points. But, since some idiots around here can't see something staring them in the face, I guess I will try to help them out. Doesn't really have much to do with my state of mind other than dubious to some comprehension of even the most basic of information.
"If you have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable, then you have discovered the secret of getting along - whether it be business, family relations, or life itself." (Bernard Meltzer)
BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:BinghamptonNed Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:oldtiger Wrote:Gray Avenger Wrote:As I see it, there are three classifications of people who follow a sports program:
(1) Spectators: merely attend games for entertainment, with no real interest in who wins. That is how I classify myself with Redbirds baseball. I go to a few games each year for the fun of eating downtown, relaxing and the beer and peanuts. If they win, fine, but I feel no passion.
(2) Fans: they CARE whether the team wins. There all degrees and kinds of fans. Loyalty, intelligence, passion, etc. varies. Some fans are also supporters. Some never even attend games.
(3) Supporters: they are dedicated to supporting the program and give of themselves (time, effort and money) beyond whatever the tickets and/or donations required for their seats. Probably most supporters are also fans, but some have no serious interest in the sport but realize the benefits to the community. Some supporters make extra effort to attend games when the weather and/or record is bad or the opponent less than interesting, because they know that their support is NEEDED.
Our program needs all three kinds, but there is no doubt which is more valuable. In general it is the level of SUPPORT which determines success or failure. It's about having ENOUGH people who want it ENOUGH.
I know several are critical of what GA says here and that's OK. I can enjoy a good laugh just like everyone, even when the laugh is at my expense.
Let me ask two serious questions here however.....
What would our coaches and players in any of our sports say about the three classifications listed above?
How different would their answers be than GA's?
The players aren't looking beyond butts in the seats other than the HH or those close to them. The coach is aware who gives to the program and is involved in that effort. The Ambassadors are very aware as well. Some are getting restless about being asked for everything and seeing many do little or nothing. In this economy, some are at the max point, as are many people. I find it amusing that some of the most strident opponents to this type of deliniation are openly saying that they don't really donate or buy tickets. The numbers don't lie...1000 booster club members and barely 1/2% of season ticket holders giving to the weight room campaign. You can't argue away the fact that a few are paying for things. There is no snappy comeback out there. That is why it was a safe bet that the leadership went the other way on the OCS. They knew that the fan base lacked the economic and political will to do anything more than complain. I have heard this said verbatim. It really does boil down to what GA listed.
I undrstand about the OCS and agree that it should be a long term goal, not a short term goal.
BUT
If our fanbase lacks the economic and political will to do anything more than complain, how do you explain the basketball progam being one of the highest revenue teams in the nation, It is definitely in the top 20 revenue producers in the ncaa. (I have seen the $s put forth by the school and they undestimate the revenue #s by at least 6 million per year})
According to the school in 2007 we made $4.6 million while the Street & Smith Sports Business Daily(Dec.5, 2007) reported $4.7 million from tickets, ads, and other revenue. Our budget is more than the bottom two CUSA schools combined. We have more than one donor giving at least $500,000 for hoops alone. Football has none of those. Not just now, but never. We debate this often but we have hoops fans that are devoted to other schools and can't be seen near the Liberty Bowl. It is a fact of life for the university. The increases in TSF money is directly tied to basketball. Meanwhile, we have less than 1/2% of season ticket holder and donors pledging for a weight room campaign to update that area after 18 years. If the posts here were legitimate then we would have double that number. People talk but don't want to pay for football. They spend their money on basketball. A coach at Memphis can get whatever he needs to compete...like a Duster, lol, for basketball. I wish that it would change and more people would spend their donations on football exclusively and help the Highland Hundred with what they do for the staff. Many don't grasp the mascot is totally finded and cared for by the group, not the school.
To answer your question, it should be apparent that most people give to the TSF for better seats. It is also obvious by the low number donating for football what the reality is. I wish that it would change.
the difference is that basketball is a winner
it was winnning BEFORE any reall COMMITMENT was made to it,
there was very little COMMITMENT to basketball when Cal came here, he has won and he has demanded more commitment, Cal has bult the basletball PROGRAM
the reality is that Football wil not get a basketball like COMMITMENT until it wins. You can jump up and down and demand a commitment, you can demean our fanbase all you want but this is the reality.
Now, if we had a an administration that had a little vision ......
