laxtonto

There are two issues here. 1. Confusing the large donors previous ability to solely float the financial decisions of the AD in the past as a longterm positive for the future. In the past, that was the vehicle to be applauded as the sole primary driver of revenue for an AD, and therefore the large scale donors where the sole backbone of the funding arm. Unfortunately, with how the overall cost structure in college athletics has changed, cultivating the small pool of large scale donors is not enough anymore. The problem is both a sunk cost problem in facility and vendor per game fees the necessitate the absolute need for a dramatic increase in the low level MGC member base to break even as well as a much broader issue of a numbers game that eventually even with multiple deep pocket donors you will quickly outstrip how deep that funding pile goes. Athletic spending has rapidly increased across all sports and more importantly the growth in costs will continue to escalate at a rate greater the most robust estimates of any form of financial performance. At some point, sooner rather than later, the ability of the select few highend donors won't be enough. More than likely, for a school our size and with our overall athletic goals it is already rapidly approaching if not already have hit that ceiling. 2. Many of the concerns on both sides are heavily tied to the outcomes of the past and not firmly enough tied to the visions of the future. It is very easy to dismiss the MGC entry-level donors as being a limited cog in the funding arm because of the marginal overall proportional funding each right now provides. The problem though is that each small fish has the potential to become a big fish. The most effective way to continue to supplement the existing highend donor base is to cultivate the low level donor and let the highend numbers grow organically. By dismissing the lack of effort the AD has put into strengthening the low-level base as an insignificant quibble, you not only limit the numbers of butts in the seats, but more importantly you limit the potential of highend donors in the future. By not building those relationships starting out, it makes it that much more difficult to convince someone at the high level to donate to UNT athletics instead of earmarking those funds to other philanthropic outlets. I come out of the business school and I literally know dozens of graduates that make 100k+ a year that never have had an active pursuit from UNT athletics. These are young professionals in their late 20's and 30's that over the next 30 years have the potential to easily move from a 1-2k year donation to a 10k or more a year donation. 2k a year isnt much in the grand scheme of things at the program level, but 1,000 of them is 2M in donation revenue, plus a major move towards the breakeven point at per game sunk cost level and then an added residual bonus from in game sales of apparel and concessions. The median business school undergrad starting salary is now around 53k, with around 5k students enrollment. So every 4-5 years there are 5k more alumni at can afford a 500-1k funding level donation (1-2%). These numbers add up quickly overtime and allow the small fish to eventually become big fish. Our funding issues are actually a twofold problem; not enough big donors and not enough small donors. The small donors should be able to provide the base for annual operations and longterm funding growth goals. That would allow our big donors the ability to be there to provide that needed bump for capital projects, coaching decisions and the wide variety of other nontraditional funding needs. By neglecting the low level funding base it is heaping too much financial stress on the highend donors to have to provide for all the funding needs of the AD, which is both unfair to them and begins to drive a wedge between the two groups from a have vs have not perception. The inability to grow the MGC is probably the biggest complaint I have RV. I was upset for a long time for his ineffectual hires, but from a big picture level the horrible efforts in growing the MGC as a funding arm is the more egregious issue.

$552 in a day.. Slow and steady boys, slow and steady

So Thor is footing the bill for this thing then? Ill donate when I get home from the office

