Basketball transfer portal

[zeppelincajun]

A friend was told this at the football stadium meeting. More negative media from fans than positive has hurt the programs.

Foote wrote an article in October of this past year about poor attendance at our football games, and he closes the article with this quote from Maggard: "That’s the nature of our beast. When you win, the naysayers are quiet and when you lose, they clink. But if I made my decisions based on that small percentage of people who think they’re helping the program when they do that when in reality they’re hurting the program, I wouldn’t be in this chair very long."

It’s important to note, as evidenced by this quote and by SM’s post, this is not an opinion of just Vic of or a group of outliers on RP. This is the prevailing mindset amongst our leaders and decision makers at the university and athletic offices. This is further evidenced by the fact that RR has essentially been blacklisted until they coalesce and rein in what they speak about.

IMO one of the things we are seeing here is a group who has traditionally been able to tightly control the messaging that is put out to the public grappling with a changing society where that is not so easily done. In previous generations, these conversations happened exclusively in private at the water cooler, on the back porch, at the tailgate, etc. Traditional media didn’t speak about these things, and, if they did, it would resemble the article I mentioned above. Predominantly filtered through administrators and university officials. Then some of the discussions moved to message boards. While a thorn in the side of the objective of controlling the narrative, message boards for a G5 athletic program are still a fairly niche section of the internet. Then people start communicating with each other in spaces on social media where huge sections of the population are. Now you have podcasts almost replacing radio programs or at least the way most people consume those shows. Guys like the hosts of RR are on Twitter and Facebook. You can find their show on YouTube and all the major podcast apps. People are, in a sense, cutting out the middle man of traditional sources and just speaking directly with each other.

I see the following miscalculations in the university’s approach:

1. They seem to be determined to push a square peg through a round hole. This is not 1987’s society. It’s not even 2002’s. We are in the year 2024, and our approach needs to reflect we understand that.
2. It is a lie or misremembrance to say the naysayers were quiet during the winning years. Plenty of people were on the record telling them the gameday experience was unacceptable even during the Napier years.
3. They seem to take the “negative” vocal fans as a disruptive minority. When your stadiums are 1/10 to 1/3 full on nearly every given day, your community, at large, is not reacting with your product offering in a positive way. They may not be vocalizing it, but they are communicating to you that your product is not worth their time and money.

[VObserver]

Foote wrote an article in October of this past year about poor attendance at our football games, and he closes the article with this quote from Maggard: "That’s the nature of our beast. When you win, the naysayers are quiet and when you lose, they clink. But if I made my decisions based on that small percentage of people who think they’re helping the program when they do that when in reality they’re hurting the program, I wouldn’t be in this chair very long."

It’s important to note, as evidenced by this quote and by SM’s post, this is not an opinion of just Vic of or a group of outliers on RP. This is the prevailing mindset amongst our leaders and decision makers at the university and athletic offices. This is further evidenced by the fact that RR has essentially been blacklisted until they coalesce and rein in what they speak about.

IMO one of the things we are seeing here is a group who has traditionally been able to tightly control the messaging that is put out to the public grappling with a changing society where that is not so easily done. In previous generations, these conversations happened exclusively in private at the water cooler, on the back porch, at the tailgate, etc. Traditional media didn’t speak about these things, and, if they did, it would resemble the article I mentioned above. Predominantly filtered through administrators and university officials. Then some of the discussions moved to message boards. While a thorn in the side of the objective of controlling the narrative, message boards for a G5 athletic program are still a fairly niche section of the internet. Then people start communicating with each other in spaces on social media where huge sections of the population are. Now you have podcasts almost replacing radio programs or at least the way most people consume those shows. Guys like the hosts of RR are on Twitter and Facebook. You can find their show on YouTube and all the major podcast apps. People are, in a sense, cutting out the middle man of traditional sources and just speaking directly with each other.

I see the following miscalculations in the university’s approach:

1. They seem to be determined to push a square peg through a round hole. This is not 1987’s society. It’s not even 2002’s. We are in the year 2024, and our approach needs to reflect we understand that.
2. It is a lie or misremembrance to say the naysayers were quiet during the winning years. Plenty of people were on the record telling them the gameday experience was unacceptable even during the Napier years.
3. They seem to take the “negative” vocal fans as a disruptive minority. When your stadiums are 1/10 to 1/3 full on nearly every given day, your community, at large, is not reacting with your product offering in a positive way. They may not be vocalizing it, but they are communicating to you that your product is not worth their time and money.

Very well said.

[cajun4life]

Foote wrote an article in October of this past year about poor attendance at our football games, and he closes the article with this quote from Maggard: "That’s the nature of our beast. When you win, the naysayers are quiet and when you lose, they clink. But if I made my decisions based on that small percentage of people who think they’re helping the program when they do that when in reality they’re hurting the program, I wouldn’t be in this chair very long."