Demean the fan base, lol? How is the truth demeaning? If they post "yeah I wrote my check to the weight room" and then you see that they clearly didn't, that is fact. Nothing that I said is not tue. If it hits close to home, then so be it. If winning was going to make football rake in some huge influx of season tickets and donations, the DeAngelo Williams years should have done that...it did not. It brought in the walkup crowd which did not increase those two major things to any large degree. They didn't come on board and clearly did not stay once DW left(which was before that season became a disaster). The one significant monetary advance was the raise in pay for the coaching staff as well as West. As for Cal, he received committment before he was hired. Surely, giving someone four times what the last guy got is a major step up, lol? I could list more but why waste my time and yours. The modus operandi at Memphis is to promise things to a coach and never deliver...for football.
Question? Why is it demeaning to state the truth? History has shown that football has never been given committment. It shows a fan base that has grown only slightly. It has a season ticket base that has grown only marginally in four decades. It has a donation base that is only noticable because a few seem to be willing to give. The incredible majority of fans seem unable or unwilling to give for football. In the world of politics, many would rail at the thought of socialism, lol, but seem to be fine with that concept when it comes to the football program. The "let someone else pay for it" attitude is clearly at play here. Some posters admit to it. Of course, they also bash the people who do give to football and are those who are fighting to get us into the Big East(and who also give to Cal. One such person was listed in the Street and Smith article).
DeAngelo Williams and the first bowl appearance in forever didn't move things much at all. If winning was the only answer, then why did that not translate into thousands of season tickets and more donations? It is because beyond the 15,000 to 20,000 that are always there, they are not as excited about our football program. The largest gripes in the last two decades were "we play boring football" and the "schedule is a killer". Both were addressed. Now we see griping about the changes, lol. The numbers don't lie. I listed the season tickets, we have 1000 or so Highland Hundred members, and the weight room campaign speaks for itself. People are willing to pony up for basketball. Football, not so much. As I say, if winning is the only thing at play, then we should have 30,000 season tickets and double the donors for football. We don't. Winning isn't the panancea that most think, I guess. Some of the problem is the school but you can't ignore the lack of fan involvement. I know people who went to San Antonio and spent thousands of dollars but won't give a nickel for the weight room campaign. They said that they spent too much last year and don't have it right now. I accept that. That is honest. Posting that you sent a donation to a campaign and then clearly didn't is not honest. That goes to the heart of the matter as Don Henley would say, lol. If people want things to be better then it takes their committment as well as the school's. If the fans want a winner and won't commit to helping but only complain about things should be asked what they expect. Do they really believe that someone who gives $100,000 doesn't deserve some voice? Do they really think that they should have their opinions become reality when they have refused to join those who do give? These are real issues. When people here accuse people of "accepting mediocrity" and call people like Fred Smith "eggplants" then those people need to be scrutinized. And, yes, he has seen those remarks...and was not amused. Memphis football could be great. It won't without new money.
Strat,
Winning is not a guarantee of a commitment being made, but, it is a prerequesite of any major new commitment being made.
Trying to push through a bunch of new projects while we are losing is not going to work, that is all I am saying.
I am not saying if you win, they will build it.(make the commitment)
I am saying, If you dont win, they will NOT build it (make the commitment)
This may be true but we don't know because so little has been done whether we win or lose. The Murphy Complex upgrade took almost ten years to go from what Rip was promised to what West received, lol. This program seems unable to gain traction in the community or move beyond the stagnant base that is there(and has not changed in decades). I don't have much confidence in winning consistantly ot big until the underlying problems are corrected(not just the coach). It hasn't changed how I feel about the program or giving, it just makes me scratch my head and ask where are we going? Like many, I was thinking that people would be grow the program when DeAngelo was here and I was shocked at the lack of growth in tickets and money. It may be that we may never get beyond this point. Who knows? How can we pay for an OCS if we can't muster more support? I think that you want this work. What would you do? Right now, it is all up to the Big East changes to save things, I guess.
Speaking as a Tiger fan who makes smallish donations to our football program (I also give to TSF and other University initiatives as well), a major concern in the past year is the completely callous way the OCS study was handled and quickly tabled by University leadership (i.e. Shirley Raines). While R.C. Johnson acted like he, too, "tabled" it without legitimate consideration, I can appreciate the delicate position he was placed...nobody but a fool would publicly disagree with his boss on such a high profile issue like an OCS.
