2016: Alden Report Released by University of Louisiana Athletics

[CajunT]

The original point was that Farmer didn't know until October that the Report was being conducted. This conflicted with the executive summary.

I said nothing of Farmer's involvement (or lack thereof) in the process.

He is mistaken, that is why I added the timeline as I know it. I added Farmer's involvement because he suggested in an article with Tim Buckley that he wanted Alden to come in and was all for hiring him as a consultant. So I cleared up the question of the timeline and another one of his public statements that is not true in the post.

[cajun_lannister]

He is mistaken, that is why I added the timeline as I know it. I added Farmer's involvement because he suggested in an article with Tim Buckley that he wanted Alden to come in and was all for hiring him as a consultant. So I cleared up the question of the timeline and another one of his public statements that is not true in the post.

I though the La tech game was in Oct my bad

[CajunT]

Nope, not a comparison. Its the formatting of the document, not the substance. Don't look at the left margin, look to the top of the matrix: lead agencies, specfic timelines, funding sources, etc. The who's, when's, how's, etc. These who's, when's, and how's aren't identfied in the "Strategic Recommendations."

Yes and the structure doesn't matter to me because as I explained to you, I've read four other analysis and they were all similar in structure and content. There are no time lines or people assigned to specific task because it was a general overview as you stated. There are no recommendations? No Funding recommendations? I clearly read that they have left literally millions on the table in branding and marketing, and I also read they have sold their current media rights locally and state wide below value. Simply correcting these are areas immediately puts millions back into play. Until Alden is retained, there will be no specific timelines, how can he and the branding/Marketing professionals commit to time lines when they have not been retained to move forward?

And, from what I read of the report (in my opinion) 11 of the timelines were generally ambiguous and 9 had some specificity. But are these timelines a starting point or a due date? So how are they specfic?

I have no idea what relevance your point regarding "evaluations and recommendations" not being made "public" has with my point regarding "strategic recommendations" and "recommendations." I am talking abou this report in the form presented; and in that form it (the Report) uses these terms.

What relevance is my point regarding "evaluations and recommendations? You mean evaluations of key personnel and their abilities in key positions in our administration? Seems pretty relevant to me in evaluating whether we have the right people with the capabilities to carry out important segments of a strategic plan and deliver results. What good does it do to assign important tasks to people that are not capable of completing them, or will not to do so long term? Knowing the capabilities and skills of your personnel is key to any organization in moving forward and being successful. If changes in personnel need to be made for the long term success of our athletic program, why wouldn't that be important to anyone in a position of authority? How can answers to your questions of what timelines and commitments will be made until they address the questions and evaluations of each department? To me, that is the relevance of the segment of the report that we are not allowed to read.

When did I question the recommendations? As a matter of fact, I said, "I think the "strategic recommendations" on page 60 can easily by formatted into a strategic, implementation tool outlining how each of these "strategic recommendations" is now a goal or objective (or part of a broader goal/objective) with accompanying actions to accomplish that goal."

I didn't say you questioned the recommendations. In fact, I stated that you had the right to ask questions about the Alden report. What I did say is that I know of no one that is qualified on this board, or radio personalities to question the recommendations. Clearly I included all radio personalities, including myself and a certain individual that tried knowing the subject was above his pay grade and that of his friend in the athletic department.

But with regarding to "questioning" any of the recommendations, you'd be comfortable with Reorganizing "fundraising/development in ICA under umbrella of Senior Associate AD for Development?" Don't you agree this flies in the face of the RCAF and its eventual separation from the University?

ICA Fundraising/development already exist under the AD today with Gerald Hebert and Stefni Lotief. What does not exist today is an Executive RCAF Fundraiser that works in coordination with the AD and reports directly to the Executive RCAF Committee. And the reason Harris is currently fundraising under Farmer is because RCAF is not separated. At this time, there will be no separation of RCAF from the UL Foundation. This is why I and others have brought this to the attention of members of the RCAF Executive Committee because it is not working as it was proposed. They are currently looking at revising Jim Harris job description, but I'm not hopeful because RCAF is not separated and will not be anytime soon.


After all of the huffing and puffing, I'm glad to see you agree with my point regarding the need for an implementation matrix. IMO, its the lack of these that tends to result in any "plan" or "report" sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

[Cajun Monkee]

In post 46, you say "specific timetables" exist. Now, in post 58, you say "there are no timelines or people assigned to specific task because it was a general overview."

