I'll start by saying that I consider the Fulmers friends of the family, and I have no hard-feelings toward Phil. He was given a few extra years as HC due to our success in the 90's. It became obvious that he was losing his edge/drive and was having trouble managing the team, and he was let go. He is set for life, financially, and I think that he will be held in generally-high regard by most fans with time.
However, I have yet to see or hear one valid argument that he would be qualified for the position of AD. "Loving UT," football success over a decade ago. . . .hogwash. The position is largely a business, political, and financial-managerial role. If anyone can provide sound reasoning that he should be considered, with those qualifications, I would love to hear it.