Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

  1. Support Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie


     The dawn of a new era at UL began on July 1 when Ray Authement stepped aside and Joseph Savoie returned to his alma mater as the university's sixth president.

    Savoie, who most recently served as the state's commissioner of higher education, recently spent one week in San Diego at a conference designed to help new university presidents become more effective leaders.

    The 53-year-old took some time to answer some questions from The Daily Advertiser concerning the current and future state of UL's athletic department.

    Question: After one month on the job, what are your initial perceptions of UL's athletic department?

    Answer: The department is well managed by athletics director David Walker, and improvements are being made. There are obvious challenges with facilities. We will soon engage in a strategic planning process that will provide a roadmap for addressing this and other issues.

    Q: How would you describe your level of interaction with the athletic department as university president? How will that differ from that of your predecessor?

    A: NCAA guidelines are clear that an institution's president has ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the athletics program. Therefore, the president's office reviews and authorizes most financial and personnel decisions. Dr. Authement had the same responsibilities. I leave day-to-day management up to Mr. Walker, but we discuss various issues on a regular basis.

    Q: A number of changes have taken place recently in Cajun athletics. New turf was installed at Cajun Field. A contract has been signed for the stadium to be pressure-washed. The weight room was painted and got new flooring, new lights and custom-made equipment. There was a preseason push to increase season-tickets sales for football. Why were these changes necessary? What are the long-term benefits?

    A: The new turf at Cajun Field will offer many benefits to both the athletics department and the university. The obvious benefit is in enhancing the overall image, which our coaches feel will benefit recruiting and help their programs. Another benefit will be the cost and manpower savings related to field maintenance. The installation of new weight room equipment will benefit all of our student-athletes tremendously. The university is currently undergoing an extensive project to clean all of the buildings and campus facilities, and I made athletics a part of that project. The cleaning of Cajun Field will provide a better environment for our fans. Dr. Authement made some good investments, and we will make more. I'm hopeful that with a thoughtful strategic plan, the help of the Ragin' Cajun Athletic Foundation and our fan base, we will be able to provide a major facelift to the entire complex.

    Q: What are some of the changes we can expect to see for Cajun athletics in the near and immediate future? There has been talk of facility upgrades for baseball and softball. What about the addition of men's soccer and other varsity sports currently not offered at UL?

    A: I am currently reviewing the recommendations of the Athletics Transition Team, which include suggestions for facility improvements. In the near future we will begin discussions on the funding required to renovate our facilities. The athletics department is constantly reviewing its athletics programs to ensure it offers the most competitive programs possible, but I am not aware of plans to add any sports at the present time.

    Q: Some in the community have concerns about UL's current image and financial standing in athletics. How do you think the university should go about continuing to enhance the image and address those financial issues?

    A: The university has made important strides in the last few years to enhance its athletics image with the addition of the Leon C. Moncla Indoor Practice Facility, the artificial turf at Cajun Field, and other projects like the renovations currently being done in Earl K. Long Gym. Financially, the university has also made improvements as a result of the new funding formula approved by the Board of Regents, the naming rights agreements on facilities, and the emphasis placed on raising private funds through our development office. I asked the transition team to review potential funding sources for athletics, and I am in the process of studying their recommendations.

    Q: When we talked back in December, you knew little about the Ragin' Cajun Athletic Board, a foundation whose primary goal will be to increase outside funding for the program. What do you know about its current status? How important of a role will this foundation play in the future of Cajun athletics?

    A: The Ragin' Cajun Athletic Foundation can play a very important role in the future of athletics. The members of this board are leaders in the community and successful business people whose association with the university and the athletics department will set an example for others who may be willing to support our programs. This association will give increased recognition and enhanced credibility to our efforts in raising private funds.

    Q: Let's say the financial issues remain despite the increased emphasis on private fundraising. Would UL athletics ever consider dropping down below the NCAA Division I level, which some say would likely ease the money crunch?

    A: One of the most misunderstood notions about funding athletics is the perception that savings can be realized by moving down in NCAA division status. In reality the revenue lost far exceeds the savings. The university has no intention of changing its current NCAA division status. And, there is no reason why we shouldn't build a competitive mid-major sports program.