This past year, I've talked personally with over a dozen Tiger fans in similar shoes as me, and I can tell you that we all agree that it's difficult to get excited about increasing donations earmarked to football when we were clearly "handled" like crapola when presenting the vision of an OCS.
Heck, people, I'm a CFO of a nonprofit...nobody understands the issues of budget constraints for capital projects any more than I do, but to completely disregard a grassroots effort to explore and eventually fund a capital campaign to build an OCS is absolutely insane. I know too many people who would contribute to such an awesome vision, even if it took 10 years to come to fruition.
While nobody can ever drain out the Blue & Gray blood that flows in my veins, this whole thing essentially comes down to the issue of "trust"...and right now, I (and many others) openly question the validity of University leadership when it comes to supporting the vision of what the football program can become.
You wanna know why the weightroom campaign is floundering...just look at the way SR ignored the Heery report to find your answer.
KSquid Wrote:i swear some people on this friggin board are third generation retards, that's the only explanation i can think of for these sh!tacular posts, particularly by the color whore GA and the TW circle jerkers... i like to TYPE random words CAPITALIZED for EMPHASIS, SEE how SERIOUS i am?????????
so , TigerEdward, where is your righteous indignation at this post?
BTW--GA DID START THE POST WITH "AS I SEE IT".
Some of you cry that " we need some tradition around here". GA simply points out that we have some tradition. And if he ( and others) point out the fact that they don't care what you say becuase you don't contribute, then people are simply saying you are not vested. You are a friggin spectator.
So what?
GermantownTiger Wrote:Speaking as a Tiger fan who makes smallish donations to our football program (I also give to TSF and other University initiatives as well), a major concern in the past year is the completely callous way the OCS study was handled and quickly tabled by University leadership (i.e. Shirley Raines). While R.C. Johnson acted like he, too, "tabled" it without legitimate consideration, I can appreciate the delicate position he was placed...nobody but a fool would publicly disagree with his boss on such a high profile issue like an OCS.
This past year, I've talked personally with over a dozen Tiger fans in similar shoes as me, and I can tell you that we all agree that it's difficult to get excited about increasing donations earmarked to football when we were clearly "handled" like crapola when presenting the vision of an OCS.
Heck, people, I'm a CFO of a nonprofit...nobody understands the issues of budget constraints for capital projects any more than I do, but to completely disregard a grassroots effort to explore and eventually fund a capital campaign to build an OCS is absolutely insane. I know too many people who would contribute to such an awesome vision, even if it took 10 years to come to fruition.
While nobody can ever drain out the Blue & Gray blood that flows in my veins, this whole thing essentially comes down to the issue of "trust"...and right now, I (and many others) openly question the validity of University leadership when it comes to supporting the vision of what the football program can become.
You wanna know why the weightroom campaign is floundering...just look at the way SR ignored the Heery report to find your answer.
You are not alone, trust me. That is why I speak to the Board of Regents issue that Call talks about. It is a major chance to get out from under the BOR who is run by grads of MTSU, Vandy,and UT. They hired Raines. Without them, there can be pressure brought to make her accountable. That is why Cal has raised money for several politicians who are behind us in this movement. Let me say this to you. Like you, I am not wealthy by many standards(but damn, I love having a job that allows me to chase women and drink, lol)but I do my share because I love football and my school. We need to find the will and a way to overcome the neglect and the attitude that exists on Normal as well as in the big office on campus.
GermantownTiger Wrote:Speaking as a Tiger fan who makes smallish donations to our football program (I also give to TSF and other University initiatives as well), a major concern in the past year is the completely callous way the OCS study was handled and quickly tabled by University leadership (i.e. Shirley Raines). While R.C. Johnson acted like he, too, "tabled" it without legitimate consideration, I can appreciate the delicate position he was placed...nobody but a fool would publicly disagree with his boss on such a high profile issue like an OCS.
This past year, I've talked personally with over a dozen Tiger fans in similar shoes as me, and I can tell you that we all agree that it's difficult to get excited about increasing donations earmarked to football when we were clearly "handled" like crapola when presenting the vision of an OCS.
