Haslams

#151
#151
This whole discussion is funny.

10 years of suck football and a lot is blamed on UTAD and HOH. But some say most of the HOH crap is crap and just an excuse the fans use.

What parts are crap?

"Its your responsibility to prove its not crap"

Okay, what are you saying is crap?

"Most of it"

Okay, well, football has sucked for 10 years, who's fault is it?

"STFU"
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinMC, Orange_Vol1321, CardiacKid and 2 others
#152
#152
Behr said:
This whole discussion is funny.

10 years of suck football and a lot is blamed on UTAD and HOH. But some say most of the HOH crap is crap and just an excuse the fans use.

What parts are crap?

"Its your responsibility to prove its not crap"

Okay, what are you saying is crap?

"Most of it"

Okay, well, football has sucked for 10 years, who's fault is it?

"STFU"
Click to expand...
What people want but aren't going to get is an ESPN or Knox News-Sentinel article saying "Jimmy Haslam personally approved the hire of XYZ. This came after he personally vetoed the hire of XYZ in a large press conference from Pilot HQ." There's no smoking gun of his or his family's involvement, so that must mean he isn't involved at all or whatever involvement he does have is wildly exaggerated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Burton and Behr
#153
#153
05_never_again said:
What people want but aren't going to get is an ESPN or Knox News-Sentinel article saying "Jimmy Haslam personally approved the hire of XYZ. This came after he personally vetoed the hire of XYZ in a large press conference from Pilot HQ." There's no smoking gun of his or his family's involvement, so that must mean he isn't involved at all or whatever involvement he does have is wildly exaggerated.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of it gets blown out of proportion, but I don't believe "most is crap". I mean, look at the poster that thought a picture of Jim and Phil together smiling, proved something. Yea, I don't think they spend 24 hours a day hunkered down with security guards armed with machine guns planning an attack on each other. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile, Orange_Vol1321 and 05_never_again
#154
#154
Behr said:
I think a lot of it gets blown out of proportion, but I don't believe "most is crap". I mean, look at the poster that thought a picture of Jim and Phil together smiling, proved something. Yea, I don't think they spend 24 hours a day hunkered down with security guards armed with machine guns planning an attack on each other. Lol.
Click to expand...
Yep. Assuming that you pay attention to developments at the school and do a little common sense dot connecting, it is pretty easy to see that most of it isn't crap.

What people in positions like the Haslams do is send signals that the people down the chain follow. Don't really know how to put it any other way than that. Jimmy or Big Jim isn't on the phone with AD every day telling them what to do or who to hire. I don't think they are involved and presumably don't want to be involved at that kind of level. However, the big benefactors to the organization make high level, strategic decisions about where they'd like to see the organization move, and the people down the chain making the tactical choices interpret what the folks at the top want and act accordingly. For example, when Currie whiffed on Mullen then moved to directly to Schiano, I think that was a decision that Currie and the admin actually made, but it was also a decision he thought would be received warmly by not just the Haslams but likely some other influential boosters. Schiano was Currie's "interpretation" of what the Haslams and other boosters wanted. That is how they exert influence. There were probably a ton of candidates Haslam would have been OK with, not just Schiano, and ultimately he wanted the new coach to be picked from that pool.

It isn't stereotypical dark, smoke-filled room-type stuff, but if you don't think they exert a lot of influence, you're kidding yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile, uvavol, Orange_Vol1321 and 1 other person
#155
#155
SpaceCoastVol said:
Does anybody know what kind of bank they donate annually to UT to warrant such (apparent) control? If they are truly bankrolling the entire athletic department (which I highly doubt) and the track record of the program since they have been donating is similar to that of an Enron chart, why would the BOD still allow it to continue? I get it that (to quote Animal House) "We need the dues". But damn...

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This will only be answered (accurately) after they are no longer there. What I mean by that is what does the UT world look like without ANY of the Haslams in the picture at all...
 
#156
#156
05_never_again said:
Yep. Assuming that you pay attention to developments at the school and do a little common sense dot connecting, it is pretty easy to see that most of it isn't crap.

What people in positions like the Haslams do is send signals that the people down the chain follow. Don't really know how to put it any other way than that. Jimmy or Big Jim isn't on the phone with AD every day telling them what to do or who to hire. I don't think they are involved and presumably don't want to be involved at that kind of level. However, the big benefactors to the organization make high level, strategic decisions about where they'd like to see the organization move, and the people down the chain making the tactical choices interpret what the folks at the top want and act accordingly. For example, when Currie whiffed on Mullen then moved to directly to Schiano, I think that was a decision that Currie and the admin actually made, but it was also a decision he thought would be received warmly by not just the Haslams but likely some other influential boosters. Schiano was Currie's "interpretation" of what the Haslams and other boosters wanted. That is how they exert influence. There were probably a ton of candidates Haslam would have been OK with, not just Schiano, and ultimately he wanted the new coach to be picked from that pool.