It’s important to note, as evidenced by this quote and by SM’s post, this is not an opinion of just Vic of or a group of outliers on RP. This is the prevailing mindset amongst our leaders and decision makers at the university and athletic offices. This is further evidenced by the fact that RR has essentially been blacklisted until they coalesce and rein in what they speak about.

IMO one of the things we are seeing here is a group who has traditionally been able to tightly control the messaging that is put out to the public grappling with a changing society where that is not so easily done. In previous generations, these conversations happened exclusively in private at the water cooler, on the back porch, at the tailgate, etc. Traditional media didn’t speak about these things, and, if they did, it would resemble the article I mentioned above. Predominantly filtered through administrators and university officials. Then some of the discussions moved to message boards. While a thorn in the side of the objective of controlling the narrative, message boards for a G5 athletic program are still a fairly niche section of the internet. Then people start communicating with each other in spaces on social media where huge sections of the population are. Now you have podcasts almost replacing radio programs or at least the way most people consume those shows. Guys like the hosts of RR are on Twitter and Facebook. You can find their show on YouTube and all the major podcast apps. People are, in a sense, cutting out the middle man of traditional sources and just speaking directly with each other.

I see the following miscalculations in the university’s approach:

1. They seem to be determined to push a square peg through a round hole. This is not 1987’s society. It’s not even 2002’s. We are in the year 2024, and our approach needs to reflect we understand that.
2. It is a lie or misremembrance to say the naysayers were quiet during the winning years. Plenty of people were on the record telling them the gameday experience was unacceptable even during the Napier years.
3. They seem to take the “negative” vocal fans as a disruptive minority. When your stadiums are 1/10 to 1/3 full on nearly every given day, your community, at large, is not reacting with your product offering in a positive way. They may not be vocalizing it, but they are communicating to you that your product is not worth their time and money.

We aren’t the fans they are looking for. They want to be Ole Miss or Texas. Elitist fan base and corporate season tickets. They don’t want blue collar fans.

Actions speak louder than words and all of their actions have pointed to this mindset.

[ULvictory]

Foote wrote an article in October of this past year about poor attendance at our football games, and he closes the article with this quote from Maggard: "That’s the nature of our beast. When you win, the naysayers are quiet and when you lose, they clink. But if I made my decisions based on that small percentage of people who think they’re helping the program when they do that when in reality they’re hurting the program, I wouldn’t be in this chair very long."

It’s important to note, as evidenced by this quote and by SM’s post, this is not an opinion of just Vic of or a group of outliers on RP. This is the prevailing mindset amongst our leaders and decision makers at the university and athletic offices. This is further evidenced by the fact that RR has essentially been blacklisted until they coalesce and rein in what they speak about.

IMO one of the things we are seeing here is a group who has traditionally been able to tightly control the messaging that is put out to the public grappling with a changing society where that is not so easily done. In previous generations, these conversations happened exclusively in private at the water cooler, on the back porch, at the tailgate, etc. Traditional media didn’t speak about these things, and, if they did, it would resemble the article I mentioned above. Predominantly filtered through administrators and university officials. Then some of the discussions moved to message boards. While a thorn in the side of the objective of controlling the narrative, message boards for a G5 athletic program are still a fairly niche section of the internet. Then people start communicating with each other in spaces on social media where huge sections of the population are. Now you have podcasts almost replacing radio programs or at least the way most people consume those shows. Guys like the hosts of RR are on Twitter and Facebook. You can find their show on YouTube and all the major podcast apps. People are, in a sense, cutting out the middle man of traditional sources and just speaking directly with each other.

I see the following miscalculations in the university’s approach:

1. They seem to be determined to push a square peg through a round hole. This is not 1987’s society. It’s not even 2002’s. We are in the year 2024, and our approach needs to reflect we understand that.
2. It is a lie or misremembrance to say the naysayers were quiet during the winning years. Plenty of people were on the record telling them the gameday experience was unacceptable even during the Napier years.
3. They seem to take the “negative” vocal fans as a disruptive minority. When your stadiums are 1/10 to 1/3 full on nearly every given day, your community, at large, is not reacting with your product offering in a positive way. They may not be vocalizing it, but they are communicating to you that your product is not worth their time and money.

Bingo.

Now, get ready for being labeled as a disgruntled fan instead of one giving constructive feedback.

[CajunVic]

His "work" is every post of yours in this thread. What is the point of having a program if it doesn't have expectations? Especially when you're willing to make your coach the highest paid in the league?

I do have expectations. You should read what I post not what you read into what I post. In your instance those are always very different. You know, ___.