    Q: Asked about your vision for UL athletics in December, you said there's always room for improvements. What's your vision now for Cajun athletics in the near and immediate future? How does that vision become reality?

    A: The university's vision is to compete at the highest levels in athletics while not losing sight of our primary responsibility, which is to provide ever-improving academic opportunities to all of your students. I hope to enhance our facilities, our resources and the competitive success for all of our sports programs. We must also provide resources to ensure the academic success of all our students, including student-athletes.

    Q: Back in December, we talked about the state's new funding formulas, which changed the cap on athletic spending. How and when will that have a direct impact on Cajun athletics?

    A: The budget cap has not been eliminated, but essentially adjusted to allow growth in athletic funding when the overall university budget grows. There were also allowances made to address Title IX issues. The adjustments are already having a positive effect on athletics in ways that were previously mentioned. I accept full responsibility for the limit or cap placed on state funds that can be used to support athletics. As commissioner of higher education, I implemented the original policy and the recent adjustment. While athletics is an important component of the university, our core mission is to provide quality educational opportunities for our students; conduct research to expand knowledge and foster economic growth; and to engage in public service by using the university's assets to improve the social and economic health of the communities that we are responsible for serving. Prior to implementation of the cap, some institutions, not this one, had forgotten their core mission. The cap helped to put things in the proper order.

    Q: The 2007-08 academic year featured some notable accomplishments for Cajun athletics. The men's basketball team won a share of the Sun Belt Conference's West Division title. UL's softball team won the league's regular-season championship and conference tournament and beat top-ranked Florida in the Women's College World Series. How does such success help the athletic program as a whole?

    A: Nothing does more to enhance the image of our athletics programs than success. The exposure provided by the softball team's trip to the World Series was tremendous not only for the program but for the entire university.

    Q: Two days after the Cajun football team finished the 2007 season at 3-9, UL athletic director David Walker released a statement affirming the school's commitment to head coach Rickey Bustle, whose current contract runs through Jan. 31, 2011. In six years under Bustle, UL is 26-44 with one winning season. How important is it for the program to turn things around in 2008? And if those struggles continue what would be your recommended course of action?

    A: Coach Rickey Bustle, like all of our coaches, has the total support of this administration. No one wants the football program to succeed more than coach Bustle, and we are committed to helping him attain that success. It would be unfair and inappropriate for me to speculate on various scenarios before the season ever begins.

    Q: How important of a role would improved results for the football team play for Cajun athletics as a whole?

    A: In all of our sports programs, success provides a positive image for not only our athletics department but the entire university. Because football is such a high visibility program, its success is very important to the overall image of our athletics department.

    Q: At which UL sporting events can Cajun fans expect you to be in the future? How will they recognize you?

    A: My family and I enjoy college athletics and will attend as many events as we can. I'll be the one dressed in red.

    The rest of the story

    Joshua Parrott • jparrott@theadvertiser.com • August 14, 2008


  2. #2

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    And everyone blamed Authement. Now you know why Tech's girls basketball program fell apart.


  3. #3
    Just1More's Avatar Just1More is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Dr. Savoie's responses were extremely appropriate for a university president. I get a kick out of the bloggers who assume that this "tells all". Further, they assert their personal position of UL football essentially "not being worth the investment", as if their opinion will influence the course and magnitude of the mission. Trust me. it will not. I applaud the DA for having these quaint chit-chats, but an intelligent university president (and I include Dr. S among them) is not going to clammer on and on about his love for athletics and any personal preferences toward specific sports, funding initiatives, etc.

    UL is a virgin at aggressive private athletic funding. We are in the infancy of determining the productivity of the RCAF. Regardless, the fact remains. athletics, and football in particular, for state universities, is a monumental arm of the entire promotion of the university. The benefits of a large, successful football program contribuate to every aspect of the university furtherment of all causes. Making this statement does not dimenish my unlimited support and focus on state universities for their incomparable primary mission. education. The need for UL, in this state, to accelerate the improvement of football is paramount to raising the overall image of the university. There does exist a sad reality to this truth. but it is nonetheless a truth.