I understand that sometimes you as an administrator are stuck with the initial hand you are dealt with and it takes time to change that, and I do have faith he will change it (if you don't believe that look at who is now provost and what has happened in the financial staffing president's office, and various other positions throughout campus so far). If we are going to have to accept that Smatresk is not going to fire RV immediately (mainly because he cant have the complete power vacuum that it will cause throughout the entire AD when the AD is already in dire straits) then RV needs to essentially be AD in name only in this process. Let Smatresk and whoever in the AD he actually trusts to do the work and RV can be a figurehead puppet he should be at this point. That being said, all pressure still must be exerted by the fanbase to show that RV is unacceptable to those outside the university. Smatresk may not publicly want to admit that RV must go, but if the fanbase keeps the pressure on it allows him much greater leeway in private to steer RV out the door sooner than many of his supporters intend. I will back any ideas for banners or billboards knowing that more than likely it will not provide instant visible results. Just because we cannot see the repercussions of these types of efforts does not mean that it is not impacting the situation internally. Just the initial funding of the first banner forced some action publicly by RV, regardless how his reaction was viewed. If that attempt forces that much of a public response, do not underestimate how large of an impact it has had internally. Never forget that in his heart Smatresk is as much of a hatchman as much as anything else. Regardless of the flowery stories about his accolades or virtues, his real "job" is to completely revamp the personnel and structure of UNT to match our academic and athletic profile for the years to come and move us away from the thinking that persists that UNT is still a 10k student teaching school. He is not afraid to change things to fix "problems" regardless of how the old system used to be or who people are tied to and will do it publicly if he is unable to accomplish it privately, which he would prefer. I have personally seen this on the academic side at UNT as had several colleagues state the same thing regarding his time at UNLV. I have faith in Smatresk, just not in RV.

Did anyone get an image of these?

My concern is that RV is involved in the process

From a community involvement standpoint, that is an outstanding gesture.. Still dont want him as HC, but would be willing to keep him as a QB coach or ST Coach and recruiting coordinator or something when the new guy brings in his staff. Dont want him as OC because I expect the new coach to be offensive minded and he will be bringing his own OC

Maybe I just missed the sarcasm font..

#FIRERV His hires left us in the position that a game to this shit school was ever in doubt.. that in itself should have been inexcusable.

Congrats on a hard fought win.. The first one is the hardest one the get

Happy Birthday Thor!! Ill buy you a beer at Easy Side next time im back in town!!

Good.. the message is slowly leaking out... Fire RV

Im in for the billboard as well.. and more than likely there are many more interested alumni that dont follow this board that will be easily reached by a billboard.

Just to get it out there now, I have absolutely NO interest in the OC from A&M. 2nd five start QB that has melted down midseason for them in back to back years, there reports that their other 5 star FR QB didn't get to play because of him yelling at the A&M OC, and it seems that their system is predicated on superior line play, not plug and play, HUNH OL philosophies. Would prefer someone from the Briles or even a different direction from the Leach tree before Spavital and his overlap with Sumlin's philopshies.

HUNH with a more of a 50/50 run pass split. Preferably with less 5 wide and more 1 or 2 TE sets. On D I want more of a 3-4 or 3-3-5 (just because the inability of getting big bodies up front)

Simple question. If we agree that at the maximum RV will be here for 18 months, why does anyone want to saddle a new coach with a lame duck AD and therefore more than likely having to resell himself to a new AD when he knows he is looking at a situation that he will have an extensive multiyear rebuild? As a new up and coming coach do you want to walk into a position that you know you will essentially be guaranteed to the be the "Old AD's" choice of coach and live under the axe of having to justify a potential extension knowing full well that you will have a short rebuild clock and a big rebuild to accomplish? I ma worried keeping RV dooms UNT to a second tier retread that is in it for the $$ and does not have the youth to build a longterm successful program. I guess damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I am going to repost this here because in many ways it is a much better counterpoint to many of the points here vs where it ended up in the dying gofundme thread and I am at the point that I just dont have the patience with this entire topic to rehash my views.