Not once have I ever taken the position that any fan, supporter, donor, etc. should not have the unequivocal right to post or distribute through whatever medium floats their boat whatever they want to disseminate.

What I have suggested, however, is that before doing so, it may be prudent to evaluate their respective goals and decide if they’re program, sport, university, etc. will be better off or worse of after such information is put out there in the public.

No more, no less. No cancel culture, no limitations, nothing.

[UL_Cajuns]

Foote wrote an article in October of this past year about poor attendance at our football games, and he closes the article with this quote from Maggard: "That’s the nature of our beast. When you win, the naysayers are quiet and when you lose, they clink. But if I made my decisions based on that small percentage of people who think they’re helping the program when they do that when in reality they’re hurting the program, I wouldn’t be in this chair very long."

It’s important to note, as evidenced by this quote and by SM’s post, this is not an opinion of just Vic of or a group of outliers on RP. This is the prevailing mindset amongst our leaders and decision makers at the university and athletic offices. This is further evidenced by the fact that RR has essentially been blacklisted until they coalesce and rein in what they speak about.

IMO one of the things we are seeing here is a group who has traditionally been able to tightly control the messaging that is put out to the public grappling with a changing society where that is not so easily done. In previous generations, these conversations happened exclusively in private at the water cooler, on the back porch, at the tailgate, etc. Traditional media didn’t speak about these things, and, if they did, it would resemble the article I mentioned above. Predominantly filtered through administrators and university officials. Then some of the discussions moved to message boards. While a thorn in the side of the objective of controlling the narrative, message boards for a G5 athletic program are still a fairly niche section of the internet. Then people start communicating with each other in spaces on social media where huge sections of the population are. Now you have podcasts almost replacing radio programs or at least the way most people consume those shows. Guys like the hosts of RR are on Twitter and Facebook. You can find their show on YouTube and all the major podcast apps. People are, in a sense, cutting out the middle man of traditional sources and just speaking directly with each other.

I see the following miscalculations in the university’s approach:

1. They seem to be determined to push a square peg through a round hole. This is not 1987’s society. It’s not even 2002’s. We are in the year 2024, and our approach needs to reflect we understand that.
2. It is a lie or misremembrance to say the naysayers were quiet during the winning years. Plenty of people were on the record telling them the gameday experience was unacceptable even during the Napier years.
3. They seem to take the “negative” vocal fans as a disruptive minority. When your stadiums are 1/10 to 1/3 full on nearly every given day, your community, at large, is not reacting with your product offering in a positive way. They may not be vocalizing it, but they are communicating to you that your product is not worth their time and money.

wow. Post of the month!

[CajunEXPRESS]

The reality is we’re rarely in contention for a top 3 spot in the regular season, and just as rarely get into the Dance, or NIT. According to Maggard he expects the coaching staff to be in a real mix for the championship every season. His words and reality don’t mix.

[facelessjonmoon]

We aren’t the fans they are looking for. They want to be Ole Miss or Texas. Elitist fan base and corporate season tickets. They don’t want blue collar fans.

Actions speak louder than words and all of their actions have pointed to this mindset.

They are delusional if so. That’s not gonna ever happen financially in the Sun Belt conference. The dwindling attendance speaks to that

It is what it is

[RedTails]

Foote wrote an article in October of this past year about poor attendance at our football games, and he closes the article with this quote from Maggard: "That’s the nature of our beast. When you win, the naysayers are quiet and when you lose, they clink. But if I made my decisions based on that small percentage of people who think they’re helping the program when they do that when in reality they’re hurting the program, I wouldn’t be in this chair very long."

It’s important to note, as evidenced by this quote and by SM’s post, this is not an opinion of just Vic of or a group of outliers on RP. This is the prevailing mindset amongst our leaders and decision makers at the university and athletic offices. This is further evidenced by the fact that RR has essentially been blacklisted until they coalesce and rein in what they speak about.

IMO one of the things we are seeing here is a group who has traditionally been able to tightly control the messaging that is put out to the public grappling with a changing society where that is not so easily done. In previous generations, these conversations happened exclusively in private at the water cooler, on the back porch, at the tailgate, etc. Traditional media didn’t speak about these things, and, if they did, it would resemble the article I mentioned above. Predominantly filtered through administrators and university officials. Then some of the discussions moved to message boards. While a thorn in the side of the objective of controlling the narrative, message boards for a G5 athletic program are still a fairly niche section of the internet. Then people start communicating with each other in spaces on social media where huge sections of the population are. Now you have podcasts almost replacing radio programs or at least the way most people consume those shows. Guys like the hosts of RR are on Twitter and Facebook. You can find their show on YouTube and all the major podcast apps. People are, in a sense, cutting out the middle man of traditional sources and just speaking directly with each other.