Heck, people, I'm a CFO of a nonprofit...nobody understands the issues of budget constraints for capital projects any more than I do, but to completely disregard a grassroots effort to explore and eventually fund a capital campaign to build an OCS is absolutely insane. I know too many people who would contribute to such an awesome vision, even if it took 10 years to come to fruition.
While nobody can ever drain out the Blue & Gray blood that flows in my veins, this whole thing essentially comes down to the issue of "trust"...and right now, I (and many others) openly question the validity of University leadership when it comes to supporting the vision of what the football program can become.
You wanna know why the weightroom campaign is floundering...just look at the way SR ignored the Heery report to find your answer.
Right on target
Posted by 68Tiger - Today 02:54 PM
Quote:"If you have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable, then you have discovered the secret of getting along - whether it be business, family relations, or life itself." (Bernard Meltzer)
If everyone taped this about 6 inches above their keyboard, we'd all be better off.
Strat57 Wrote:GermantownTiger Wrote:Speaking as a Tiger fan who makes smallish donations to our football program (I also give to TSF and other University initiatives as well), a major concern in the past year is the completely callous way the OCS study was handled and quickly tabled by University leadership (i.e. Shirley Raines). While R.C. Johnson acted like he, too, "tabled" it without legitimate consideration, I can appreciate the delicate position he was placed...nobody but a fool would publicly disagree with his boss on such a high profile issue like an OCS.
This past year, I've talked personally with over a dozen Tiger fans in similar shoes as me, and I can tell you that we all agree that it's difficult to get excited about increasing donations earmarked to football when we were clearly "handled" like crapola when presenting the vision of an OCS.
Heck, people, I'm a CFO of a nonprofit...nobody understands the issues of budget constraints for capital projects any more than I do, but to completely disregard a grassroots effort to explore and eventually fund a capital campaign to build an OCS is absolutely insane. I know too many people who would contribute to such an awesome vision, even if it took 10 years to come to fruition.
While nobody can ever drain out the Blue & Gray blood that flows in my veins, this whole thing essentially comes down to the issue of "trust"...and right now, I (and many others) openly question the validity of University leadership when it comes to supporting the vision of what the football program can become.
You wanna know why the weightroom campaign is floundering...just look at the way SR ignored the Heery report to find your answer.
You are not alone, trust me. That is why I speak to the Board of Regents issue that Call talks about. It is a major chance to get out from under the BOR who is run by grads of MTSU, Vandy,and UT. They hired Raines. Without them, there can be pressure brought to make her accountable. That is why Cal has raised money for several politicians who are behind us in this movement. Let me say this to you. Like you, I am not wealthy by many standards(but damn, I love having a job that allows me to chase women and drink, lol)but I do my share because I love football and my school. We need to find the will and a way to overcome the neglect and the attitude that exists on Normal as well as in the big office on campus.
I've seriously considered making some attempts to visit with Ms. Raines privately at some point to have a respectful dialogue on this...I really need to hear it from her directly to learn what would be objectionable about initiating a grassroots capital campaign for an OCS; there'd be ZERO financial risk to the University to allow this.
I may just find some time during the holidays to see what I can do to pursue this...probably wouldn't hurt to see what some others can do as well...stay tuned.
GermantownTiger Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:GermantownTiger Wrote:Speaking as a Tiger fan who makes smallish donations to our football program (I also give to TSF and other University initiatives as well), a major concern in the past year is the completely callous way the OCS study was handled and quickly tabled by University leadership (i.e. Shirley Raines). While R.C. Johnson acted like he, too, "tabled" it without legitimate consideration, I can appreciate the delicate position he was placed...nobody but a fool would publicly disagree with his boss on such a high profile issue like an OCS.
This past year, I've talked personally with over a dozen Tiger fans in similar shoes as me, and I can tell you that we all agree that it's difficult to get excited about increasing donations earmarked to football when we were clearly "handled" like crapola when presenting the vision of an OCS.
Heck, people, I'm a CFO of a nonprofit...nobody understands the issues of budget constraints for capital projects any more than I do, but to completely disregard a grassroots effort to explore and eventually fund a capital campaign to build an OCS is absolutely insane. I know too many people who would contribute to such an awesome vision, even if it took 10 years to come to fruition.
While nobody can ever drain out the Blue & Gray blood that flows in my veins, this whole thing essentially comes down to the issue of "trust"...and right now, I (and many others) openly question the validity of University leadership when it comes to supporting the vision of what the football program can become.