As it sits, many are taking issue with the fact that RV has done an absolute piss poor job of hiring personnel in the revenue sports, and yet we should agree that he should maintain his position while UNT is arguably making its most important hire in a decade? Does that not sound completely misguided to anyone else and beyond that fiscally irresponsible? If you are going to have to provide complete oversight for this decision and have the President of the university babysit this search, then RV should no longer maintain his position because he has deemed too incompetent to do his job. If you are not and will just rubber stamp his choice, you are implying that you have faith in his ability to find the next coach on his own, which has already been heavily questioned. The President has many more important issues he should be dealing with and if he cannot trust his AD to do his job, then why are we paying him? There is no longer any middle ground because the university and Athletic Department has already removed any other potential balancing forces on this. RV has done a lot for this university, but he is now unfit to continue to lead the Athletic Department. Like in any business environment, things change and you must adapt. The landscape he was hired to work in has radically changed and he has not adapted to it. His dedication to get UNT off the ground and into the realm of big time athletics, both in affiliation and facilities, should be lauded. That does not supersede the other issues at hand. As the head of an organization, he ultimately is the one who takes the blame and the one who receives the credit. Past accolades only get you so far in life and unfortunately he has used up his existing goodwill. Beyond just his inability to succeed in the hiring process, there are many other major flaws that seem to get a pass. I have been concerned with to the poor handling of the MGC, the sad out reach to the young alumni and overall lack of interaction from the AD as a whole. I am in academia and have interacted with multiple Athletic Departments from around the country. UNT has by far the least responsive and least active group I have dealt with. I receive more emails and direct mailers from universities I interviewed at for faculty positions than those from the UNT AD each year. As an example, I know more than 2 dozen recent business doctoral graduates, and none where contacted by the AD for future donations. You do realize that that is dozens of new grads making over 100k a year with some portion of disposable income with no interaction from the AD. The lack of an active funding drive is in many ways sad and is a poor reflection of both the organization of the AD and the effort of RV's assembled staff. There are many things that can be tied to luck or wrong place/wrong time, but poor effort is inexcusable. Between my wife and I we have 6 degrees from this university. I am a former college athlete and am considered to be one of the "experts" in my field. I pride myself in the ability to make complex rational business decisions and I look at this entire debacle through the lens of what I consider best for my al ma matter. We have suspended whatever donations we will give to UNT athletics and will no longer support the Athletic Department as it is currently constructed. I was a non-revenue sport athlete, and I know how much withdrawing funding hurts those areas specifically, but this is the only voice I have to use that will get heard. We only really control one variable in our lives, and that is the variable "t" for time. By letting this take its course or work through the process we waste much of that precious commodity. Unfortunately I am at the point that not only do I agree that RV needs to be ousted, but his previous poor management of personnel screams that something like the banner MUST be done to attempt to force a change at Athletic Director before this hire is concluded and not after. If we are to be considered the minority or the lunatic fringe, then so be it.

Not just no, HELL NO

Anyone want to try and convince me that getting a PhD in business was a mistake? I know 7 of those names pretty well

TABC would not allow it.. If I remember correctly, the state requires the bar to break even on every beverage sold. Therefore no buy one get one frees or free beer.. I am shocked I tell you that Thor is shooting for a bar that gives him free beer.. Miss ya buddy ;)

I generally pride myself for not overreacting and try to keep from posting after bad losses.. 1. I love ya Mac, but you and Chico are done. It is absolutely inexcusable to not have a legit D1 QB on the roster at this point. We have had 1 (Thompson for 1 year) and then what? Other teams can rotate QB prospects through, why cant we? If it is because of the style, then the game has passed you by and you must be replaced. If it is not being able to recruit, then the game has passed you by and you need to be replaced. 2. Fans looked and sounded great on TV, where is this for all gamedays? That is the problem I have with all of this. Fan apathy makes it OK just to get up for SMU and not for the rest of our schedule? 3. Kids played hard, but we still take horrible angles and our secondary (while young) is PI/deep TD waiting to happen. We wont face as bad of an passing QB as we did tonight for a bit. 4. Impressed with our DL. As bad as it was when Mac got here, they are a much better unit on the team. 5. Best unit on our team is ST and it is not even really close.

If you dont watch college football and dont want to just guess... I know it sounds blasphemous, but some people just don't track college sports, especially in a pro heavy state like Texas

Thanks again for all that you do for the program John!