TreeFiddy

I don't want someone that can just continue to get the same money from the same sources. We need to figure out a way to keep what has been built, but can pivot the program by building win win relationships that build synergy. Someone that can give 110% and really think outside the box. I don't want someone to just go after the low hanging fruit. They need to push the envelope by using best practices to create a paradigm shift to expand our core competencies and maximize customer satisfaction. We have to bring our A game if we are going to create a robust, scalable, partnership with our fans. We need someone with a vision that is strategic, but actionable. Someone that can multi task. A real thought leader. A game changer that can manage expectations. The elephant in the room is gone. No more 800 pound gorilla. No need to run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. We know that we currently have too many chiefs and not enough indians. We need boots on the ground in order to become an industry leader, because we all know that the scenery only changes if you are the lead dog. Now, more than ever is the time to step up to the plate and raise the bar instead of just putting lipstick on a pig. Web 2.0, Six Sigma, synergy (can never have too much synergy). So you think you can do better? Give it a shot: http://info.venderepartners.com/bid/48529/B2B-Sales-Humor-The-Top-100-Overused-Business-Clich-s

Baylor should just drop the whole bible charade at this point.

Thanks Brian.

Nope, I don't think you would know for sure until he actually went out and did it. Hopefully there would be pretty clear goals in place.

If you were able to somehow go the Mack B route, in my mind it would be all about leveraging the celeb status to dramatically increase donations/season tickets/MGC #'s in a very short period and use his connections to bring instant credibility/interest. I doubt he would dazzle you with pure AD skills, but he was always more of a CEO type coach so I am sure he would have no issue with delegation. Pipe dream i'm sure, but I would certainly make contact before I looked elsewhere.

I guess the next thing you are going to say is that the green light next to it is also just a coincidence. Mean Green domination. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US

Awwwwww....

Agree wholeheartedly. This type of hire would be way out of the UNT box. I haven't been able to think of another name that is not currently coaching that would have as big of an impact on UNT in all aspects. Especially credibility and fundraising. It would probably never happen in a million years, but we have seen a lot of things lately that many thought would never happen.

I would be very skeptical that Hank would get rid of Nitardy, Batchelder, Adams, and Capper. In my mind, these names are non negotiable as they are emblematic of the current problems that infect Bonnie Brae. RV could have done himself a huge favor by cutting them loose.

John Nitardy is to the MGC what Chris Cosh was to the UNT defense.

If the whorns ever wanted to be able to exit the Big 12 and leave their 'Baylor problem' in the rear view mirror, now would be the time.

Much of this information can be found (less detail) in the USA Today database (UNT checks in at 85): http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Multiple sources reporting it now. Lots and lots of smoke at this point.

Does the interim normally get let go if they don't get the permanent gig? Seems typical to me, but I don't have hard evidence. The new person seemingly makes sure to get rid of the interim in order to remove confusion/allegiances/etc... Might make you think twice about accepting the interim gig...

Such a dilema. If you use snakes to kill all the rats, pretty soon you will have a snake problem.

What type of AD plan would he have?

You may have missed the part where the other P5 schools consider Army a P5 opponent?

We got a guy on here that can get you a cheap shirt, probably with a picture of a gun. Would that work?

Just needed a little more time.

Couldn't you just retype that thread here? Links are scary.

It seems more prudent to worry about the overall budget rather than where the money is coming from. Would it make people happy if the student fee was raised, but the institutional support was lowered? As long as the budget is where we need it and the university is ok with picking up the shortfall, then I don't see the big issue. If we need to raise the budget and the university says no mas, then you may have to look at the student fee or other fundraising.

I hope the Prez puts some specific requirements/goals in the language of the new contract.

I saw some graduation pictures from Apogee. It appears that the university has purchased (rented?) some materials to cover the turf (a supposed $250k expense as to a reason that concerts could not be held).