    There are obviously going to be insiders and outsiders making statements to the contrary (increasing focus, funding and efforts in football). but be assured. the outsiders only wish to limit UL and their half-hearted minimalistic compliments are insincere. and the insiders that do not recognize the importance of marketing and advertisement, community and business outreach that college football garners are unfortunately blind. ACADEMICS and ATHLETICS are not in competition for funding and focus, unless poor management allows it. The two have proven over and over at many institutions to multiply overall benefits when managed intelligently.


  4. #4

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Quote Originally Posted by Just1More View Post
    Dr. Savoie's responses were extremely appropriate for a university president. I get a kick out of the bloggers who assume that this "tells all". Further, they assert their personal position of UL football essentially "not being worth the investment", as if their opinion will influence the course and magnitude of the mission. Trust me. it will not. I applaud the DA for having these quaint chit-chats, but an intelligent university president (and I include Dr. S among them) is not going to clammer on and on about his love for athletics and any personal preferences toward specific sports, funding initiatives, etc.

    UL is a virgin at aggressive private athletic funding. We are in the infancy of determining the productivity of the RCAF. Regardless, the fact remains. athletics, and football in particular, for state universities, is a monumental arm of the entire promotion of the university. The benefits of a large, successful football program contribuate to every aspect of the university furtherment of all causes. Making this statement does not dimenish my unlimited support and focus on state universities for their incomparable primary mission. education. The need for UL, in this state, to accelerate the improvement of football is paramount to raising the overall image of the university. There does exist a sad reality to this truth. but it is nonetheless a truth.

    There are obviously going to be insiders and outsiders making statements to the contrary (increasing focus, funding and efforts in football). but be assured. the outsiders only wish to limit UL and their half-hearted minimalistic compliments are insincere. and the insiders that do not recognize the importance of marketing and advertisement, community and business outreach that college football garners are unfortunately blind. ACADEMICS and ATHLETICS are not in competition for funding and focus, unless poor management allows it. The two have proven over and over at many institutions to multiply overall benefits when managed intelligently.
    Succinct, and I whole heartedly agree.

  5. Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Who started all the crap with going to a lower division---don't remeber this in the ULM and Tech studies---seems that it would apply to them more with the attendence and tarps!!!!!


  6. #6

    Ragin' Cajuns Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
    _ Who started all the crap with going to a lower division---don't remeber this in the ULM and Tech studies---seems that it would apply to them more with the attendence and tarps!!!!! _
    absolutely, boomer. this garbage keeps slipping into these "discussions" w/ doc s and others at the university. hey, joshua, give it a rest with the d1-aa talk. we don't need to lend credibility to this notion anymore. drop it from all future discussions about ul athletics. it is a moot point. you are doing a great job in your focus on the cajuns so far. that does not imply that you're biased. just that you have given us the type of coverage and exposure in our region's newspaper that we have heretofore seen way too little of. keep it up. many of us really appreciate it.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Good story Mr. Parrott. Nice to see a follow up. Your right Just1more, I agree with everything you are saying. Dr. S isn't going to make any surprise comments or try to imply Athletics is going to be more important than the Education mission of the University, but I like his way of showing that it is vital to UL to improve in Athletics. So far, he has made all the right moves, but we have far to go. He seems to understand two things that I totally agree with. "Appearance" in the physical sense, of the Universtiy is important and we need a "major facelift" of the entire complex. We are in good hands. Joshua, I second the motion of not needing to go further with the lower division talk. I understand why you may want to ask that question, due to it listed as one of the items in our University Review, but now we know straight from the Pres. that we are staying put in Div I, so let's please move on.


  8. #8

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
    _ Who started all the crap with going to a lower division---don't remeber this in the ULM and Tech studies---seems that it would apply to them more with the attendence and tarps!!!!! _
    I don't know who started it, but suspect after our loss to McNeese last year, our losing record and poor attendance (after the McNeese game) as a result of that, the usual suspects got this going. That issue was started a few years ago with ULM just before joining the SBC. An independent study was done and recommended that ULM stay in 1A which they did. The issue has never come up again for them, especially after beating Alabama last year. It is time for UL to make a statement on the field this year and put all of this crap to rest.

