Originally Posted by
Just1More
Rebel, have you ever heard of someone that doesn't have the prettiest resume, but is persistent at demanding an interview, has an enormous amount of willingness, confidence and commitment to achieve beyond their resume... and can explain the resume weakness as a thing of the past? We don't have the prettiest resume... granted. But, conferences don't just look at resumes in the selection light you mention. We all agree that the majority of candidates have better resumes than we do... but even they go out and lobby conferences above their heads. Many of the schools that successfully move to better conference associations, their president, AD and major boosters, lobby the living snot out of the other member presidents, AD and major boosters. They put their absolute best presentations about their future vision for their university athletics... they exaggerate the market they command... and then they close by telling them that they will go "all in" with facility improvements, fund raising, and every other mechanism at their disposal to raise their program.
Again, it is not just about the snapshot Google resume that gets you in to a better conference. "That" is what people are talking about on here. You keep taking only current revenue and whatever market size others have tagged us with, and insist that it is the only criteria these conference members evaluate. There are programs for the past 50 years that have lobbied and succeeded... against the grain... to obtain new improved conference membership.
You talk about Tech's millionaire backers. They have 5 backers that make the difference for them. To equal one of their largest supporters, we will have to reach out to 20 people. That "reach" isn't a phone call or letter in the mail. It requires proofs of commitment, much improved over our past. There are 100 people available in the multi-millionaire status that are actually accessible to UL. They didn't make or retain their money by being suckers for the likes of puffy, non-committal, academian only, narrow-minded, deep tunnel thinkers. They like to associate their money... just like Davison... with brash, at the ready, wide perspective, capital intense, leaders. Also, Tech leadership has to allow Davison and a few other Tech supporters a place at the decision table. Our leadership does not like that concept. They do not like non UL System employees, especially with money, to have a place in deciding the path forward. At UL, it will have to be that they allow 20 upper level business citizens a voice in the athletic future of our school. Not just information and updates... decision-making rights. They want their money... but not if they have to make bold commitments and are held accountable to those supporters.
Now. We have 3 of those 20 actually sending big checks to UL. 3. We do not have a Davison in those 3. 8 of those 20 are currently pretty large LSU system donors. They are not "making LSU"... but they enjoy believing that the dollars they provide are supporting a stellar athletic system that hoards of people around the country see "Louisiana" in the name... and that Louisiana citizen gets to puff his chest out for once on the national scene. That Acadiana businessman does not mind one bit supporting UL at some level. He only needs to know that the leaders of the university ARE NOT weak in the face of challenges or disrespectful of the flash and flare of capitalists. They need to know that the leadership is going to put their neck on the line first... and they will laugh at their surprise when they add two more zeros to the check our leadership thought was coming. They ARE NOT going to cut a check to weak people... unless it's the children of St. Jude's. They are not going to look at a grown man in a puffy red jacket and cut that man a check unless they know that man has ape size leadership gonads.
T-Joe has to display a willingness to step way beyond the confines of Louisiana historical university protocol. He has to break rank with his academian "advisors". He has to see the critically overlooked association needed with UL athletics and the business community. We ARE NOT doing anything special at UL right now. We ARE playing to the lowest athletic common denominator. We are limping in to everything we do athletically. Nothing ever that was in any way spectacular, done by mankind, EVER happened by limping in.
Non aggressive non-capitalists have enjoyed the fruit of the stallion get-it-done people for decades. They go through the motions in this country and just because it works out most of the time... they credit themselves with "the accomplishment". UL is not accomplishing jack with athletics beyond the stack of programs we're in competition with. T-Joe has to be the one single operator that changes that.
T-Joe has to do precisely what he said when he took over at UL. He has to take out the loans for athletics. Of course, we all know now he meant... if everyone holds my hand... if the timing is perfect... if the stars and the moon are aligned... if I've studied it indefinitely and it looks easy to do... if it doesn't upset my academian friends... if others don't object... if I have undivided support... if the coast is clear... if there are no obstacles in my way... if the board of the board of the board of the board gives me a smile and unanimous approval... I might just consider taking out a small loan for athletics.
Someone has given T-Joe a false assumption that winning a bowl game and making it to another... and the support and money that are derived from that... somehow correlate to the available funds and support in the area. It is a pathetically disconnected association. The far greater support association is the verifiable proof that the current president is not anything like the former. That requires a grand leap out of the confines of Martin Hall. It requires a new breed of unity with the business community, their knowledge, power and wisdom. A kind of wisdom that has never been available to an academian.
Revenue Sharing
Quote
Re: NO LIKE NEW SBC RULE ( Revenue Sharing )