You wanna know why the weightroom campaign is floundering...just look at the way SR ignored the Heery report to find your answer.
You are not alone, trust me. That is why I speak to the Board of Regents issue that Call talks about. It is a major chance to get out from under the BOR who is run by grads of MTSU, Vandy,and UT. They hired Raines. Without them, there can be pressure brought to make her accountable. That is why Cal has raised money for several politicians who are behind us in this movement. Let me say this to you. Like you, I am not wealthy by many standards(but damn, I love having a job that allows me to chase women and drink, lol)but I do my share because I love football and my school. We need to find the will and a way to overcome the neglect and the attitude that exists on Normal as well as in the big office on campus.
I've seriously considered making some attempts to visit with Ms. Raines privately at some point to have a respectful dialogue on this...I really need to hear it from her directly to learn what would be objectionable about initiating a grassroots capital campaign for an OCS; there'd be ZERO financial risk to the University to allow this.
I may just find some time during the holidays to see what I can do to pursue this...probably wouldn't hurt to see what some others can do as well...stay tuned.
actually there is a HUGE financial risk....
GermantownTiger Wrote:Speaking as a Tiger fan who makes smallish donations to our football program (I also give to TSF and other University initiatives as well), a major concern in the past year is the completely callous way the OCS study was handled and quickly tabled by University leadership (i.e. Shirley Raines). While R.C. Johnson acted like he, too, "tabled" it without legitimate consideration, I can appreciate the delicate position he was placed...nobody but a fool would publicly disagree with his boss on such a high profile issue like an OCS.
This past year, I've talked personally with over a dozen Tiger fans in similar shoes as me, and I can tell you that we all agree that it's difficult to get excited about increasing donations earmarked to football when we were clearly "handled" like crapola when presenting the vision of an OCS.
Heck, people, I'm a CFO of a nonprofit...nobody understands the issues of budget constraints for capital projects any more than I do, but to completely disregard a grassroots effort to explore and eventually fund a capital campaign to build an OCS is absolutely insane. I know too many people who would contribute to such an awesome vision, even if it took 10 years to come to fruition.
While nobody can ever drain out the Blue & Gray blood that flows in my veins, this whole thing essentially comes down to the issue of "trust"...and right now, I (and many others) openly question the validity of University leadership when it comes to supporting the vision of what the football program can become.
You wanna know why the weightroom campaign is floundering...just look at the way SR ignored the Heery report to find your answer.
Well said GermantownTiger!
It should come as no surprise that only a few people donated to the weightroom campaign.
Only a few people made the decision about the OCS.
You can't help but get the feeling that a few people with clout are going to make Tiger football exactly what they want it to be, and the wants and desires of "Joe Fan" are going to be ignored. If the big dogs have enough clout to control our football program, then the rest of us have no choice but to be content with whatever they give us.
BinghamptonNed Wrote:GermantownTiger Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:GermantownTiger Wrote:Speaking as a Tiger fan who makes smallish donations to our football program (I also give to TSF and other University initiatives as well), a major concern in the past year is the completely callous way the OCS study was handled and quickly tabled by University leadership (i.e. Shirley Raines). While R.C. Johnson acted like he, too, "tabled" it without legitimate consideration, I can appreciate the delicate position he was placed...nobody but a fool would publicly disagree with his boss on such a high profile issue like an OCS.
This past year, I've talked personally with over a dozen Tiger fans in similar shoes as me, and I can tell you that we all agree that it's difficult to get excited about increasing donations earmarked to football when we were clearly "handled" like crapola when presenting the vision of an OCS.
Heck, people, I'm a CFO of a nonprofit...nobody understands the issues of budget constraints for capital projects any more than I do, but to completely disregard a grassroots effort to explore and eventually fund a capital campaign to build an OCS is absolutely insane. I know too many people who would contribute to such an awesome vision, even if it took 10 years to come to fruition.
While nobody can ever drain out the Blue & Gray blood that flows in my veins, this whole thing essentially comes down to the issue of "trust"...and right now, I (and many others) openly question the validity of University leadership when it comes to supporting the vision of what the football program can become.
You wanna know why the weightroom campaign is floundering...just look at the way SR ignored the Heery report to find your answer.
