Did We Surrender Last Night?
And of course I'm not talking about on the field. I'm talking about the bigger picture of our branding, marketing and progressing as an athletic department and university as a whole. The fight to be called "Louisiana" is a worthy one, not only because of history back to 1984, but the fact that this university sits in the cleanest, most unique, most cultured and beautiful mid-sized city in the United States. The potential here is beyond the sky.
I'm there with my "Say My Name" sign--and I wasn't the only one. And yet, I suppose our administration--I mean, who else could it be?--makes us look foolish by not "saying our name" in our own house. Yes, I thought muzzling our own PA announcer in our own stadium was shameful. I could have overlooked the "Cajuns-Warhawks" score board but taken in tandem, it just added to my sadness.
Can someone please tell me that for President Savoie, AD Farmer and Martin Hall, that this was a temporary "discretion-is-the-better-part-of-valor" strategic retreat in preparation for a full charge? Is there a long-term strategy that I have missed? Please, someone educate me if that is true.
Otherwise, I've lost a lot of stomach for this fight, if our leadership is going to cut us off at the knees like they did Saturday night. Heck, I guess only a few of us on this board were really fighting it and all the stuff in the media over the last few weeks was illusory. If not, we sure threw it away in a bundle last night. And most students don't "get it." I talk to them every day. To them, the "Louisiana" thing was something we, in a good-natured way, play against with ULM for "bragging rights."
I guess the LSUAMBR people are right--I should "know my place." I am a native south Louisianian who was thrilled to return "home" for graduate school. I'll be leaving the city I've come to love and feel is the best place on earth in May, but I suppose I have to accept the fact that my graduate alma mater, the second largest university in the state with almost 20K students, is nothing more than what they say we are: a "directional" school who should just accept that the flagship is 50 miles east and be happy with crumbs from the table.
I was really motivated about leading the charge on Student Government towards getting a referendum for a student athletic fee of 50-100 dollars per semester put on the Spring election docket. The process would not have been easy; I was politicking behind the scenes trying to line up support from the College of Presidents to put it on the Senate floor and working on tentative strategies to get the student body to pass it like we got the student fees passed last year to help fund the Master Plan. Yes, somewhere in there the Board of Regents would have to sign off on it, but it would not get started without the students passing it. I was going to get in touch with the Athletic Department and get someone--hopefully our AD--to speak--passionately, I hope-- to the COP and the SGA senate, about the need for a consistent, non-variable source of funding. The approximately five million a year would have been a good start.
Maybe I'll feel motivated again in a few days and this is just temporary angst from last night. But right now, I just don't feel like leading it. Someone else will, I hope, and I know the "big picture" is bigger than any individuals in Martin Hall or on Reinhardt Drive. But we need to be led from the top. And whether they intended it this way or not, the message our administrative and athletic departments sent to us front-line troops last night with that surrender to those north Louisiana rednecks and this bush-league conference we are in is: "we're happy with what we have" and "we should know our place."
Now, the vultures in Monroe, Baton Rouge and everywhere else can look, laugh and say as we waved our signs: "Your own leadership doesn't believe that! You are who WE say you are." Why? Because our leadership, by caving last night, did what Richard Nixon said he did for his enemies with Watergate: "I gave them a sword." And our enemies surely did--and will do--what Nixon said his enemies did: " ... and they stuck it in with relish."
I guess what I thought was a widespread grass-roots surge to move forward, being realistically aware of long-term and short-term goals, was nothing more than we got ridiculously lucky to hire a football coach who came in and changed the culture, but who will be gone one day--and maybe soon. I wonder what Hud would say, if he shared his heart-of-hearts, about what happened last night regarding the surrender? Oh btw, I was in a meeting where we listened to candidates for a recently filled high administrative university post. I wish the recent hire well. I will admit, the hire lost me totally by saying, in so many words that: "we need to recognize who LSU is and who we are." The candidate then elaborated that "we are smaller and more nimble so we can make quicker adjustments." I'm probably dumb, but the message in a nutshell seemed to be "We need to recognize we're smaller than LSU." I dunno. That seems to be the culture, and there's only so much that Hud can do to change it off the football field.
But while I hope my feelings of futility right now are temporary and maybe someone educates me that what I feel was surrender is really short-term retreat, I've lost my stomach for this fight and just don't feel like the fight would be worth it for grass-roots student passage of an athletic fee. Don't let me paint a false picture--that can be accomplished from other sources, but this was a campaign I was excited about.
However, the message from Martin Hall and Reinhardt Drive seems to be to sheathe our swords, wave white flags and just accept what is handed down to us from Monroe, the Sunbelt, the media, Baton Rouge, the state legislature and on and on.
Hell, maybe this IS a fight we can't win.
But I ask again, hoping someone can tell me I'm wrong ... did we surrender last night?
Quote
Originally Posted by Gueydanmayor