It isn't stereotypical dark, smoke-filled room-type stuff, but if you don't think they exert a lot of influence, you're kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Jim killed Tom with a Swiss army knife down by the creek and left him under the big oak tree.

Oh you're so full of chit, it was a butcher knife up near the pond and left right out in the middle of the field. Its all crap.

Toms fugging dead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile, CardiacKid and 05_never_again
#157
#157
Behr said:
This whole discussion is funny.

10 years of suck football and a lot is blamed on UTAD and HOH. But some say most of the HOH crap is crap and just an excuse the fans use.

What parts are crap?

"Its your responsibility to prove its not crap"

Okay, what are you saying is crap?

"Most of it"

Okay, well, football has sucked for 10 years, who's fault is it?

"STFU"
Click to expand...
I literally lol’d. Most likely the people that truly know the answers aren’t on this board and if they are on here, they aren’t going to say. JMO
 
#160
#160
05_never_again said:
What people want but aren't going to get is an ESPN or Knox News-Sentinel article saying "Jimmy Haslam personally approved the hire of XYZ. This came after he personally vetoed the hire of XYZ in a large press conference from Pilot HQ." There's no smoking gun of his or his family's involvement, so that must mean he isn't involved at all or whatever involvement he does have is wildly exaggerated.
Click to expand...
Or that money has influence.
 
#161
#161
05_never_again said:
Yep. Assuming that you pay attention to developments at the school and do a little common sense dot connecting, it is pretty easy to see that most of it isn't crap.

What people in positions like the Haslams do is send signals that the people down the chain follow. Don't really know how to put it any other way than that. Jimmy or Big Jim isn't on the phone with AD every day telling them what to do or who to hire. I don't think they are involved and presumably don't want to be involved at that kind of level. However, the big benefactors to the organization make high level, strategic decisions about where they'd like to see the organization move, and the people down the chain making the tactical choices interpret what the folks at the top want and act accordingly. For example, when Currie whiffed on Mullen then moved to directly to Schiano, I think that was a decision that Currie and the admin actually made, but it was also a decision he thought would be received warmly by not just the Haslams but likely some other influential boosters. Schiano was Currie's "interpretation" of what the Haslams and other boosters wanted. That is how they exert influence. There were probably a ton of candidates Haslam would have been OK with, not just Schiano, and ultimately he wanted the new coach to be picked from that pool.

It isn't stereotypical dark, smoke-filled room-type stuff, but if you don't think they exert a lot of influence, you're kidding yourself.
Click to expand...
I believe they exert a fair amount of influence, much more so than in interpretive ways. Let's face it, if your're giving multi millions to the university, wouldn't you want your voice to be heard? How would it look to an AD or president of the university if said donor commented to the board that," Phil, etc didn't even ask my opinion?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: uvavol
#162
#162
cardvolfan said:
I believe they exert a fair amount of influence, much more so than in interpretive ways. Let's face it, if your're giving multi millions to the university, wouldn't you want your voice to be heard? How would it look to an AD or president of the university if said donor commented to the board that," Phil, etc didn't even ask my opinion?"
Click to expand...
Different boosters want different levels of control. Charlie Ergen, for example, gives a boatload (not like the Haslams do, but significant), and has a net worth significantly more than the Haslams. He doesn't exert the kind of control the Haslams do, and I think it is largely because he doesn't want to.

Not every booster acts like their donations are investments in an enterprise which gives them control.
 
#163
#163
05_never_again said:
Different boosters want different levels of control. Charlie Ergen, for example, gives a boatload (not like the Haslams do, but significant), and has a net worth significantly more than the Haslams. He doesn't exert the kind of control the Haslams do, and I think it is largely because he doesn't want to.

Not every booster acts like their donations are investments in an enterprise which gives them control.
Click to expand...
I would agree with your last sentence.
 
#164
#164
Just here to rage on the Haslam family, that's what I'm supposed to do, right? I think it was one of the terms of services items I agreed to when I signed up here.

Carry on.
 
#167
#167
CampBlount said:
No, I just don't live on here 24/7 like you do.
Bottom line is, you said you had never posted about the book in another thread. But you had, then tried to laugh it off when caught in the lie.
Now, just so you know, I'm leaving the board for a while now to do some work. That's what we non-peasants do.
Click to expand...

Jimmy? Is that you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#168
#168
Orange_Vol1321 said:
JONES: If we hadn’t have fired him, he and Nick Saban would be the two biggest celebrities in football history right now, I’m pretty sure.

SUMMERS: I agree with that.

JONES: And he’d be going neck to neck with him.
Click to expand...

I think this exchange (from a "mega-donor") shows what the real issue is...It's not just the Haslams. It's the fact that all of our major donors and decision-makers seem to be utter mental cases when it comes to the reality of modern day football. Fulmer would be neck and neck with Saban? Seriously? What make believe world do these people live in?

This is why we've never just simply gone out and hired a proven coach with a record of doing more with less. Everyone in charge lives in a world of fairies and unicorns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LosingFaithVol
#170
#170
oregonvol said:
I think this exchange (from a "mega-donor") shows what the real issue is...It's not just the Haslams. It's the fact that all of our major donors and decision-makers seem to be utter mental cases when it comes to the reality of modern day football. Fulmer would be neck and neck with Saban? Seriously? What make believe world do these people live in?

This is why we've never just simply gone out and hired a proven coach with a record of doing more with less. Everyone in charge lives in a world of fairies and unicorns.
Click to expand...
What a lot of people on this site don't realize is exactly what you just pointed out.

There's a faction of boosters, which Allan Jones is a part of, that is hell-bent on Phil being involved no matter what. They didn't want him fired in 2008, probably wouldn't have ever wanted him fired, and wanted him installed as AD both after Hart retired and after Currie was fired. These guys were popular during the whole Schiano/Currie fiasco because the fanbase happened to agree with them, but they are meddlers too, just like the Haslams and others. I honestly didn't think Phil was the best choice for AD after Hart retired. I do think he was the best choice, perhaps the only choice, after Currie was fired because the dynamic had changed so much.

The fundamental reason for the dysfunction in the athletic department over the last 10 years is because boosters and admin folks either cannot or will not work together. The political theater in the athletic department at Tennessee is probably only surpassed by Texas, and I expect Texas's drama to decrease in the future because they appear to have finally found a football coach in Tom Herman.

Someone in another thread the other day said that good programs aren't good because they are stable; they are stable because they are good. There is not going to be stability in the athletic department until a football coach is hired that consistently can win 8-10 games per year and occasionally win the East, whether that be Pruitt or someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uvavol
#171
#171
05_never_again said:
What a lot of people on this site don't realize is exactly what you just pointed out.

There's a faction of boosters, which Allan Jones is a part of, that is hell-bent on Phil being involved no matter what. They didn't want him fired in 2008, probably wouldn't have ever wanted him fired, and wanted him installed as AD both after Hart retired and after Currie was fired. These guys were popular during the whole Schiano/Currie fiasco because the fanbase happened to agree with them, but they are meddlers too, just like the Haslams and others. I honestly didn't think Phil was the best choice for AD after Hart retired. I do think he was the best choice, perhaps the only choice, after Currie was fired because the dynamic had changed so much.

The fundamental reason for the dysfunction in the athletic department over the last 10 years is because boosters and admin folks either cannot or will not work together. The political theater in the athletic department at Tennessee is probably only surpassed by Texas, and I expect Texas's drama to decrease in the future because they appear to have finally found a football coach in Tom Herman.

Someone in another thread the other day said that good programs aren't good because they are stable; they are stable because they are good. There is not going to be stability in the athletic department until a football coach is hired that consistently can win 8-10 games per year and occasionally win the East, whether that be Pruitt or someone else.
Click to expand...

Im sure all major programs have super donors/ boosters that want to meddle and have a say in things.. The question is.. how do those other programs succeed? I used to hear a lot about a major booster at Auburn who was an idiot that thought he ran things and Ive also heared about Bear Jr at bama. If those schools have the balls to tell them to go lay down somewhere then why doesnt UT?
 
#174
#174
DWright39 said:
Im sure all major programs have super donors/ boosters that want to meddle and have a say in things.. The question is.. how do those other programs succeed? I used to hear a lot about a major booster at Auburn who was an idiot that thought he ran things and Ive also heared about Bear Jr at bama. If those schools have the balls to tell them to go lay down somewhere then why doesnt UT?
Click to expand...
I thought I read a story that when Alabama was going to give Saban total control they had to tell Bear jr to just move along because he was fighting against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol
#175
#175
Simply do not understand the obsession with the Haslem's. They give big money to the University. Money the University otherwise wouldn't have. I would imagine they could give two craps what anyone here thinks and the University sure as hell wouldn't turn down the money. Someone posted earlier that not much goes on without the Haslem's having a say so.........how the hell would that someone know? Bunch of speculation based on all the BS stories and conjecture.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top