You are not alone, trust me. That is why I speak to the Board of Regents issue that Call talks about. It is a major chance to get out from under the BOR who is run by grads of MTSU, Vandy,and UT. They hired Raines. Without them, there can be pressure brought to make her accountable. That is why Cal has raised money for several politicians who are behind us in this movement. Let me say this to you. Like you, I am not wealthy by many standards(but damn, I love having a job that allows me to chase women and drink, lol)but I do my share because I love football and my school. We need to find the will and a way to overcome the neglect and the attitude that exists on Normal as well as in the big office on campus.
I've seriously considered making some attempts to visit with Ms. Raines privately at some point to have a respectful dialogue on this...I really need to hear it from her directly to learn what would be objectionable about initiating a grassroots capital campaign for an OCS; there'd be ZERO financial risk to the University to allow this.
I may just find some time during the holidays to see what I can do to pursue this...probably wouldn't hurt to see what some others can do as well...stay tuned.
actually there is a HUGE financial risk....
Explanation?
PlainTiger Wrote:be content with whatever they give us.
Or perhaps
NOT be content?
GermantownTiger Wrote:BinghamptonNed Wrote:GermantownTiger Wrote:Strat57 Wrote:GermantownTiger Wrote:Speaking as a Tiger fan who makes smallish donations to our football program (I also give to TSF and other University initiatives as well), a major concern in the past year is the completely callous way the OCS study was handled and quickly tabled by University leadership (i.e. Shirley Raines). While R.C. Johnson acted like he, too, "tabled" it without legitimate consideration, I can appreciate the delicate position he was placed...nobody but a fool would publicly disagree with his boss on such a high profile issue like an OCS.
This past year, I've talked personally with over a dozen Tiger fans in similar shoes as me, and I can tell you that we all agree that it's difficult to get excited about increasing donations earmarked to football when we were clearly "handled" like crapola when presenting the vision of an OCS.
Heck, people, I'm a CFO of a nonprofit...nobody understands the issues of budget constraints for capital projects any more than I do, but to completely disregard a grassroots effort to explore and eventually fund a capital campaign to build an OCS is absolutely insane. I know too many people who would contribute to such an awesome vision, even if it took 10 years to come to fruition.
While nobody can ever drain out the Blue & Gray blood that flows in my veins, this whole thing essentially comes down to the issue of "trust"...and right now, I (and many others) openly question the validity of University leadership when it comes to supporting the vision of what the football program can become.
You wanna know why the weightroom campaign is floundering...just look at the way SR ignored the Heery report to find your answer.
You are not alone, trust me. That is why I speak to the Board of Regents issue that Call talks about. It is a major chance to get out from under the BOR who is run by grads of MTSU, Vandy,and UT. They hired Raines. Without them, there can be pressure brought to make her accountable. That is why Cal has raised money for several politicians who are behind us in this movement. Let me say this to you. Like you, I am not wealthy by many standards(but damn, I love having a job that allows me to chase women and drink, lol)but I do my share because I love football and my school. We need to find the will and a way to overcome the neglect and the attitude that exists on Normal as well as in the big office on campus.
I've seriously considered making some attempts to visit with Ms. Raines privately at some point to have a respectful dialogue on this...I really need to hear it from her directly to learn what would be objectionable about initiating a grassroots capital campaign for an OCS; there'd be ZERO financial risk to the University to allow this.
I may just find some time during the holidays to see what I can do to pursue this...probably wouldn't hurt to see what some others can do as well...stay tuned.
actually there is a HUGE financial risk....
Explanation?
Fundraising is very difficult right now. If we try to raise the money and do not raise it and therefore do not build a stadium then it will be a HUGE negative to out football program. It could easily keep us out of the big east as it would indicate a program not on the rise but on the decline.
If we undertake a fundraising campaign for an OCS there is NO CHANCE of the Liberty Bowl getting the much needed updates something that willl take no money from the University and something that CAN actually be done.
If we undertake a fundraising campaign for an OCS it WILL funnel money away from an IPF, field renovations (two things that CAN be done)
Ok St is delaying a lot of projects right now and they received a $150,000,000 gift from one person a year or so ago .... it would be foolish to make anything other than preliminary plans right now for an OCS....
It could costs us hundreds of millions if we miss out on a BCS invite because we are mired in an impossible situation trying to build an OCS, so yes it IS a HUGE financial risk starting a project right now, even if the "upfront cost" appears to be very low.
