Rate the job Scott Farmer is doing as UL AD

[CajunRage]

What disadvantages? He had the biggest advantage of all...no Fossil.

Sure Dr. A is gone, but him leaving doesn't change the culture overnight. Dozens of people who learned the ropes with with the Fossil are still at the university. I work in IT for a fastener distributor. I was hired to take our company to the next level on the technology front. I can't just walk in and say no paper, all electronic, barcoding and wireless guns. I have to build the foundation to move to those things. Farmer is doing the same. I, for one, don't think he was alone responsible for any of the incidents that keep being used as negatives. I also guarantee you that when Farmer got here, he was blown away by the anyone-not-named-LSU mentality in the state government and I would expect anyone who was hired for the job to struggle with it for a bit.

[angeleast]

You were very generous. 1 higher than me. Why are you so generous?

i'm guessing that all the success we have had put allot of smell good on that turd

[zephyr]

What disadvantages? He had the biggest advantage of all...no Fossil.

The disadvantage of inheriting a massively underfunded athletics department with no source of private funding in place at that time and terrible resources and facilities, all of which needed to be either changed or improved.

[zephyr]

Then next time he is getting blame for something that isn't directly his doing, I want to hear the same. But it hasn't been that way in the past , it's always it's out of his control, what do you expect him to do? What should he have told you? The truth? I'm not directing this donkey at you but his defenders use a different a set of rules for his failures than they do for the success.

That's just it. There are very few, if any, here that truly know what his failures are and to what degree. There are some here that will blame him for anything negative that occurs within the entire program and others that won't give credit when its due if he does have a positive influence but the whole entire process is flawed since we don't truly know all the angles when a decision is made and why its made. Like J1M said, if we had all the info, we could make a better decision as to what type of job we feel he has done.

[ULGrad@HOU]

I can't evaluate Scott Farmer as an AD. I don't have enough concrete information to determine his level of involvement in our successes, lost opportunities or outright failures. I'm also not real sure what his skills are in comparison to other ADs. From the pure "where were we before Scott arrived... and where are we now?" he'd have to be given high marks. Some of the issues that have occurred during his time at UL have bothered me. I struggle, however, to understand the facts... since so many have given contrary versions of what he's either said or done.

I do believe that Mark Hudspeth being such a refreshing grand ambassador for UL athletics (much less a great football coach) has masked and muted concerns that I believe would have surfaced in our athletic funding, facilities, and fan support launches. But, with Hud's great positive UL public persona, so much else has been assisted, even a bad AD could simply stay out of the way of the progress... and we'd keep improving.

Coaching abilities hasn't been an issue for several years... so I measure our AD right now by our funding work (not just whether our funds are improving - but are we maximizing our campaign), our facilities improvement progress (the little he may or may not control), and our conference affiliation (I want to know he's doing the legwork to build the bridge that will get us to the next better available membership). Winning games is on the coaches - and we're doing that - so the work of funding... and conference improvement... can be a main focal point of a good AD at UL.

Come on, take a shot. Give up a number, based on what you do know. I know what you mean, we don't and won't have the facts, so it's not accurate. It's fun to see what people think at this point.

[Hammer58]

The disadvantage of inheriting a massively underfunded athletics department with no source of private funding in place at that time and terrible resources and facilities, all of which needed to be either changed or improved.

And those obstacles have been removed. He has done some good things with the new resources he has. But he has also screwed some things up. When he got here he commented on the "That's not how we do thong here" attitude and said that needed to change. Instead, over time, he has gotten "comfortable". His biggest failure was to become comfortable with the Sun-Belt and declare it is the place for us to be, IMO.

[BirdofParadise]

To suggest an athletic director is not responsible, at least in part, to a teams' success is just plain stupid thinking.

What does an AD have to do with it?

Let's see...He hires the coaches. Hud and Marlin were technically David Walker hires because he was the AD. However, both of these guys were guys Farmer recommended, and, in the case of Hud, insisted upon. Garry Broadhead appears to be a good hire. We all think Lon Badeaux is as well.

Finding ways to compensate success. HUD is still here because he's making 2.5 times what he was making when he was hired. You can't go pick money off the money tree. Farmer was instrumental in the formation of the RCAF and Farmer and Walker decided pretty quickly that the money generated by the RCAF was going to be used primarily to supplement coaches' salaries. Not only is HUD making a lot more money, so is his staff. So is Marlin and his staff. Scott has also found a way to get Deggs more money to try to make it harder for him to leave. Now, Deggs would get more $$ at most head coaching jobs...but the bottom line is Deggs is making a good living because Scott got the money to sweeten the pot. I do believe Scott wants Tony to stay and wants to compensate him properly. And, before you point a finger at him because of softball, let me tell you. If David Walker had been the AD, Mike would have been fired about the time he issued the first "or else" ultimatum. And, not T-Joe or anyone else would have been able to do anything about it.

