Barbour hired ANOTHER asst athletic director today

[eVizions]

There is a long litany of SB's failures - financial and otherwise - at Cal.....plenty of them well defined in this very thread.

I have, in the past - beginning when SB was first hired - laid them out in detail here on this board. You think I have any illusions that laying them out multiple times for you in the same thread would serve any purpose? When you make these douchetard "arguments" in the very thread where the factual history is plainly laid out? You think I have that much time to spare having douchetard arguments with a conflicted moron like yourself?

You are the f&ckin douchetard who yaps on and on about what a wonderful hire SB was - including the inane assertions as to her being in high demand and highly recommended (or whatever empty douchetard term you used)

When asked for even ONE past achievement that would indicate SB's high level of success as an AD, the only thing you comeback with is empty douchetard crap saying she is "aggressive" (apparently, given the context, aggressive at putting her department into the poorhouse).

It's douchetards like you - who clearly HAVE to be either conflicted, or have an IQ equal to room temperature - and your asinine, conflicted "arguments" who make it seem like others want SB to fail.....because although we all would LIKE SB to reverse course and achieve something positive as an AD, we have douchetards like you making these inane statements that should be exposed.


Done with you......you're not even any fun (like CR, CDW, and AK.....those ass clowns are fun to have around - just to watch them expose themselves).
You're just a conflicted idiot.

.

This is the type of post that ruins any credibility you may possibly have had. First, you sound like a 12-year-old kid constantly throwing around "douchetard" like it's a thing. Second, all you managed to do in your post was throw around insults, which immediately tells me that you have zero confidence in any one of your arguments whatsoever. Seriously, your entire post was just one big run-on of an insult. Nothing of substance. I'm new here, so please excuse the fact that I haven't gone back to read all of your posts over time to put together whatever fragments of an argument you may have. Third, because I don't believe exactly what you do, I'm somehow either conflicted or have a low IQ. I happen to be very successful and near the top of my field. I don't revel in my beliefs like they're gospel. I like to hear what intelligent people with differing viewpoints have to say and challenge my own assertions. You should try it some time.

As I said, I'm pretty new here. I've stopped in a few times before, but I find that the discussion here tends to range from asshole-on-a-bender (that would be you) to flat out disturbing, tin-foil-hat-wearing BS. Seriously, take a look at the number of other places (both PSU-related and elsewhere) that quote and link some of the stupid shit that goes on in here as evidence of PSU "culture". Try having a decent conversation with non-PSU people about what "Success With Honor" really means, only to have "have you seen BWI? they're over there like blaming the victims and arguing that Sandusky was framed" (yes, I know that those people are the extreme minority, but that shit happens here). There are a ton of really good people around here with great perspective, but clearly the assholes run (or at least ruin) the show. So I'll hang around for a little longer and see if I can find some decent topics and some rational people to debate before I head back to the site I usually hang out in.

 

[bjf1984]

This is the type of post that ruins any credibility you may possibly have had. First, you sound like a 12-year-old kid constantly throwing around "douchetard" like it's a thing. Second, all you managed to do in your post was throw around insults, which immediately tells me that you have zero confidence in any one of your arguments whatsoever. Seriously, your entire post was just one big run-on of an insult. Nothing of substance. I'm new here, so please excuse the fact that I haven't gone back to read all of your posts over time to put together whatever fragments of an argument you may have. Third, because I don't believe exactly what you do, I'm somehow either conflicted or have a low IQ. I happen to be very successful and near the top of my field. I don't revel in my beliefs like they're gospel. I like to hear what intelligent people with differing viewpoints have to say and challenge my own assertions. You should try it some time.

As I said, I'm pretty new here. I've stopped in a few times before, but I find that the discussion here tends to range from asshole-on-a-bender (that would be you) to flat out disturbing, tin-foil-hat-wearing BS. Seriously, take a look at the number of other places (both PSU-related and elsewhere) that quote and link some of the stupid shit that goes on in here as evidence of PSU "culture". Try having a decent conversation with non-PSU people about what "Success With Honor" really means, only to have "have you seen BWI? they're over there like blaming the victims and arguing that Sandusky was framed" (yes, I know that those people are the extreme minority, but that shit happens here). There are a ton of really good people around here with great perspective, but clearly the assholes run (or at least ruin) the show. So I'll hang around for a little longer and see if I can find some decent topics and some rational people to debate before I head back to the site I usually hang out in.

Maybe this person can help you:

Can we please hire another Assistant AD? One who will be in charge of engaging in circle-jerk "arguments" for the entertainment of oblivious, lazy, conflicted bloviators?

Couldn't cost that much.

"Arguing with idiots (like eVision) is like playing chess with a pigeon - no matter the outcome, the pigeon will still crap all over the board and strut around like it won anyway."