Yes, there are "strategic recommendations" (on page 60) and various, more general recommendations earlier in the document. I've said (twice) the "strategic recommendations" could be the basis for an implementation schedule. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

Again, my original point was about the distinction between "strategic recommendations" (which are set off in their own table) and what appears to be more generalized "recommendations" throughout the body of the document. Your original answer wasn't related to this.

The original purpose of the Report is outlined in the Executive Summary. There's a difference between defining and determining what and how the recommendations are; and iterating that Alden performed an analysis in 4 specific areas.

In the Athletic Department's website, Gerald and Stefni are both listed in the RCAF hierarchy. I would think its best to keep them under Jim Harris in the RCAF, regardless if its an external entity or a continued division/section of the Athletic Department.

Unless the revision, as you've mentioned, of Jim Harris' job would be that of Senior Associate AD for Development, with Gerald and Stefni continuing to answer to him.


I think the purpose of this thread was regarding the purpose of the Alden Report. I feel it is an strengths-weaknesses assessment/inventory of where the program is with some general ("strategic") recommendations. And I think you agree with this, at least to a certain degree ("it was a general overview as you stated.")

In my opinion, I think posters on the board think the Alden Report is more than what it is. I think there is a subsequent implementation document needed to organize and map out the various "recommendations" presented in the Report.

[CajunT]

In post 46, you say "specific timetables" exist. Now, in post 58, you say "there are no timelines or people assigned to specific task because it was a general overview."

Yes, there are "strategic recommendations" (on page 60) and various, more general recommendations earlier in the document. I've said (twice) the "strategic recommendations" could be the basis for an implementation schedule. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

Again, my original point was about the distinction between "strategic recommendations" (which are set off in their own table) and what appears to be more generalized "recommendations" throughout the body of the document. Your original answer wasn't related to this.

The original purpose of the Report is outlined in the Executive Summary. There's a difference between defining and determining what and how the recommendations are; and iterating that Alden performed an analysis in 4 specific areas.

In the Athletic Department's website, Gerald and Stefni are both listed in the RCAF hierarchy. I would think its best to keep them under Jim Harris in the RCAF, regardless if its an external entity or a continued division/section of the Athletic Department.

Unless the revision, as you've mentioned, of Jim Harris' job would be that of Senior Associate AD for Development, with Gerald and Stefni continuing to answer to him.


I think the purpose of this thread was regarding the purpose of the Alden Report. I feel it is an strengths-weaknesses assessment/inventory of where the program is with some general ("strategic") recommendations. And I think you agree with this, at least to a certain degree ("it was a general overview as you stated.")

In my opinion, I think posters on the board think the Alden Report is more than what it is. I think there is a subsequent implementation document needed to organize and map out the various "recommendations" presented in the Report.

I should have clarified my statement about timelines, I believe there were some that may not be explicitly clear as you stated, but should be down immediately and were highlighted. Let me also say my comments weren't meant as vitriol towards you or anyone on this board. We may disagree on the significance of the Alden analysis, like many on this board I am completely frustrated and disgusted with are leadership in the athletic department. In my eyes, the Alden report validates what I have expected all along and what I was hearing from other sources.

[Tell The Truth]

TECH has kicked your a_ _ the last two seasons.....Coach Scam Hud is 23-30 in his USL career....Why don't you call yourselves OOOOOOOO LA LA and just shut up and stay in the SUN WORST where you can go to a bowl every year as the leagues 5th place team....real nice thug filled program you got there....

[DaddyCajun]

Are there any AD names in the proverbial HaT? Who was one of the top favorites that has big time connections with other big conferences and their AD's?

[cajun4life]

Are there any AD names in the proverbial HaT? Who was one of the top favorites that has big time connections with other big conferences and their AD's?

This has been pretty hush hush. I haven't heard nothing as far as names is concerned.

[DaddyCajun]

[QUOTE=cajun4life;967884]This has been pretty hush hush. I haven't heard nothing as far as names is concerned.[/QUOTE

Wow, no one has heard any names thrown around? Wow, that is odd!

[BrockMeaux]

This has been pretty hush hush. I haven't heard nothing as far as names is concerned.

Good. I want this to be as much out of the hands of the bubbas in the area as humanly possible.