So, if a man hires the right people and gives him the money to hire the right people for his/her staff and the programs have success on the field, does said person have something to do with that success? If your answer is no, you maybe need to find out more info before you make that judgment.

We are at least three full time people short in the athletics department administration. At least one and probably two in Media Relations. We just hired an Assoc. AD for external affairs. That department still needs to be run. Because of the lack of personnel, things are taking longer than we hoped. That isn't Scott's fault. That the budget's fault. When and if the state subsidy becomes what it was designed to be, perhaps we'll be able to hire more people.

It think Scott has faults. I think there are some things he could do better....Hell, I'll bet HE thinks there are things he could do better.

We need the fund raiser...badly. And, when the folks higher than Farmer allow that hire and restructure to be made, then you'll see things really start to happen.

I gave him an 8.

[CrazyCajun]

To suggest an athletic director is not responsible, at least in part, to a teams' success is just plain stupid thinking.

What does an AD have to do with it?

Let's see...He hires the coaches. Hud and Marlin were technically David Walker hires because he was the AD. However, both of these guys were guys Farmer recommended, and, in the case of Hud, insisted upon. Garry Broadhead appears to be a good hire. We all think Lon Badeaux is as well.

Finding ways to compensate success. HUD is still here because he's making 2.5 times what he was making when he was hired. You can't go pick money off the money tree. Farmer was instrumental in the formation of the RCAF and Farmer and Walker decided pretty quickly that the money generated by the RCAF was going to be used primarily to supplement coaches' salaries. Not only is HUD making a lot more money, so is his staff. So is Marlin and his staff. Scott has also found a way to get Deggs more money to try to make it harder for him to leave. Now, Deggs would get more $$ at most head coaching jobs...but the bottom line is Deggs is making a good living because Scott got the money to sweeten the pot. I do believe Scott wants Tony to stay and wants to compensate him properly. And, before you point a finger at him because of softball, let me tell you. If David Walker had been the AD, Mike would have been fired about the time he issued the first "or else" ultimatum. And, not T-Joe or anyone else would have been able to do anything about it.

So, if a man hires the right people and gives him the money to hire the right people for his/her staff and the programs have success on the field, does said person have something to do with that success? If your answer is no, you maybe need to find out more info before you make that judgment.

We are at least three full time people short in the athletics department administration. At least one and probably two in Media Relations. We just hired an Assoc. AD for external affairs. That department still needs to be run. Because of the lack of personnel, things are taking longer than we hoped. That isn't Scott's fault. That the budget's fault. When and if the state subsidy becomes what it was designed to be, perhaps we'll be able to hire more people.

It think Scott has faults. I think there are some things he could do better....Hell, I'll bet HE thinks there are things he could do better.

We need the fund raiser...badly. And, when the folks higher than Farmer allow that hire and restructure to be made, then you'll see things really start to happen.

I gave him an 8.

Answer the simple question, if we go 1-11 in football next year, would that be any of Scott farmers fault? Having a hand in the overall direction of the program is different than having a hand in direct on field results. For the record, I think Scott is doing a much better job in the things that I think he should be judged on.

[axg8750]

What I dont understand, and inknow this is not Farmer's fault, is with all of the on field success, season ticket sales records, and RCAF at an all-time high we still cant afford to pay an experienced fund raiser $120-150k/year?

Does anyone think that we are paying the coaches what they deserve to have great TEAMS right now but are not addressing positions such as fund raisers which would ensure great PROGRAMS for years to come?

Just a thought.

Edit: I voted 7

[CajunRage]

What I dont understand, and inknow this is not Farmer's fault, is with all of the on field success, season ticket sales records, and RCAF at an all-time high we still cant afford to pay an experienced fund raiser $120-150k/year?

Does anyone think that we are paying the coaches what they deserve to have great TEAMS right now but are not addressing positions such as fund raisers which would ensure great PROGRAMS for years to come?

Just a thought.

Edit: I voted 7

Playing devil's advocate right now because I think you may be on to something, but why would we need a fundraiser if all of our teams were playing sub .500 ball? Aren't these coaches doing as much fundraising, by winning, as if we hired someone to do it full-time?