  9. Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    But you see--that is the point--A study was done at ULM and the push is strong for the higher division---After the ULM study the UL study looks seriously into maybe going to a lower division---WHY????? also this was at a time when ULM was in horrible shape!!! I would like to know the true facts!!!!!


  10. #10

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
    _ But you see--that is the point--A study was done at ULM and the push is strong for the higher division---After the ULM study the UL study looks seriously into maybe going to a lower division---WHY????? also this was at a time when ULM was in horrible shape!!! I would like to know the true facts!!!!! _
    I think the same folks that did the UL study did the ULM study and also raised the idea of dropping to 1-AA for ULM. As I recall Sally quickly nixed that idea. I think a second study (can't recall who commissioned it) recommended that ULM should stay D1A.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    I can understand the frustration you guys have with the NCAA Division I-AA question. But it's a question I had to ask considering it was a topic addressed in the University Review. (I also didn't ask Dr. Savoie the question in our last Q&A in December.)

    On another note, I met a few of you from this board at Sunday's Fan Day. Appreciate the kind words and comments. Looking forward to meeting more of you as football season kicks off.


  12. Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Will the Parrott pearch in the Eaux????? Or will he do the Krewe de Chew???-----any news who might get the
    pr job for the sid dept or whatever it will be called???? Hammer-this thing is acting up again----No Beast either!!!!-Speaking of juice--I bought a bottle of the rum(Crystal)??? in PR--Guess it is still full!!!


  13. #13

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammer58 View Post
    I think the same folks that did the UL study did the ULM study and also raised the idea of dropping to 1-AA for ULM. As I recall Sally quickly nixed that idea. I think a second study (can't recall who commissioned it) recommended that ULM should stay D1A. _

    One was done at LaTex as well and they all contained basically the same message - get off the pot and energize your athletic departments or else look at dropping down to 1aa. I think everyone knew what these studies were all about to begin with, i.e. having an "expert" come in and charge you to tell you what you already knew.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Quote Originally Posted by DestinCajun View Post
    _ One was done at LaTex as well and they all contained basically the same message - get off the pot and energize your athletic departments or else look at dropping down to 1aa. I think everyone knew what these studies were all about to begin with, i.e. having an "expert" come in and charge you to tell you what you already knew. _
    I don't know how much faith I'd put in that guy's "expertise" regarding athletics and the 1A / 1aa question. His "expert" opinion seemed to be that dropping to 1aa would be a ecomomic boon to the athletic department. But all of the people many of us would consider to be the real experts, that is the coaches and athletic directors, feel that 1aa is at best a wash and more than likely a losing proposition financially. Also, I think the logic used in that report made the assumption that all teams in Louisiana other than the sacred flagship should / would drop to 1aa which figured into their economic reasoning of travel cost savings. The report also assumed that dropping to 1aa would have no negative effect on the caliber of players or the level of fan support which I believe we all know to be a misguided assumption.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Q&A with UL President Joseph Savoie

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammer58 View Post
    _ I don't know how much faith I'd put in that guy's "expertise" regarding athletics and the 1A / 1aa question. His "expert" opinion seemed to be that dropping to 1aa would be a ecomomic boon to the athletic department. But all of the people many of us would consider to be the real experts, that is the coaches and athletic directors, feel that 1aa is at best a wash and more than likely a losing proposition financially. Also, I think the logic used in that report made the assumption that all teams in Louisiana other than the sacred flagship should / would drop to 1aa which figured into their economic reasoning of travel cost savings. The report also assumed that dropping to 1aa would have no negative effect on the caliber of players or the level of fan support which I believe we all know to be a misguided assumption. _
    If it's the same reports I read, they were done by a professional out of state consulting company (and darn if I can think of the name of the company right now) and the biggest point I recollect is that our athletic department needed to get in gear and do a whole lot more in order to be successful at what we're trying to accomplish. The bottomline recommendation was increased funding.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. dr. E. Joseph Savoie
    By irokcj5 in forum LA Vie Bio
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2013, 10:07 pm
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 1st, 2013, 02:37 pm
  3. I met UL president Joseph Savoie this morning
    By Turbine in forum Up On LA
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 26th, 2009, 04:37 pm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •