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.
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.
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....
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?
[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!
There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 9 guests)