Inside sources point to Cheek and Hart as the issues

#76
#76
willinhf said:
Those are all good questions....not sure if I have the answer, but also feel this is bigger than just football.

The Tindell hire is a perfect example of this.

Also feel like the extension made to Butch is an example. I was not in favor of such an extension to a 6-6 coach.

From what I read, seems the importance(is that the right word?) of the athletic department has been lowered since Cheek took over, and that "atmosphere" has permeated through the university. And we do not have a 'strong' AD who will stand up to Cheek and challenge him on this view.

I do not have any inside sources, but just a thought.

Does that impact poor play calling? No. But with a more supportive administration and stronger AD, would we be with Butch now, or with a more proven commodity? That is my question...that and how bad must it get before someone higher up takes action...
Click to expand...

Oh how fickle and confused some are... And to think..,,we almost had Charlie Strong,.,, a proven commodity..,,
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#77
#77
volfanbill said:
Hart's hires are definite question marks. Can someone explain what Cheek has done wrong as Chancellor of the UTK? His job is not to have a successful football team, that's Hart's job and it trickles down to Jones. Cheek is supposed to run a highly successful, highly educational institution. Cheek's job is to make Tennessee one of the top educational institutions in the country and that's what he's doing. If football players can't meet the standards, that's on the player, not the chancellor of UTK. I'm a big fan of football, but football should never EVER come before the academics of the university.
Click to expand...

I have no respect for the man.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#78
#78
volfanbill said:
Schools don't exist to have power football programs. Bottom line.
Click to expand...

So be happy with a losing team. Or better yet, do away with it all together. Go watch the debate team. You have absolutely no clue how a large organization runs, or how proper responsibility and accountability is supposed to be.

Having grown up in East Tennessee, then working all across the US, I'm not surprised someone in Johnson City doesn't know that the CEO is responsible for EVERYTHING that occurs within a company.
 
#82
#82
utvolpj said:
What does he have to do with that?

The whole administration witch hunt thing is completely ridiculous
Click to expand...

He has NADA to do with it, but it sounds good on someone's agenda. Boogers or not, Cheek is supposed to bring UT in line as a top 25 public institution, and every year they get closer to that - and some of the University's programs are among the nation's best, public or private.

Unfortunately, we are not top 25 in football...
 
#84
#84
volfanbill said:
Schools don't exist to have power football programs. Bottom line.
Click to expand...

And if you want to argue that Cheek has no responsibility to the Athletics program, why don't you answer my questions I put forth?

If we are going to debate, let's use logic and reason. You asked a question, I answered. Can you not do the same?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Let's look at this. What is Cheecks job? What is he responsible for?

He is the highest position, reporting to the board, right? Wouldn't that be equivalent to a CEO of a large corporation?

And what is a CEO responsible for? Everything. Yep that's right. The CEO is responsible for everything. It's his job to see that everything is done.

To big for one person, so he hires people to delegate to. But he is still responsible to ensure that the jobs get done, and down to an acceptable level or standard.

If any part of any job is not getting done to an acceptable level or standard, then he is responsible for getting it rectified. He can do this by making changes, by firings, hires, or by changing the organizational structure. But it is still his responsibility.

Delegation is not abdication. If the CEO is incapable of rectifying substandard performance at any level of the organization, then it's time for him to move on.

Make sense? Understand why ultimately Cheeck is responsible if the athletics department is consistently substandard? Or any department?
 
#85
#85
anigif_optimized-28969-1421775002-18_zpsalnq9pw2.gif
 
#86
#86
volfanbill said:
Hart's hires are definite question marks. Can someone explain what Cheek has done wrong as Chancellor of the UTK? His job is not to have a successful football team, that's Hart's job and it trickles down to Jones. Cheek is supposed to run a highly successful, highly educational institution. Cheek's job is to make Tennessee one of the top educational institutions in the country and that's what he's doing. If football players can't meet the standards, that's on the player, not the chancellor of UTK. I'm a big fan of football, but football should never EVER come before the academics of the university.
Click to expand...

The university is going backward in rankings.
 
#89
#89
volfanbill said:
Hart's hires are definite question marks. Can someone explain what Cheek has done wrong as Chancellor of the UTK? His job is not to have a successful football team, that's Hart's job and it trickles down to Jones. Cheek is supposed to run a highly successful, highly educational institution. Cheek's job is to make Tennessee one of the top educational institutions in the country and that's what he's doing. If football players can't meet the standards, that's on the player, not the chancellor of UTK. I'm a big fan of football, but football should never EVER come before the academics of the university.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but, the man was caught on camera eating an 'effin' booger, for Chrissakes....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#93
#93
Why won't haslam or someone in a power position push these idiots out the door? Who would fire Hart- would it have to be board of trustees?
 
#94
#94
Lovesomebigorange said:
Why won't haslam or someone in a power position push these idiots out the door? Who would fire Hart- would it have to be board of trustees?
Click to expand...

Cheek could fire Hart.

But after 2 AD's and 4 coaches, might we start looking at Cheek as the problem? Just maybe consider it?
 
#95
#95
I agree I wish Cheek and Hart would be shown the door. Just curious- was Cheek over the AD at the time of Kiffins hire? That was bad ass at the time and we paid the assistants well. Didn't seem like a conservative hire to me. What could have been.....
 
#98
#98
Lovesomebigorange said:
I agree I wish Cheek and Hart would be shown the door. Just curious- was Cheek over the AD at the time of Kiffins hire? That was bad ass at the time and we paid the assistants well. Didn't seem like a conservative hire to me. What could have been.....
Click to expand...

You want him fired but you don't even know what he's responsible for? Seriously?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#99
#99
utvolpj said:
Are you saying Cheek is responsible for Hamilton?
Click to expand...

Cheek did not hire Hamilton, but was Chancellor over him for a number of years (at least 3) and fired him during his tenure. I therefore count him under Cheek.

The number of coaches, I will give you, wasn't explained properly. Kiffin, Dooley, Jones, and any replacement if that decision is made would be 4.

So, under Cheek's reign, we have had 2 AD's, and 3 Head coaches, with another potential Head Coach hire in the next 2 to 3 years.

If we take those numbers and apply them to the private sector, say Apple or Microsoft, and the VP or Program Director of one of the flagship, top money making divisions of the company had that kind of turnover, you would start looking at that division. Also, if that division started losing money, and was going south quickly?

Given that scenario, what do you think IBM, Duke Energy, HP, Apple, or Microsoft would do?
 
#100
#100
Who are the inside sources? Imo they need to be named or thread needs to be locked and deleted
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top