 

[eVizions]

Maybe this person can help you:

Seriously, my 12-year-old has better arguments.

 

[PSU_Nut]

Yes, let's cut sports that we are consistently highly ranked and win championships in, and who actually do draw some spectators, and leave sports like golf and tennis. You're all set to win AD of the year.

Since when does fencing or men's gymnastics draw anyone? So few come out they don't even count them. Men's Volleyball drew 817. The only reason teams are ranked in those sports is because so few actually sponsor them. There are 16 Men's Gymnastics. There are 20 Division I Men's Volleyball teams. There are 23 schools with fencing. Many of those schools do not even offer scholarships. Those who do compete few have the resources to compete with Penn State. They don't have the funding for equipment, facilities, and recruiting Penn State has. Penn State is simply able to buy a top 5 finish. Do you think a St Francis, George Mason or Sacred Heart, NJIT have the athletic resources to compete with Penn State? I am just not overly impressed by bought National Championships. At least in golf and tennis there is actual competition. Also their facilities are actually used by outsiders for recreation. You don't see recreational fencing or gymnastics.

 

[bjf1984]

Since when does fencing or men's gymnastics draw anyone? So few come out they don't even count them. Men's Volleyball drew 817. The only reason teams are ranked in those sports is because so few actually sponsor them. There are 16 Men's Gymnastics. There are 20 Division I Men's Volleyball teams. There are 23 schools with fencing. Many of those schools do not even offer scholarships. Those who do compete few have the resources to compete with Penn State. They don't have the funding for equipment, facilities, and recruiting Penn State has. Penn State is simply able to buy a top 5 finish. Do you think a St Francis, George Mason or Sacred Heart, NJIT have the athletic resources to compete with Penn State? At least in golf and tennis there is actual competition. Also their facilities are actually used by outsiders for recreation. You don't see recreational fencing or gymnastics.

I hear your arguments Nut......

But there are two other items to consider. The more "fuzzy" is "What is the purpose of ICA?" Is it to maximize $$$$....or to provide intercollegiate athletic opportunities for students? That is not an easy question to answer - and it really depends on one's personal preferences.

The other tangible issue is this.....how much $$$ does one save by eliminating - for example - fencing?.....Maybe an amount equal to renovating the football staff offices?

How much would be saved by eliminating tennis?.......Maybe 1/2 the cost of all the Assistant/Associate/Assistant to the Associate/Associate Assistant/Associate of the Assistant to the Associate ADs?

As many Universities are finding out (including Cal).....FUBARing up the administration of a $100,000,000 million athletic department cannot be mitigated by something as financially insignificant as "cutting" a sport with an annual budget of $1,000,000.
Not if they are going to continue to pay ADs seven-figure salaries and maintain "staffs" of dozens of highly compensated "administrators" (not to mention multi-million dollar coaches and Taj Mahal's masquerading as athletic facilities).

When the new realities hit home.....and certainly the financial realities of University ICA are changing....a whole lot of folks are going to be up a tree.

But that's OK .......we don't have to worry about that....."409" BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[eVizions]

The larger the athletic department and the more programs you have, the more need you have for staff and administrators to manage those programs. If a university wants a revenue sport to not only be nationally relevant, but be a consistent top 10 team (to bring in the highest amount of revenue), you need the multi-million dollar coaches, the upgrades to the facilities and the staff and features to support it all. You have to commit to those and build before expecting a return on that investment. Once reached, the return can help support the full growth of other programs and staff, plus the extras. If you can manage to grow the non-revenue sports to the levels of national prominence, you might be able to lessen the financial burden of those. PSU hockey, for example, was in the red while it was a club sport. It took a 9-figure donation to build Pegula Arena, along with hiring a good coach in Gadowsky to be able to put the sport on the map at PSU. Now, it not only supports itself, but can actually bring in a profit. Same with sports like wrestling and women's volleyball. Even if they run at a loss, they run at significantly less of a loss than most other programs across the country because of the exposure they receive.

If you have the infrastructure already in place (like PSU does), it makes it easier and cheaper to make these jumps. Cal, on the other hand, tried to jump a few pegs up and it blew up in their face. If the on-the-field product isn't producing, nobody is going to support the program, no matter how much money you pump into it. Conversely, your program can only grow so much without financial support, no matter how good of a product you have on the field (and, let's be honest, no good coach will come or stay if they aren't receiving support).

bjf1984 brings up a good point. Is the point of ICA to generate revenue or to provide opportunity? If it's purely to generate revenue, then maybe cutting some programs (and staff) will allow you to focus the revenue you make on the programs that you do have (assuming the blowback you get from slashing programs doesn't kill you). However, if you can build up your secondary programs to the point that they are near-self-sustaining, then you've got the best of both worlds.