I see the following miscalculations in the university’s approach:

1. They seem to be determined to push a square peg through a round hole. This is not 1987’s society. It’s not even 2002’s. We are in the year 2024, and our approach needs to reflect we understand that.
2. It is a lie or misremembrance to say the naysayers were quiet during the winning years. Plenty of people were on the record telling them the gameday experience was unacceptable even during the Napier years.
3. They seem to take the “negative” vocal fans as a disruptive minority. When your stadiums are 1/10 to 1/3 full on nearly every given day, your community, at large, is not reacting with your product offering in a positive way. They may not be vocalizing it, but they are communicating to you that your product is not worth their time and money.

Excellent post. Adapt or die.

Adapting:
1. Embrace the societal shift to non-traditional media by implementing transparent policies that give access to these non-traditional outlets. Example: more people watch Barstool employee Caleb Pressley interview people on Instagram/X/YouTube than Entertainment Tonight.
2. Deal with local social media influencers as a new form of advertising (CajunNinja, CookingWithBrit, etc.). Current students seeing a popular local account mention a school function (game/etc.) is more effective in 2024 than signage.

[CajunRed]

Foote wrote an article in October of this past year about poor attendance at our football games, and he closes the article with this quote from Maggard: "That’s the nature of our beast. When you win, the naysayers are quiet and when you lose, they clink. But if I made my decisions based on that small percentage of people who think they’re helping the program when they do that when in reality they’re hurting the program, I wouldn’t be in this chair very long."

It’s important to note, as evidenced by this quote and by SM’s post, this is not an opinion of just Vic of or a group of outliers on RP. This is the prevailing mindset amongst our leaders and decision makers at the university and athletic offices. This is further evidenced by the fact that RR has essentially been blacklisted until they coalesce and rein in what they speak about.

IMO one of the things we are seeing here is a group who has traditionally been able to tightly control the messaging that is put out to the public grappling with a changing society where that is not so easily done. In previous generations, these conversations happened exclusively in private at the water cooler, on the back porch, at the tailgate, etc. Traditional media didn’t speak about these things, and, if they did, it would resemble the article I mentioned above. Predominantly filtered through administrators and university officials. Then some of the discussions moved to message boards. While a thorn in the side of the objective of controlling the narrative, message boards for a G5 athletic program are still a fairly niche section of the internet. Then people start communicating with each other in spaces on social media where huge sections of the population are. Now you have podcasts almost replacing radio programs or at least the way most people consume those shows. Guys like the hosts of RR are on Twitter and Facebook. You can find their show on YouTube and all the major podcast apps. People are, in a sense, cutting out the middle man of traditional sources and just speaking directly with each other.

I see the following miscalculations in the university’s approach:

1. They seem to be determined to push a square peg through a round hole. This is not 1987’s society. It’s not even 2002’s. We are in the year 2024, and our approach needs to reflect we understand that.
2. It is a lie or misremembrance to say the naysayers were quiet during the winning years. Plenty of people were on the record telling them the gameday experience was unacceptable even during the Napier years.
3. They seem to take the “negative” vocal fans as a disruptive minority. When your stadiums are 1/10 to 1/3 full on nearly every given day, your community, at large, is not reacting with your product offering in a positive way. They may not be vocalizing it, but they are communicating to you that your product is not worth their time and money.

DAMN good post. I said for a couple of years now that Dr. Maggard seems to only want to get input from a small inner circle of buddies and other insiders. I am not aware of ANY attempts to meet with a group of just regular fans, supporters and donors to try to find out what he doesn’t know or is missing. The problem is that NOTHING will change until he does.

The worst thing about my line of work and his is to not know what you don’t know.

[zephyr]

I do have expectations. You should read what I post not what you read into what I post. In your instance those are always very different. You know, ___.

Not once have I ever taken the position that any fan, supporter, donor, etc. should not have the unequivocal right to post or distribute through whatever medium floats their boat whatever they want to disseminate.

What I have suggested, however, is that before doing so, it may be prudent to evaluate their respective goals and decide if they’re program, sport, university, etc. will be better off or worse of after such information is put out there in the public.

No more, no less. No cancel culture, no limitations, nothing.

You don't post any content. It's just responses to other posters mostly just criticizing them for being critical. lol

[ZoomZoom]

DAMN good post. I said for a couple of years now that Dr. Maggard seems to only want to get input from a small inner circle of buddies and other insiders. I am not aware of ANY attempts to meet with a group of just regular fans, supporters and donors to try to find out what he doesn’t know or is missing. The problem is that NOTHING will change until he does.

The worst thing about my line of work and his is to not know what you don’t know.

There were miscalculations on both sides.

And EVERY organization has an inner circle. Work, church, non profits…on and on. And the vast majority of those, you really don’t want to know everything.